Monday, July 03, 2006

Terrific Pentagon Analysis

It could use a little MTV background music, but factually this video is excellent and the look at how the Pentagon video (as hard to make out as it is) dovetails is superb. Highly recommended:

75 Comments:

At 03 July, 2006 09:00, Blogger James B. said...

How did that cruise missile knock down all those lightpoles?

 
At 03 July, 2006 09:19, Blogger CHF said...

And how did over a hundred people somehow confuse a missile for an airliner?

 
At 03 July, 2006 09:21, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

"And how did over a hundred people somehow confuse a missile for an airliner? "

Like hey man, 'cause, I mean, they wanted to be on TV?

 
At 03 July, 2006 09:28, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 03 July, 2006 09:29, Blogger ScottSl said...

I think this myth is on its last legs.
After the last videos came out, even Russell from pentagonresearch has been coming to the conclusion that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon.

 
At 03 July, 2006 09:34, Blogger CHF said...

"even Russell from pentagonresearch has been coming to the conclusion that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon."

And it only took them just under 5 years.

In another 5 years they'll agree that the hijackers are dead.

 
At 03 July, 2006 09:38, Blogger James B. said...

That amazing thing is all the "scholars" still buy the no plane theory, and they try to pass themselves off as the scientific ones.

 
At 03 July, 2006 09:47, Blogger Chad said...

That amazing thing is all the "scholars" still buy the no plane theory, and they try to pass themselves off as the scientific ones.

Well if Judy Wood feels the towers were like trees, then I'd imagine that the Pentagon is like a gigantic, angular HoneyNut Cheerio. And, regardless of any cartoonish animation, I think we can all agree that a 757 would not be able to cause that kind of damage to any General Mills product, especially one that's proven to reduce cholesterol.

 
At 03 July, 2006 09:50, Blogger BoggleHead said...

this video is just great, btw

 
At 03 July, 2006 10:50, Blogger The Inexorable said...

This analysis still doesn't explain exactly how Hanni Hanjour piloted the plane into that building. You make the claim (these aren't your exact words)-"So what if he had trouble landing and taking off on a plane? He didn't need to land, and it isn't hard to crash a plane into a building." Let me point out that Hanni allegedly had a specific target, that was planned, and especially with the Pentagon being a low level building, he had to descend, he couldn't have just driven straight forward into a building. Explain how he managed to do this. Do not ignore me.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:02, Blogger BoggleHead said...

On another note, why did two of the Flight 77 hijackers live with an FBI informant in counter-terrorism?

Why couldn't congress investigate this guy?

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:13, Blogger James B. said...

Let me point out that Hanni allegedly had a specific target, that was planned, and especially with the Pentagon being a low level building, he had to descend, he couldn't have just driven straight forward into a building. Explain how he managed to do this. Do not ignore me.


Huh? It is the largest office building in the world, how could he miss? Even the guy who flew with Hanjour says it would have been a simple matter for him to point the nose at the Pentagon and crash it. Do you know more about Hanjour's skills than he does?

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:28, Blogger MarkyX said...


On another note, why did two of the Flight 77 hijackers live with an FBI informant in counter-terrorism?

Why couldn't congress investigate this guy?


Crap, not you who refuses to acknolwedge facts.

You have no proof taht the informant had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. They kept the information away from him.

 
At 03 July, 2006 12:22, Blogger BoggleHead said...

I didn't say he had inside information about 9/11.

Although speaking of not investigating the facts, perhaps you didn't investigate the fact that he met the hijackers through a suspected Saudi spy.

Here we have a guy whose specific role as an FBI informant is to keep an eye on college aged Saudi radical islamists.

And we all agree that that basically matches the description of these two guys.

So instead of just claiming he didn't have foreknowledge (something I never claimed anyway) maybe you could just try and go ahead and show that it's a coincidence that these guys were handed off to an FBI informant by a spy for Saudi Arabia who later got deported for his activities.

 
At 03 July, 2006 12:24, Blogger default.xbe said...

Let me point out that Hanni allegedly had a specific target, that was planned, and especially with the Pentagon being a low level building, he had to descend, he couldn't have just driven straight forward into a building. Explain how he managed to do this. Do not ignore me.

landing a plane and simply descending are two very differnt things

for a safe landing several things have to be taken into account

1: pitch, the nose is generally up so the rear wheels hit the ground first

2: yaw, you must be perfectly in line with the runway or youll roll off the edge, or worse, into another runway

3: roll, the plane must be perfectly level

4: airspeed, this must be declining, so that the plane can descend without diving

5: groundspeed, this must be low enough so the plane can stop before the runway ends

6: rate of descent, if this is too high the landing can damage the landing gear


of course in hanjours case none of those mattered, so he didnt have to worry about them

 
At 03 July, 2006 12:44, Blogger James B. said...

This is like saying that because someone is a horrible parallel parker, that they are incapable of crashing a car into the side of a shopping mall.

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:04, Blogger roger_sq said...

Glad you guys got my memo on the Alex Jones vid. After flying cross country in a 757 last week, and happening to have a window seat next to the engine, I realized there's not much span between the engine, the cabin, and the other engine. Nor is there much to an airplane other than the engines.

By the way I have been banned from the LC forum for refusing to convert to islam or to be an apologist for its condemnation. I thought you guys would get a kick out of that.

After contemplation on the matter, I've decided to submit an application to join the PNAC. I still think they did 9/11, but maybe it's better the devil I know.

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:37, Blogger nesNYC said...

How did that cruise missile knock down all those lightpoles?

Better question, how did the wings stay intact going 500MPH and after hitting various light poles. We see the engines got damaged, why didn't the whole thing ignite before it even hit?

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:39, Blogger nesNYC said...

this video is just great, btw

Props to Alex Jones for showcasing it!

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:39, Blogger James B. said...

Hmm, a 100 ton jetliner traveling at 500 MPH hits a 500lb lightpole with a breakway base. Who is going to win?

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:56, Blogger apathoid said...

Better question, how did the wings stay intact going 500MPH and after hitting various light poles

They are called BREAKAWAY poles for a reason, Einstein...

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:00, Blogger nesNYC said...

They are called BREAKAWAY poles for a reason, Einstein...

The video shows the plume of smoke from the damaged engine so the "breakaway" obviously didn't prevent that. How do you figure the (ridged and think) engine got damaged and the wing, with a very thin skin stayed in one piece? I'd like to see you explain that.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:15, Blogger default.xbe said...

The video shows the plume of smoke from the damaged engine so the "breakaway" obviously didn't prevent that.

the top of the light pole could have gone trhough the turbofan, theres probably other explanations for how a pole with a breakaway base can damage an engine

How do you figure the (ridged and think) engine got damaged and the wing, with a very thin skin stayed in one piece? I'd like to see you explain that.

well skin isnt really the structural part of the wing now is it? the skin was probably torn off in places, but the framing underneath was string enough to hold together

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:28, Blogger jackhanyes said...

A lie can be dealt with like a tree; there are three area of a theory or lie. The trunk, the limbs, and the leaves.

With a leaf, the theory can be plucked and distoried with ease, as they don't hold a lot of wieght and aren't attached to the overall theory very well. They can be removed or added without effecting the limb or trunk theories. A OS'ers leaf is the no stand down order or the flight path was unimportant. A CT'ers leaf is the missle theory or flight 93 was shot down.

A limb needs a bit more work to chop down as it's higher up and harder to reach. It's harder to prove but can hold more wieght if true, but won't crash the theory. An OS'er limb is fire brought the WTC building down and a CT'ers limb would be CD brought the building down. While each theory could be true or false, the trunk is still not effected.

A trunk is the hardest to take down but when it fails, the whole thoery fails. However, since it's the hardest to prove it's also the hardest to disprove. A OS'ers trunk is that Osama's troops, acting alone, commited the attacks, and a CT trunk is that the government allowed or even assisted Osama troops to attack American on 9/11.

The nature of each part of theory makes it a target of the other party. Leafs are the commonly attacked because they are the easiest to prove or debunk. Limb are sometime addressed but no side every win because there is not enough for any part to win. Trunks are almost always avoided.

The are also roots theory that are in blackness and only the boldest talk about. CIA supporting of the tailban, Kroll, Marvin Bush, drug ties, oil profits, etc. Os'ers tend to avoid roots and CT love to dig them up.

Did I confuse anyone?

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:30, Blogger apathoid said...

How do you figure the (ridged and think) engine got damaged and the wing, with a very thin skin stayed in one piece? I'd like to see you explain that.


The leading edges have what are called slats affixed to them, these are very beefy secondary flight controls, and they would absorb any of the damage by the pole before the wing leading edge(which is composite under there) and fuel tanks would be compromised..

The video shows the plume of smoke from the damaged engine so the "breakaway" obviously didn't prevent that

There could be many reasons they the engine was a smokin. But default hit the nail on the head. The top of the pole(lights) could gotten sucked in...

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:37, Blogger skepticsteve said...

why didn't the whole thing ignite before it even hit?

How 'bout the fact that only a fraction of a second passed from the time it struck the pole to the time it hit the Pentagon. And the security cam does show smoke trailing the plane (a smoking cruise missile?)

Do you deny that a plane hit the Pentagon? Are you still clinging to the myth that a cruise missile did this. If so, you need to explain how a missile managed to fly a zig-zag path to hit all those light poles.

Steve S.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:39, Blogger Richard said...

The are also roots theory that are in blackness and only the boldest talk about. CIA supporting of the tailban, Kroll, Marvin Bush, drug ties, oil profits, etc. Os'ers tend to avoid roots and CT love to dig them up.

Well I can't and won't speak on anyone else's behalf but I've pointed these things out to some degree. You also have to understand that past acts hold no weight. If there was a court case where the only evidence that a person commited a crime was that he had commited past crimes it wouldn't hold up. I'm very much aware of some of the f'ed up things this nation has done but what nation hasn't? Plus most of the points you talked about to don't hold up such as Marvin Bush being "head" of security. Or the fact that were not swimming in oil right now. Every time we bring up these points we don't get an answer. So what is the deal?

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:04, Blogger Chad said...

A lie can be dealt with like a tree; there are three area of a theory or lie. The trunk, the limbs, and the leaves.

Why's everything a fucking tree to you people?

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:05, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Plus most of the points you talked about to don't hold up such as Marvin Bush being "head" of security. Or the fact that were not swimming in oil right now. Every time we bring up these points we don't get an answer. So what is the deal?"

I recently heard the claim that Kroll was involved in security on 9/11. Has this been debunked?

As for the fact that we're not swimming in oil, I don't see anyone saying that the average automobile driver did 9/11 or that anyone is looking out for the consumer as the oil companies post record profits.

Maybe you'd like to rephrase this point?

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:20, Blogger Alex said...

I'm rather glad that the oil companies are posting record profits. They're the ones in the best position to take us from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources for vehicles. The more money they make now, the better chance there is we'll be able to smoothly transition away from fossil fuels in the near future. And record profits aren't exactly indicative of involvment with 9/11. I made a lot more money after 9/11 than I did before. Does that mean I'm also part of the conspiracy?

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:25, Blogger Alex said...

I'm rather glad that the oil companies are posting record profits. They're the ones in the best position to take us from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources for vehicles. The more money they make now, the better chance there is we'll be able to smoothly transition away from fossil fuels in the near future. And record profits aren't exactly indicative of involvment with 9/11. I made a lot more money after 9/11 than I did before. Does that mean I'm also part of the conspiracy?

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:44, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"I made a lot more money after 9/11 than I did before. Does that mean I'm also part of the conspiracy?"

I didn't say this was the case with oil companies either, if you noticed.

I was simply responding to someone who said their questions never get answered.

Pointing out how the question doesn't make sense in terms of motive is all I meant to do.

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

well skin isnt really the structural part of the wing now is it? the skin was probably torn off in places, but the framing underneath was string enough to hold together

Good point, however you're saying that the very thin, lightweight and aerodynamic skin survived the impacts of, not 1 or 2 but 5 light poles?

Look at this photo:
Pole

It looks like it was sliced in half! You mean to tell me the wing was more rigid than the light pole? I highly doubt it.

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:52, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"They're the ones in the best position to take us from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources for vehicles. The more money they make now, the better chance there is we'll be able to smoothly transition away from fossil fuels in the near future."

You seem to be confused about what constitutes a motive in general.

You seem to think that making money off of the economies of scale of oil energy with it's built-in obsolescence (combustion) implies a willingness (given the means) to create cheap, independent, renewable sources of energy.

This is like saying if the railroads make enough money they invent the airplane faster.

Some needs are best expressed collectively.

This is off-topic anyway so I'm not going to take a lack of response as an admission of defeat or something.

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

I'm rather glad that the oil companies are posting record profits. They're the ones in the best position to take us from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources for vehicles. The more money they make now, the better chance there is we'll be able to smoothly transition away from fossil fuels in the near future. And record profits aren't exactly indicative of involvment with 9/11. I made a lot more money after 9/11 than I did before. Does that mean I'm also part of the conspiracy?

No, with a few billion dollars getting infused into the economy via the war machine, some people are going to do pretty darn good. But the guys at the top controlling the whole thing, those are the prime suspects.

As for actually believing the Oil companies are in any position to better our lives, the notion is very laughable.

You don't even take inflation into account and that's a big part of the hike in prices. But oil companies are not looking out for you and me. They actually suppress alternate energy and silence invertors and patent holders. If everybody knew how many fuel saving inventions have been suppressed by big oil, we would have riots in the streets! Poverty and ignorance keep the oil people where they are, don't bet on that changing anytime soon.

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:10, Blogger apathoid said...

Good point, however you're saying that the very thin, lightweight and aerodynamic skin survived the impacts of, not 1 or 2 but 5 light poles?

Since you conveniantly missed my reply. I'll try it again

The leading edges have what are called slats affixed to them, these are very beefy secondary flight controls, and they would absorb any of the damage by the pole before the wing leading edge(which is composite under there) and fuel tanks would be compromised..

Furthermore, the part of the engine that wouldve struck the poles is called an inlet cowl. Its bolted to the core cowl and is itself a fairly hollow composite mold with a thin aluminum ring around that very front that houses that cowl anti-ice vains......your notion of the engine being a single, sturdy solid mass is completely incorrect.

I would say the leading edge slats are beefier than the inlet cowl. Thats a professional opinion, not speculation...

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:15, Blogger James B. said...

OK nesync, even if we accept your proposition that a 757 could not have knocked down 5 lightpoles, how exactly does making it a cruise missile make for a better explanation?

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:16, Blogger Richard said...

They actually suppress alternate energy and silence invertors and patent holders. If everybody knew how many fuel saving inventions have been suppressed by big oil, we would have riots in the streets!

Actually things like Congress pushing production of ethanol is one of the variables that lead to the increase in gas prices. I'm not saying that I'm against ethanol but you can't just say that anything "nice" like alternative fuels will make the price of gas go down. There are tons of variables that go into the ultimate price of gas and I'm pretty sure a massive government plot isn't one of them.

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:39, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"I'm pretty sure a massive government plot isn't one of them."

Fair enough but I wouldn't put it past the oil companies to sabotage their own refining capacity if that's a major bottleneck and when marginal returns are out of proportion as the gas price goes higher, which if I understand correctly is a shared assumption.

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:49, Blogger default.xbe said...

Good point, however you're saying that the very thin, lightweight and aerodynamic skin survived the impacts of, not 1 or 2 but 5 light poles?

Look at this photo:
Pole

It looks like it was sliced in half! You mean to tell me the wing was more rigid than the light pole? I highly doubt it.


good point? you missed my point, i said the skin isnt what did the damage but rather the structure under the skin

furthermore, all solids have a rate of deformation, that is, how fast they bend when force is applied, if the object is travelling faster than this rate of deformation its physical properties are quite different, aluminum travelling at 500mph may very well be more rigid than a light pole

an example of this is lead, its very soft and malleable, much softer than human bone, but a bullet fired into you skull will still rip right through the bone like it wasnt even there

another example is water, its a liquid, but it behaves much like a solid when struck at high velocity

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:21, Blogger shawn said...

How 'bout the fact that only a fraction of a second passed from the time it struck the pole to the time it hit the Pentagon.

These people don't have any concept of time. They think the plane went slow-motion across the highway into the building. Even had the lightpoles done massive damage to the wings (unlikely), it's forward momentum would've propelled it into the Pentagon.

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:27, Blogger default.xbe said...

These people don't have any concept of time. They think the plane went slow-motion across the highway into the building. Even had the lightpoles done massive damage to the wings (unlikely), it's forward momentum would've propelled it into the Pentagon.

i remember reading a post, i think it was over at the LC forums, someone was analyzing the plane hitting the north tower, and one of his comments was that at a certain point the wingtips would be completely sheered from the body of the plane, and his question was "what was continuing to propel them forward into the side of the building" and it literally took me several minutes to process that he was serious about this

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:51, Blogger apathoid said...

i remember reading a post, i think it was over at the LC forums, someone was analyzing the plane hitting the north tower, and one of his comments was that at a certain point the wingtips would be completely sheered from the body of the plane, and his question was "what was continuing to propel them forward into the side of the building" and it literally took me several minutes to process that he was serious about this

I remember reading that too. If you could somehow harness the ignorance on the LC forums and convert it to energy, we'd have the worlds global energy crisis solved in any single thread in the "alternate theories" section.......

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:56, Blogger shawn said...

Please tell me you're both joking. That guy beats out nesnyc if you're for serious.

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:28, Blogger apathoid said...

Shawn, for your reading pleasure!!

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:30, Blogger shawn said...

Shawn, for your reading pleasure!!

Clearly I died in my sleep last night, and I am now in Hell.

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:37, Blogger apathoid said...

Indeed, and your IQ is about 5-7 points lower as well for having subjected your brain to that.(Sorry :D)

 
At 03 July, 2006 21:01, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Indeed, and your IQ is about 5-7 points lower as well for having subjected your brain to that.(Sorry :D)"

Notice how I don't spend any time on that crap. Food for thought.

 
At 04 July, 2006 00:14, Blogger Pat said...

Shawn, you want to see real nuttiness check out this post from about a month ago. This is not just ordinary nuttiness, this is from a guy who gets hundreds of responses to his posts over at Democratic Underground.

 
At 04 July, 2006 00:35, Blogger default.xbe said...

this is from a guy who gets hundreds of responses to his posts over at Democratic Underground.

ha, i debunked that post in a comment a few days ago

 
At 04 July, 2006 03:43, Blogger Alex said...

You seem to think that making money off of the economies of scale of oil energy with it's built-in obsolescence (combustion) implies a willingness (given the means) to create cheap, independent, renewable sources of energy.

This is like saying if the railroads make enough money they invent the airplane faster.


Railroads aren't exactly a depletable resource. The airplane was an improvement on existing technology, but it wasn't a neccesity. On the other hand, moving away from fossil fuels IS a neccesity, and as they say neccesity's a mother :)

Oil companies have two options. One, they can continue pushing fossil fuels untill they run out at which point we're all screwed, and they're not making any more money. Or two, be the first to use their existing infrastructure to provide a reliable and inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels, thereby increasing their revenues and ensuring their continue prosperity.

If you were the CEO of Shell or Texaco, which one of those would you go with?

 
At 04 July, 2006 07:09, Blogger Falco98 said...

hits a 500lb lightpole

I'd have to guess closer to 100lb, really.

 
At 04 July, 2006 08:20, Blogger The Inexorable said...

Huh? It is the largest office building in the world, how could he miss? Even the guy who flew with Hanjour says it would have been a simple matter for him to point the nose at the Pentagon and crash it. Do you know more about Hanjour's skills than he does?
It would be easy for a plane pilot to smash his plane into one of the twin towers, they ARE some of the largest office buildings in the world. But the pentagon? It's a low level building, you have to descend and swerve and use many complex maneovers to get to it, this is what the experts said- "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
I don't claim to know much about the pentagon, but I seriously doubt that a plane hit it, considering the evidence out there.

 
At 04 July, 2006 10:44, Blogger Richard said...

At the point those remarks were being made the plane was not flying into the pentagon. Did you even read the posts above!?!? They were referring to how rough the plane was being flown. How much evidence would it take to convince you that it was a plane? I seriously can't see how you believe that still.

 
At 04 July, 2006 15:10, Blogger shawn said...

they ARE some of the largest office buildings in the world. But the pentagon?

The Pentagon is THE largest office building on the planet.

 
At 05 July, 2006 00:44, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Railroads aren't exactly a depletable resource."

But train tickets are. The point is not that it's a fossil, but that it's a cash cow (built-in obsolescence).

You say necessity is a mother but this is an invention for a competitor, not oil companies which would be happy enough if no alternatives were physically possible.

"Oil companies have two options. One, they can continue pushing fossil fuels untill they run out at which point we're all screwed, and they're not making any more money. Or two, be the first to use their existing infrastructure to provide a reliable and inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels, thereby increasing their revenues and ensuring their continue prosperity.

If you were the CEO of Shell or Texaco, which one of those would you go with?"

Suffice it to say (though I was tempted, I admit) that you're missing some possibilities.

1) DARPA-type internet/Manhattan project/etc stuff the government does so well (though people seem to ignore or deny that fact)

2) The possibility, in caricature I must stress, that as oil runs out profits get bigger and bigger out of proportion with the number of barrels of oil they sell (which number becomes fewer and fewer) until, in the absurd extreme, they trade the very last barrel of oil in the world for all of humanity's assets since it's now all junk anyway, having no oil upon which to run.

3) The absolute certainty that a reliable, cheap and timely alternative to scenario 2) would NOT result in comparatively more revenues.

Your move, Chief, but the literature is so clear on this that you'd really have to be able to tell me you have something innovative.

 
At 05 July, 2006 10:37, Blogger Alex said...

But train tickets are.

Train tickets are a depleteable resource? Uh....I REALLY don't know how to respond to that.....I'm hoping you're not serious.

You say necessity is a mother but this is an invention for a competitor, not oil companies which would be happy enough if no alternatives were physically possible.

Listen Einstein, if your business is about to go tits up in a few decades because you can no longer provide your product or service, it's in your interest to find a way to provide a better product or service. It's not rocket science. You either fix the problem, or you go bankrupt. Maybe you'd be happier if no alternative were possible, but hoping for something doesn't make it so. You either evolve or get overtaken by the competition.

Suffice it to say (though I was tempted, I admit) that you're missing some possibilities.

1) DARPA-type internet/Manhattan project/etc stuff the government does so well (though people seem to ignore or deny that fact)


What's that got to do with anything at all? You're suggesting the government will beat private industry to the development of a viable alternate fuel source for vehicles? Well, GREAT! That gives the oil companies even MORE incentive to start their own projects now.

2) The possibility, in caricature I must stress, that as oil runs out profits get bigger and bigger out of proportion with the number of barrels of oil they sell (which number becomes fewer and fewer) until, in the absurd extreme, they trade the very last barrel of oil in the world for all of humanity's assets since it's now all junk anyway, having no oil upon which to run.

Caricature eh? No shit. That possibility assmues that no alternative to oil fueled vehicles is possible.

3) The absolute certainty that a reliable, cheap and timely alternative to scenario 2) would NOT result in comparatively more revenues.

That's the wonderful thing about a free-market economy. While the oil companies would make more money under "scenario 2", they would make a hell of a lot LESS money when either the government or a private company came up with an alternative which in no way involved the current oil giants. How can you be so dense? Your argument would ONLY work in a world where no alternative exists! As long as the possibility of viable alternate fueled vehicles exists, SOMEBODY is going to develop it. And whoever opens up that market first will have the opportunity to make TRILLIONS, whereas those who continue to market fossil fuels will shortly find themselves running massive defecits. The same thing has happened on a smaller scale hundreds of times in recorded history.

Your move, Chief, but the literature is so clear on this that you'd really have to be able to tell me you have something innovative.

Eh?

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:02, Blogger The Inexorable said...

What I'm trying to say is that the pentagon is a low level building...you can't just point your plane nose at it and crash into it.

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:15, Blogger Alex said...

What I'm trying to say is that the pentagon is a low level building...you can't just point your plane nose at it and crash into it.

Really? Why not?

Isn't that rather like saying you couldn't crash your car into a small house?

How many aircraft have you flown anyway? Ever handled a large passanger or transport aircraft? I know I have. But maybe your experience was different than mine.

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:30, Blogger shawn said...

What I'm trying to say is that the pentagon is a low level building...you can't just point your plane nose at it and crash into it.

Have you ever been there? I've had a private tour of the complex and it is IMMENSE.

And you certainly can just point your nose at it, that's kinda how you crash into things.

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:32, Blogger shawn said...

That's the wonderful thing about a free-market economy.

What I've never understood about "progressives" (not saying anyone on here is one, just making an observation) is that they want a more planned economy. That stigles progress. A free-market economy is the most democratic form of economics. While people cry about the evil corporations running everything, it's quite easy to cause them to change/evolve. Stop buying the product. You vote with your dollar.

 
At 05 July, 2006 12:03, Blogger Alex said...

While I agree with you in theory Shawn, it's the same problem as giving too much power to the government. Theoreticaly if you don;t like what the government is doing you can vote for someone else, but in practice it's never a good idea to give unlimited power to a government, regaurdless of how democratic it may be.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of free-market economics, however, I also understand the need for SOME regulation. As little as possible idealy. Prevent monopolistic practices. Regulate certain industries. That kind of stuff. Mainly, I think laws concerning the economy should be based around creating as much opportunity as possible for small start-ups and entreperneurs. That means keeping large companies from simply squashing any small business which may become a problem for them.

 
At 05 July, 2006 12:29, Blogger shawn said...

however, I also understand the need for SOME regulation. As little as possible idealy. Prevent monopolistic practices.

There are two sides to the monopoly argument. The one that it keeps the competition fair and the other that the consumer should go elsewhere if they don't want a company gaining all the power and price gouging. It's the same with a dictatorship, the people can always remove it if there are enough against it.

In reality, we need the monopoly laws, if not for the fact people are too afraid of change to go elsewhere for products.

 
At 05 July, 2006 14:21, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Train tickets are a depleteable resource? Uh....I REALLY don't know how to respond to that.....I'm hoping you're not serious."

Not geologically, from the consumer's perspective, as is apparent from the sentence you snipped.

You're being pedantic.

 
At 05 July, 2006 14:24, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Caricature eh? No shit. That possibility assmues that no alternative to oil fueled vehicles is possible."

The point is not to prove alternatives won't happen. The point is to prove they're opposed to oil interests.

 
At 05 July, 2006 14:26, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"How can you be so dense? Your argument would ONLY work in a world where no alternative exists! As long as the possibility of viable alternate fueled vehicles exists, SOMEBODY is going to develop it."

I have no doubt it will eventually be the oil companies. But it's in there interest not just to deny it to others by doing it themselves, but to delay it, vis a vis for example how fast the government could jump start it.

 
At 05 July, 2006 14:27, Blogger BoggleHead said...

correct: *their interest

You can see from your very argument that the oil companies prefer a world where no alternative exists for as long as possible.

You seem to think somebody is hard at work on alternatives but that's placing a little too much faith in the market.

 
At 06 July, 2006 13:20, Blogger Alex said...

You can see from your very argument that the oil companies prefer a world where no alternative exists for as long as possible.

Who cares what they prefer. Unlike the CT crowd, Oil companies have to deal with how things actually ARE rather than how they'd like them to be.

You seem to think somebody is hard at work on alternatives but that's placing a little too much faith in the market.

Actually it's placing faith in greed and self-interest. Two human qualities which rarely fail to deliver.

 
At 07 August, 2006 15:42, Blogger Stevew said...

If anyone is interested, Mike will be updating this animation, SW2007 just came out and has some great new features that will improve this wonderfull animation

 
At 23 December, 2006 13:16, Blogger Paulie said...

It is pretty simple really.......Hanjour was very skilful pilot he managed to see the Pentagon on approach and thought to himself where can I do the most damage.....are if I hit this building head on it will cause enormous damage...wait a minute what if I survive....I know I will do a 270 degree turn and hit the part that is under construction......I will need evidence of this I had better notify the FBI and have them confiscate all the videos of my crash so they can see what I have done is truly honourable.......now how do I get this damn thing to slip into a really confined space and do less damage (in case I survive).....I know I will computer animate myself into a 16 foot hole and they will see how truly honourable I am (in case I survive)

 
At 23 December, 2006 13:33, Blogger Paulie said...

Richard "Or the fact that were not swimming in oil right now." you are not swimming in oil right now because part of the 911 operation failed......flight 93 was supposed to hit the White House but unfortunately didn't make it....had it hit it's taeget Marshall Law would have been instigated (Jeb Bush did jump the gun in Florida but had to retract order) Has Marshall Law been instigated we wouldn't be blogging about anything there would be no truth movement and America could have done what it wanted anywhere in the world.....and nobody would have blamed them.
Your a smart person you work it out for yourself.

 
At 23 December, 2006 13:38, Blogger Paulie said...

Sorry I meant to say "fortunately" didn't make it....no not a Freudian slip

 
At 23 December, 2006 18:27, Blogger Paulie said...

Interesting video.....look closely and see how the smoke trail just disapears in 1 frame. Not possible!!!
The animation of the plane hitting the Pentagon shows the engines hittng the building where is the damage from this?
With all the videos thew FBI have on this why put out something as Ambiguous as this.
Something hiding behind a pole hits the Pentagon and instantly looses it's smoke trail
Yeh sure!

 
At 25 December, 2006 02:15, Blogger Paulie said...

If you want to see a real video rather than a cartoon...follow this link.... http://justpaolo.blogspot.com/

 
At 26 December, 2006 02:26, Blogger Paulie said...

Loose Change is not the only site which is of any merit. ( they have already admitted their mistakes and appologised) debunk "Press for the Truth" or are there cowards among you who only fight the battles already lost by the other side.
I enphasise battles, the war is still alive and well and as far as I can see being fought on all sides.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home