Loose Change in Hustler
According to his My Space blog, Dylan Avery announces that Loose Change is in an article in that bastion of journalism, Hustler Magazine. Korey Rowe apparently was interviewed for it. They have some pictures of it up, I will have to take their word for it, as I do not have a subscription. Hey, at least it isn't the American Free Press.
I wonder how former BYU Professor Steven Jones feels about his photo being used for the article though?
posted by James B. @ 9:19 AM
45 comments
45 Comments:
Aw I was expecting it to say "9/11 - the BARE truth".
Write to them!
If you want, I'll send you my copy of Hustler after I'm done with it.
Loose Change is in, and Screw Loose Change isn't. Just another outlet they made it in, and SLC didn't.
Do you ever wonder why?
Happy Holidays btw.
I'd wonder why if it was an actual credible journal or magazine.
It's Hustler, so who cares why?
Loose Change is in, and Screw Loose Change isn't. Just another outlet they made it in, and SLC didn't.
Do you ever wonder why?
Happy Holidays btw.
Attentionwhoring.
TAM
Yeah, my two big dreams in life were to get into grad school, and be mentioned in Hustler magazine. I guess I am only 1 for 2...
Actually, this proves part of the conspiracy theory. When you're reading Hustler, "pull it" really is followed by a mysterious explosion and an orderly collapse.
The picture of Jones appears to be one of your basic "stock footage" pics that news organizations use.
From the mormon POV, it doesn't appear that Jones consented to being photographed specifically for Hustler. Hustler is simply reporting on his work. There's nothing here that can be interpreted as Jones endorsing the pornographic publication.
That being said, he still has not publicly addressed his "dances with nazis" (Christopher Bollyn, Rick Ratjer, others). Something at least as serious for the LDS faith as agreeing to appear in Hustler would be.
They're really capitalizing on the "sex sells" thing, aren't they?
I guess they finally figured out that home videos of Dylan and the boys just doesn't have much sex appeal.
On the one hand...it's sad that millions of men are going to read this, and not have any information to counter it. On the other hand, it's rather funny that the best they can for peer review is to get published in a bastion of Scientific discussion such as Hustler.
Who the hell is Jason Berman....
Swing Dangler said:
Loose Change is in, and Screw Loose Change isn't. Just another outlet they made it in, and SLC didn't.
Do you ever wonder why?
I've never been quoted in Hustler either.
Can't say as I'm especially disappointed.
To be honest, the only seven Hustlers that I have collected over the past six years, I hardy have read.
This is why I buy Fox Magizine. :D:D
Just another outlet they made it in, and SLC didn't.
Ummm... SLC's main purpose is to respond to Loose Change. It doesn't make any sense for a news story to be about "Screw Loose Change" without also covering "Loose Change." Therefore, LC is always going to get more media mentions than SLC. So to answer your question: No, I didn't spend much time pondering this mystery.
SoT, I am not saying that he consented, but I would imagine it is probably not one of his first choices as to where to be represented. He can't exactly run home and show mom. Oh well, when you run with the wrong crowd...
That Dylan Avery has got some pair of tits.
Hustler, right? Not Fustler or Pustler, but the porno rag, right?
Swing Dangler said...
"Loose Change is in, and Screw Loose Change isn't. Just another outlet they made it in, and SLC didn't.
Do you ever wonder why?"
===========================================
Well we've got Popular Mechanics on our side and you've got Hustler on your side. Seeing as how the accusations made in LC have nothing to do with making whack off magazines and everything to do with engineering, architecture, and, you know, real actual science I would rather have Popular Mechanics on my side. But seeing as how the average truther makes his sub-normal intelligence known time and time again, your statement doesn't surprise me.
Trite Great analogy. Especially the explosion and collapse. That about sums it up.
Noam the Chomsky was also in Hustler as well back in Aug. of 2005. Anyone making fun of the Noamster for that one?
Didn't think so!
Besides, Hustler has features well written political articles in the past, so no biggie here.
Despite what you think of Flynt and the pics in Hustler, he has been a champion of the 1st Amendment for as long as he has been pedaling smut.
And what do you mean millions of men don't have counter-arguements against the article, hell they got the Popular Mechanics trash and all the educated informed specialists of this forum.
Popular Mechancis has been debunked all to hell, as well as much as the same stuff in LC.
Just because SD says Pm has been debunked does not make it true. None of the toofers have proven anything wrong with PM or any other debunking site. The best they can do is ask the same dumb questiond that have been answered over and over. They have yet to supply a point by point debunk of PM or anything else for that matter
TAM Wouldn't attention horing be used in an incorrect way considering the article was in Hustler?
Now if LC wrote and article and tried to distrbute it for profit, I would agree. But it appears that Hustler contacted them and wrote the article. So in all fairness you would be wrong.
swing dangler wrote:
Despite what you think of Flynt and the pics in Hustler, he has been a champion of the 1st Amendment for as long as he has been pedaling smut.
The only reason Flynt has been a champion of the First Amendment is because his case was a test of whether scumbags are covered by its penumbra. The answer turned out to be yes, but that doesn't make Flynt some kind of hero; he's still a scumbag.
but it is the perfect audience.
Actually, it is. Loose Change and Hustler readers both tend to be young males. It's a demographic thing.
CHF-
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/debunkPopMech.php
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
Popular Mechanics Debunked
9/11 Blogger /Jon Gold | September 27 2006
http://www.oilempire.us/popular-mechanics.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WULRQCgvsdE
http://www.politicalhotwire.com/2353-popular-mechanics-911-debunked.html
That should keep you busy...
Curt, the owners of this blog should probably be thanking Flynt for his Free Speech fight. Thanks to them we can all make fun of public officials without fear of retribution in any form. Hate him or not, he has done more to protect Freedom of Speech than anyone on here has.
Scumbag equates to allowing an outlet for women and men to display their naked bodies in sexually suggestive manner? Ever read the sexually suggestive material in the Bible? Does that make God a scum bag too?
CHF- I'm not going to do the work for you. I've read the information as its bookmarked in my folder of course. I see no need to restate what others have done. You can accept it as fact until you prove it as wrong.
Swing:
Attentionslutting
TAM
Attention Slutting
Ok, TAM, I can buy that one.
CHF-Great indepth analysis. I see you glanced at the website picked one sentence and then used that to attack my arguement...very sloppy blogging CHF. Or rather it appears you googled it took some captions from the description and went from there. Again, another case of bad blogging. Now if you would have posted hours from now explaining why the sites are wrong, you might have a point. But the quick glance I will use this to prove my point tactic isn't going to work. Nice try. Get back to me when you read the information.
PM- Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor.
Geez, I thought NIST debunked the pancake collapse theory? According to the PM theory, the core should remain standing. Oops. Little ole Swing without a website can debunk this trash.
Geez a picture showing the flow of dust and debris surrounding WTC 7is labeled as 'fire storm'. WTF? A bit misleading wouldn't you say, if not outright a lie. If it were a firestorm, buildings surrounding the dust cloud woudl have shown such fire damage. Misleading picture or PM error, you decide.
Anyway, I think you get the point. It doesn't take a degree to debunk the spunk at PM.
NO CHF, in order to get to those points, you glanced at the article, you didn't read shit. Read the entire articles and then go from there.
Aw, he's an idiot and we all know it. It's obvious that he's simply trying to throw you off by demanding that you wade through a sea of bullshit before he'll discuss anything with you. The fact is that the only "debunking" of PM are claims that it was a "straw man attack" or that it doesn't explain something in enough detail. There is not a single person anywhere that has shown a single one of their claims to actually be WRONG. I know, I've looked. Swinger's just playing his usual games.
Dylan told me that girls don't have three staples in them, but I told him he was wrong.
If I can say nothing else (which I can) good about Canada, it is that WE RULE IN HOCKEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TAM
The game was fixed by Zionists. The winning goal was done with CGI.
chf said...
You're an absolute idiot.
NIST explained the mechanism that LED TO the pancake collapse!
I'm saving this for my list of most funny comments of 2007.
Let me ask you, chf:
1. Is a pancake collapse the same as a progressive collapse? You must think so to have said what you said.
2. Did NIST support a pancake collapse theory? Did NIST support a progressive collapse theory?
3. Isn't it true that NIST didn't really explain the collapse?
4. What's next, spontaneous generation?
Frauds like bg are still pretending that pancaking was NIST's "explanation" for the collapse. They would, of course, never actually READ anything published by NIST, not the 298-page pdf file NIST NCSTAR 1 or even the FAQ.
Pancaking OCCURRED after the global collapse was initiated for the reasons NIST gave. Maybe we should list them for the thousandth time?
It's obvious that he's simply trying to throw you off by demanding that you wade through a sea of bullshit before he'll discuss anything with you.
oh sure and the OS sided doesn't use the same tactic. OSer-uhh see 911myths.com Blah blah each side expects the other to examine and read the information before offering a retort to the arguement.
But I shouldn't expect the same from CHF and others? Alex stick to what you do best:providing elementary examples so that simple minded folks like yourself can undertand your elementary logic.
Ok here is one for you:
No Stand-Down Order
PM's PURPORTED CLAIM: According to Emperors-Clothes.com, "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. ...They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."
PM'S COUNTER CLAIM: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. According to PM's second witness, Maj. Douglas Martin, Public Affairs Officer for NORAD (North American Defense Command), there is no computer network or alarm system that goes off when planes go off course or are missing. It took three calls from Boston Center Air Traffic Control (ATC) (at 8:37 a.m, 9:21 a.m. and 9:41 a.m.) to alert NORAD of the hijackers. New York's ATC also called at 9:03 to report Flight 175 had been hijacked just as it slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of the first call from Boston Center, the North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS) scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes. When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. According to the Major, NORAD's sophisticated radar ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." According to PM, pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
OUR REBUTTAL: PM's defense of the U.S. military is distilled from the 9/11 Commission Report, which PM fails to mention is the third of three mutually contradictory official accounts of the air response. This defense can be summarized as five claims:
1. There were too few fighters on alert.
2. There is no system in place for the FAA to notify NORAD of suspected hijackings.
3. The FAA couldn't find the hijacked planes because there were too many blips.
4. NORAD couldn't see the planes because its radar "looked outward".
5. Fighters that were scrambled from Otis and Langley couldn't reach the targets in time.
Claim 1 is irrelevant since we know there were fighters on alert at bases close enough to easily intercept the jetliners, such as at Andrews Air Force Base, 11 miles from the Pentagon. Moreover, not being on alert didn't stop Toledo Air Force Base from getting two F-16s in the air within 16 minutes of receiving an order. PM makes no mention of evidence that four or five war games were in play that very day -- September 11, 2001, which may have been instrumental in paralyzing NORAD's jet interceptors. This is well documented in Mike Ruppert's book Crossing The Rubicon.
Claim 2 is implausible given the ever-present danger of hijackings, and, in any case, fails to explain the long delays in the FAA communicating with NORAD.
Claim 3 is contradicted by press reports stating that FAA officials continuously tracked all of the hijacked planes except for Flight 77. It also begs the question of how the FAA could be incompetent and yet flawlessly land the 4000 airborne jetliners, mostly at airports far from their scheduled destinations.
Claim 4 is absurd given that NORAD's radar system was designed to track thousands of airborne objects in a massive Soviet attack to their targets deep within the continental U.S. It's also irrelevant since the attack unfolded along the northeast corridor, which would be over the solid part of Major Martin's doughnut.
Claim 5 requires us to believe that the scrambled fighters could fly at only a fraction of their top speeds of over 1700 mph.
Source:http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/
indexg.html
See this sea of bullshit for more debunking of the Popular Mechanics hitpiece.
And remember CHF and others, please read it or else you can't debate the topic at hand.
Puffs Of Dust
PM's PURPORTED CLAIM: Here PM quotes from an advertisement in the New York Times for the book Painful Questions: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions."
PM then implies that the basis for this claim is a statement by explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Van Romero, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
PM'S COUNTER CLAIM: PM claims that Romero was misquoted and that what he said was "that's what it looked like." PM goes on to explain how the buildings fell using the famous "pancake effect": Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction ... according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
OUR REBUTTAL: With the possible exception of the Widespread Damage claim, this is the only valid one relating to the Twin Tower collapses -- By titling this claim Puffs Of Dust rather than "Explosions of Concrete," and by showing only a photograph of the early part of a collapse, the article minimizes the explosiveness of the event.
The article features this image of the South Tower's collapse, taken about 2.5 seconds after the top started to plunge. It was taken by Gulnara Samoilova, who risked her life to take the photograph from a vantage point that would be engulfed by thick toxic dust in under 20 seconds.
At about seven seconds after the South Tower's top stated to plunge, the event has become quite explosive. The red arrow points to puffs of dust emerging from the mechanical floor, about ten floors below the zone of total destruction. If those puffs are due to the floors pancaking, then what is producing all of the dust in the explosion above, the floors containing the only concrete in the tower?
PM goes to great lengths to explain the "puffs". It quotes NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder saying "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window." This doesn't explain where the concrete dust came from, or even attempt to quantify the amount of dust that should be expected in the absence of explosives.
PM fails to acknowledge any of the global collapse features that researchers most often cite as proving demolition, such as their verticality, explosiveness, pulverization and rapidity -- features abundantly documented in the extensive body of surviving photographs and videos. Instead it implies that conspiracy theorists rely only on the opinion of demolition expert Van Romero, who has reversed his story and now claims that fire triggered the collapses:
"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
The following excerpts from the Albuquerque Journal article make it difficult to accept the explanation that Romero was misquoted.
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures. ... "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." ... "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."
PM quotes Romero denying that his retraction was bought:
"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
PM fails to mention that Van Romero was named chairman of the Domestic Preparedness Consortium in January 2001, that his Institute received $15 million for an anti-terrorism program in 2002, or that Influence Magazine tapped him as one of six top lobbyists in 2003, having secured $56 million for New Mexico Tech.-Source http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/
gopm/indexg.html
No conflict of interest of course...
Seismic Spikes
PM's PURPORTED CLAIM: The towers' collapses were recorded by seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, 21 miles away from the World Trade Center. PM cites WhatReallyHappened.com as reporting, "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," and cites PrisonPlanet.com run by talk show host Alex Jones as asserting that the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1, below) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The site claims that this is supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam.
PM'S COUNTER CLAIM: PM quotes Lerner-Lam, mentioned above, saying that the above interpretation is "categorically incorrect and not in context." The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the collapses of both buildings. According to PM, WhatReallyHappened.com displayed only one graph (Graph 1) to make this point, while omitting the graph with the expanded time scale (Graph 2).
PM goes beyond Lerner-Lam's renouncement of the claim that the seismic records prove that explosions brought down the towers, to claim that the seismic records prove that the towers were not destroyed with explosives:
The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
OUR REBUTTAL: PM's translation of the charts is as unscientific as the claim it cites. That the strongest spikes recorded the rubble hitting the ground proves nothing about the presence or absence of explosives, whose seismic signature would be minimal.
PM fails to note that its cited claim was refuted in 2003 by us at 911Research.wtc7.net.
Apparently not content with simply debunking this erroneous claim, PM falsely accuses its purveyors of deception. PM reproduces two sets of charts from the Palisades station with different time scales (Graphs 1 and 2), and accuses revisionists of misleading by showing only the charts with the compressed time scales:
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2, above) gives a much more detailed picture: ...
PM makes two errors here. First, it accuses WhatReallyHappened.com of misleadingly displaying a single chart, when if fact there are two (one embedded within the other -- see Graph 3). So, contrary to PM's allegation, the site does display the more detailed graph, at least of the South Tower's collapse.
PM reproduces these two different charts of the same events. The graph on the left represents 30-minute time spans, whereas the graph on the right represents 40-second time spans. PM accuses WhatReallyHappened.com of selectively displaying only the chart on the left to falsely imply that the seismic signals were sudden spikes. In fact, that website reproduced the following graphic from Lamont-Doherty that combined charts with both time scales.
Graph 3 [28]
Second, PM makes the same error as the websites it attacks by claiming that the largest spikes correspond to the 8- and 10-second collapses. In fact, as video recordings clearly show, both collapses took about 15 seconds. [29] If one magnifies the amplitude scales of the charts, as in the graphics below, it becomes apparent that a signal several times the magnitude of the background noise begins about ten seconds before the large spikes in each case. Apparently, that signal represents the building breaking up, and the large spikes represent the rubble hitting the ground.
Features of the Twin Towers' Collapses Beyond
Puffs of Dust
The collapses of the Twin Towers exhibited many features that can be explained only by controlled demolition:
* The towers fell straight down through themselves, maintaining radial symmetry.
* The towers' tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel.
* The collapses exhibited demolition 'squibs' shooting out of the towers well below the zones of total destruction.
* The collapses generated vast dust clouds that expanded to many times the towers' volumes -- much more than occurs in typical controlled demolitions. This indicates that far more explosives were used to destroy the towers than are used in typical demolitions.
* The towers came down suddenly and completely, at a rate only slightly slower than free fall in a vacuum. The flat top of the North Tower's rubble cloud revealed in the photo below shows the rubble falling at the same speed inside and outside the former building's profile, an impossibility unless demolition charges were removing the building's structure ahead of the falling rubble.
* The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away.
* The steel skeletons were consistently shredded into short pieces, common in sophisticated demolitions.
* Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses.
One example was the video-taped interview with some NY Fire Department firefighters:
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out .. ; fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det.. ; fireman1: yea detonated yea ; fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ... ; fireman1: All the way down,
All this ignored by PM....
FLIGHT
93
CLAIMS ATTACKED BY POPULAR MECHANICS
In this section, PM attacks four claims pointing to the widely-held theory among 9/11 skeptics that Flight 93 was shot down, rather than forced down by a passenger revolt. In contrast to the previous section, most of these claims are valid, yet PM's refutations are once again unconvincing. Why does PM's lead reporter Benjamin Chertoff backhandedly validate the skeptics on this issue when he demonstrates such masterful use of the straw-man technique in the first two sections? Perhaps because this section is designed as a distraction from the core facts that prove that the attack was an inside job: the idea of the shoot-down of Flight 93 is entirely consistent with the rest of the official story, and is thus a safe "limited hangout" -- (ie: something they would be willing to admit that is far short of the whole truth.)
The White Jet
PM's PURPORTED CLAIM: According to BlogD.com at least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. ... [It] was downed by either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed. ... [Flight 93] was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed. ...
PM'S COUNTER CLAIM: PM explains that the white jet was a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet which was on its way to the Johnstown-Cambria airport nearby. According to the company's Director of Aviation and Travel, the FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on.
OUR REBUTTAL: There are several problems with this explanation of the white jet.
* By 10:06 a.m. all civilian aircraft had received orders more than a half hour earlier to land at the nearest airport.
* Given the number of phone calls by people who observed the crash there was no need to make a special request to a civilian aircraft to pinpoint the location.
* There were F-16s in the area, according to the official story, which could have been tasked with locating the crash.
PM concludes its explanation of the white jet with this:
Gladwell confirmed the account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.
PM's paraphrasing of Gladwell would seem to make it more likely -- rather than less -- that conspiracy theorists would want to contact him, to find out what he really said.
Roving Engine
PM's PURPORTED CLAIM One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."
PM'S COUNTER CLAIM: According to Jeff Reinbold of the National Park Service, a fan from an engine was found 300 yards away in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more, you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."
OUR REBUTTAL: Here PM cites an exaggeration found in a story on Rense.com, a site that specializes in UFOs. The far-flung debris field of the Flight 93 crash site along with the eyewitness accounts make a strong case that the plane was shot down. PM argues that engine parts being found 300 yards from the main site is reasonable for a simple crash, because airline accident expert Michael K. Hynes, who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, states parts could bounce that far "when you have high velocities, 500 mph or more." This theory is at odds with the eyewitness reports that the plane plummeted almost straight down. (See Eyewitnesses Saw the Plane Plunge Vertically, below.)
Indian Lake
PM's PURPORTED CLAIM According to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001, some people "reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." The significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."
PM'S COUNTER CLAIM: According to PM's expert witness Wallace Miller, human remains were only found within a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. It was conceded that paper and tiny scraps of sheet metal could have landed in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion", says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. PM claims Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the crash site -- not 6 miles.
Whereas PM displays a map showing only a corner of Indian Lake to claim it is less than 1.5 miles from the crash site, this map shows the entire lake, which is up to three miles away.
OUR REBUTTAL: PM's assertion that Indian Lake was easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the blast has the same problem as PM's explanation for the roving engine: a jetliner flying straight into the ground fast enough to bury itself in a large impact crater would not be likely to fling debris skyward. Even if it did, a light breeze would have to transport the debris through the air two miles to Indian Lake Marina, and more than six miles to New Baltimore, where eyewitnesses reported descending confetti, according to the Post-Gazette. [48]
F-16 Pilot
PM's PURPORTED CLAIM In February 2004, a retired Army officer is quoted on "The Alex Jones Show," as saying Flight 93 "was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid-flight at precisely 0958."
PM'S COUNTER CLAIM: In their final claim, PM takes on the allegation by retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre that the pilot who shot down Flight 93 was Major Rick Gibney. The article states that Gibney was flying an F-16 that day, but it was not on an intercept mission -- rather it was to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of New York State's Emergency Management Office, and fly him from Montana to Albany, NY to coordinate the 9/11 rescue operation in Albany.
OUR REBUTTAL: Regarding the question of Gibney's involvement in the shoot-down, we have the word of LetsRoll911.org against that of an Air National Guard spokesman -- hardly solid evidence on which to judge the claim and counter-claim.
PM delivers its closing ad hominem attack on skeptics in the voice of Ed Jacoby:
I summarily dismiss [allegations that Gibney shot down Flight 93] because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at the time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes -- it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there.
FACTS IGNORED BY POPULAR MECHANICS
PM avoids a number of facts about Flight 93's crash that belie its explanation for the far-flung debris, such as eyewitness reports.
Eyewitnesses Saw the Plane Plunge Vertically
Eyewitnesses to the crash describe the trajectory of the plane into the ground as nearly vertical.
* unnamed witness: Says he hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees. [49]
* Terry Butler: "It dropped out of the clouds." The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down." [50]
* unnamed witness: It makes a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then makes a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashes. [51]
* Tim Thornsberg "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees." [52]
* Tom Fritz: He hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone." [53]
9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED
Having slain the conspiracy theory army's poison-spewing 16-headed dragon of 9/11 LIES -- PM declares the enemy vanquished, titling its final section 9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED. On page 128, PM reveals its suit of armor -- a list of over 70 experts that it found particularly helpful. The titles and names on this page are supposed to back the many assertions the article makes in the main section, but the article gives no indication of what experts or reports back up many of its key assertions. In fact, only two of PM's experts attempt to directly refute claims that we do not identify as probable straw-man claims:
* Maj. Douglas Martin defends the incompetence theory of the failure of military response.
* Shyam Sunder attempts to explain the "puffs of dust" shooting out of the South Tower as the result of floor "pancaking", and attempts to explain the collapse of Building 7 by likening it to a house of cards.
PM cites other experts to counter valid claims without it being clear that they are addressing the issue at hand. For example PM cites airline accident expert Michael K. Hynes as asserting that aircraft parts can bounce over 300 yards in high-speed crashes, without clarifying whether he is addressing the crash of Flight 93: a vertical plunge into soft ground.
I really think the following movie and website needs to be debunked. We need to get on this!
The movie "9/11: Press for Truth" should be debunked.
View the trailer for the movie at the following website:
( Running Time: 2 min. 13 sec.)
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
Watch the entire film at Google Video:
( Running Time: 1 hr. 24 min. 21 sec. )
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=9%2F11%3A+Press+for+Truth
The Complete 9/11 Timeline at the Center for Cooperative Research website needs to be debunked as well:
Complete 9/11 Timeline:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Patriots Question 9/11 website needs to be dubunked as well:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com
LET'S GET ON IT!
Holy crap that's a lot of spam. Swinger, you really need to stop that kind of behaviour if you want anyone to respond to you.
And what exactly do you have against "elementary logic"? I mean, it's obvious that you're opposed to ANY logic, but why pick on the word "elementary"? Is it because, when something is explained in simple terms, you have trouble making up ways to refute it? I'd assume that to be a good thing. It's obvious that you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed - that's exactly WHY I'm breaking these things down for you. I know that the world is confusing place for you, I'm just doing my part to help you understand it.
Alex Not an intent to be spam, just what CHF asked for, which of course is what I gave him. And again he didn't respond.
I was wrong Alex. Your examples aren't elementary, they are just stupid that really apply to nothing. Keep it up though, it is entertainment for the rest of the sheeple. Has any of your fellows ever stated," Hey Alex, great example to prove your point?"
Naww, I didn't think so.
And to be honest, I don't care if you respond or not, it was directed to CHF.
CHF certainly didn't ask you to spam.
You mean to tell me you can't even understand my "elementary" examples? Gee, I'm shocked. And here I thought you had at least a room temperature IQ. So much for that. Next time I'll draw you a picture. In red crayon.
Post a Comment
<< Home