Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on July 13, 2016, 08:17:54 pm
-
What would it take for Trump to win?
My guess? A commitment that the whole truth will be made about 9/11 thanks to a truly open and objective investigation re-examining all available evidences not matching the official conspiracy theory (evidences pointing at the presence of demolition charges in all 3 buildings, the impossibility of a plane having hit the Pentagon,...). I would make it an international committee with experts from various countries less likely to bend to pressure of threats.
That's the card I would play if I were him. I believe that this would convince many un-decided voters about his intentions to do politics differently.
Somehow I don't see Clinton making such a proposal...
Heck, if it happened it could put alternative stories to bed once for all and would enable the country and the world to move forward.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What would it take for Trump to win?...
November 8th ;)
-
A commitment that the whole truth will be made about 9/11 thanks to a truly open and objective investigation
Hell, I'd vote for him if he promised that.
Oh, wait. I can't vote. :'(
-
People to stop thinking the camera makes great images!
-
What would it take for Trump to win?
My guess? A commitment that the whole truth will be made about 9/11 thanks to a truly open and objective investigation re-examining all available evidences not matching the official conspiracy theory (evidences pointing at the presence of demolition charges in all 3 buildings, the impossibility of a plane having hit the Pentagon,...). I would make it an international committee with experts from various countries less likely to bend to pressure of threats.
That's the card I would play if I were him. I believe that this would convince many un-decided voters about his intentions to do politics differently.
Somehow I don't see Clinton making such a proposal...
Heck, if it happened it could put alternative stories to bed once for all and would enable the country and the world to move forward.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard. The plane did hit the Pentagon. My niece was on it.
-
"What would it take for Trump to win?"
Speaking as an outside observer and therefore not `invested' in any candidate or party:
A willingness for US voters to forego critical thought perhaps? Possibly in conjunction with an episode of national psychosis and/or a complete and collective suspension of disbelief.
-
Bernard. The plane did hit the Pentagon. My niece was on it.
Assuming you are not joking, I am really sorry for your loss. I'd expect you more than anybody else to want to understand what happened that day.
But I fail to see how the tragic disappearance of the people who were on the plane supposed to have crashed on the Pengaton tell us that the plane actually crashed there.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Assuming you are not joking, I am really for your loss. I'd expect you more than anybody else to want to understand what happened that day.
But I fail to see how the tragic disappearance of the people who were on the plane supposed to have crashed on the Pengaton tell us that the plane actually crashed there.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well eye witnesses are pretty good. Google turns up a heap.
As to the conspiracy theorists, the trick is to spot the lie, and then their case falls apart.
I'm not particularly pro-American, but from day one some people have used this terrible event to push their own agenda, and it appals me.
David
-
"What would it take for Trump to win?"
Speaking as an outside observer and therefore not `invested' in any candidate or party:
A willingness for US voters to forego critical thought perhaps? Possibly in conjunction with an episode of national psychosis and/or a complete and collective suspension of disbelief.
The same national psychosis that elected a certain mustachio-ed man to power in Germany in the 1930s - and without the brown shirts?
-
What would it take for Trump to win?
That's easy. 270 electoral votes.
-
I think that there are a lot of embarrassed republicans in the US concerned that Trump is their chosen one? Some will possibly not admit that they are republicans. Dangerous times ahead. :'(
-
What would it take for Trump to win?
A few things.
1. Social unrest.
2. One or more major 'terrorist' attacks.
3. Making Trump look like someone with reasonable/achievable ideas, and/or discrediting the opponent.
ad 1) The republican members of congress have successfully undermined the belief of the people in Government, by blocking just about any change for the better, and promise to reverse those things that did pass (like Obama's version of healthcare that was proposed earlier by some Republican states). People do not believe Government is there for them, so they will support anyone who claims that the people must make America Great again, the populist's agenda.
However, since isolation is not the answer to globalization, that will create an even larger loss of faith in what a proper government can achieve, not only for the most wealthy, but especially for the middle class (largest consumer base), and humane solutions for the underprivileged.
The Republican party's strategy has created it's own monster of Frankenstein.
ad 2) Insecure people look for 'strong' leaders. It doesn't matter if unachievable solutions are promised, just an appeal to primitive feelings (i.e. xenophobia) will suffice.
ad 3) For this he has already appointed Paul Manafort (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort), someone who already successfully helped to get Ferdinand Marcos, Jonas Savimbi, Viktor Yanukovych, and other foreign dictators elected. If anyone can polish a turd, then he is the man. In March 2016, as the potential for a contested convention increased, Trump hired Paul Manafort, who has worked in presidential politics since the 1976 Republican convention, as his convention manager
Cheers,
Bart
-
As another outsider (non-American) the strangest thing to me about the support that Trump gets from the average joe is why they would think that a "fat-cat millionaire" like him would be on their side. It's easy to understand why large swaths of the middle class would be unhappy with the current governance (of either party; they are indistinguishable to me). But why would they think that a guy like Trump is on their side? Is it just because of those incoherent tough-sounding silly sound bites of his? He's a late-night cable channel car salesmen. We've all met people like that, they never deliver what they promise. It's a very sad state that the country be so annoyed with everything that any wild-ass alternative is preferable to the status quo. I'm not gloating in any sense. It is not a good thing for the planet for the US to go nuts.
-
The only thing that could possibly be worse than Trump being elected president is if Hillary were elected president.
-
As another outsider (non-American) the strangest thing to me about the support that Trump gets from the average joe is why they would think that a "fat-cat millionaire" like him would be on their side.
If you're really interested in knowing I can tell you precisely why.
Because he is not afraid to say what everyone actually believes. He's not afraid of being called a racist or a misogynist or a fascist. When the President of the United States says that the way to hit back at ISIS after the Paris attack is to fight global warming ( http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261193-obama-climate-conference-is-powerful-rebuke-to-terrorists ) you know all you need to know about why people are tired of politically correct lies.
It's politicians and corporations telling a population without enough jobs that uncontrolled immigration is good for them.
It's telling a country that's been recently exposed to Islamic terror attacks that the best way to solve the problem is to import tens of thousands of people from Syria.
People are stupid but they're not that stupid.
-
+1
-
If you want fre stuff Medicare, healthcare, pension, college, unemployement insurance etc, you know how to vote no matter who's running! If you live in a box 9-5 and watch the TV, take a yearly vacation to Sheboygan and can't wait for the next free thing your government is going to give you because they are only 20 Trillion in debit and you live off of your credit cards too!
If your a person with a great work ethic, common sense, not trying to live off the system and you want to keep more of the money you make, not have the government make you give them your hard earned money to study how the wind blowing through a cows ear affects the global warning and most importantly if in the last eight years you been nauseated and think you should only spend money when you have money also know who to vote for.
If you live inside the USA but your company has all of their assets outside to avoid paying taxes and you have holding personally outside the USA it's a toss up, scary either way, but the weather is also unpredictable.
-
What would it take for Trump to win? Hillary Clinton.
-
I don't think Trump would stand a chance if the DNC put up a legitimate candidate
I don't think Clinton would stand a chance if the RNC put up a legitimate candidate
Politically, we are being offer a choice. Do we wish to be hit in the face with a wet or a dry frying pan. Technically, there is probably a difference, but either choice is unacceptable.
Political paradox: Trump and Clinton are each worse than the other.
-
I don't think Trump would stand a chance if the DNC put up a legitimate candidate
I don't think Clinton would stand a chance if the RNC put up a legitimate candidate...
Luckily, it was people, not RNC, that put a legitimate candidate. In contrast to DNC.
-
Luckily, it was people, not RNC, that put a legitimate candidate.
Correction, it was part of corporate America, not ordinary people. The people were offered a sponsored choice from an odd pre-selection of candidates. A recommended education about the USA electoral system, it's benefits, shortcomings, and cures, can be found here (http://lesterland.lessig.org/) (the TED-talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html) version is free, and short enough, maybe even for youths with short attention spans).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Correction, it was part of corporate America, not ordinary people.
Correction, corporate America put up Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton (either one would be fine for them). Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders put up Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Each for his own (and equally idiosyncratic) reasons wants to be president. But the corporations are looking for someone who is willing to toe their globalist line. For their own reasons these two were not. Now Trump may be as bad a president as is possible but if you're looking to give the corporate party leaders (dems and reps) a thumb in the eye, Trump is the only choice left.
-
The man makes me groan, the woman makes me puke. Groaning is better than puking.
If there are more people like me Trump will win.
-
Yeah 1930's Germany is the place to look. Hopefully we won't get what it takes, not just because of the disaster that would be for the nation and the world but also for the disasters it would take to convince people it was a good idea to elect him in the first place.
The right has done a great job of making Clinton look bad and on some points she also helped. But their efforts to undermine the opposition were their first priority and they didn't put enough resources into coming up with their own good candidate. The reality is she isn't as bad as she has been portrayed and IMO her worst quality is being a career politician. The conspiracy theories are just that. To me and a lot of voters that's a lot better than the alternative. But we will see in November. I hope this election doesn't make me regret becoming a US citizen!
As for free stuff, it's not really free if we are collectively paying for it. I'm tired of billionaires getting "free stuff" while the underprivileged are being stepped on. And no, I don't consider myself among the underprivileged but one thing that stuck with me from my Catholic upbringing is we are (or should be) obligated to care for the poor. I'd much rather my tax dollars go to people who need them rather than the greedy who are just trying to amass an even bigger fortune.
All the support for Bernie has really put pressure on Clinton and made her a better candidate. She is having to up her game and at least try to appear a little less cozy with corporate America which I see as a positive step. His endorsement shows me that he can face reality and what he wants is what is in the best interest of the American people.
-
The RNC was faced with a difficult problem of what do to about Trump.
If they ignored him, Trump would run as an independent and the RNC remembered how that worked with Perot.
So borrowing from LBJ's dictum about tents and urination, they agreed to allow Trump to run as a GOP potential candidate. What they were hoping for was that Trump would lose quickly in the primaries and they would be done with him. It must have been a shocker when Trump's numbers kept growing. I bet they did not expect that.
Then the RNC was faced with a different problem of what to do about Trump. After a good showing in the polls and the primaries, they could not just dump him. That would alienate a lot of the GOP base.
They do have the option of nominating a second candidate but neither party has ever done that and it would be very risky.
I wonder how many in the RNC wished they had just let him go and run as an independent. Could it be worse than this?
Hillary will probably be elected and Trump just makes the GOP look even more silly.
I wonder if after this, the GOP will just be the teabaggers and another conservative party will grow out of the ashes. If not the GOP has a steep PR hill to overcome.
But the GOP did it to themselves. I did not change, my party did.
I work with a lot of conservatives... it is kinda a job requirement where I work. Only one of my co-workers is actually voting for Trump. The rest are voting against Clinton.
-
The man makes me groan, the woman makes me puke. Groaning is better than puking.
If there are more people like me Trump will win.
Aptly phrased. I'm hoping the ghost of Ronald Reagan finds Trump in the White House and kicks his butt until he agrees to actually read the Constitution. Then maybe he'll know what he is supposed to be doing.
-
Correction, it was part of corporate America, not ordinary people. The people were offered a sponsored choice from an odd pre-selection of candidates. A recommended education about the USA electoral system, it's benefits, shortcomings, and cures, can be found here (http://lesterland.lessig.org/) (the TED-talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html) version is free, and short enough, maybe even for youths with short attention spans).
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I am sometimes surprised by the condescending and patronizing tone coming from some non-Americans. Perhaps I shouldn't be (surprised).
-
If you're really interested in knowing I can tell you precisely why.
1...Because he is not afraid to say what everyone actually believes. He's not afraid of being called a racist or a misogynist or a fascist. When the President of the United States says that the way to hit back at ISIS after the Paris attack is to fight global warming ( http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261193-obama-climate-conference-is-powerful-rebuke-to-terrorists ) you know all you need to know about why people are tired of politically correct lies.
It's politicians and corporations telling a population without enough jobs that uncontrolled immigration is good for them.
It's telling a country that's been recently exposed to Islamic terror attacks that the best way to solve the problem is to import tens of thousands of people from Syria.
2... People are stupid but they're not that stupid.
1. Think Brexit: The "leavers" spun a web of lies to which they admitted almost immediately after the result was announced; many of those fibs concerned finance and the holy cow of public health (which I also depend upon - across two countries); political correctness has already cast ugly shadows and fettered minds across the western world leading to public frustration when the reality of the obvious is clearly denied and rendered a no-go area for debate. The awake find it increasingly difficult to cope with the zombies.
2. I disagree. You can never overestimate the stupidity of the general public. Brexit proved that too, where multi-nationals were somehow conflated with non-existing jobs for the unemployable, foreign workers living in Britain and making a go of it held responsible for the same unemployable Brits; the existing (since the 40s at least) Asian and Caribbean communities in Britain imagined to be part of some imminent new wave of Turks swimming across the English Channel.
That the UK was slowly (due to the present Conservative and previous coalition governments) digging its way out of national debt was, by the Opposition, held up as 'austerity' which is supposedly evil incarnate. Why it's thought cool for families to stay solvent, not spend what they don't have, and thus try to stay out of debt, but magically wrong for countries to do the same is just another manifestation of public nonsense designed to encourage the freeloaders to hold out for yet more.
We live in a world where expectations outrun paid-for reality.
I don't imagine the United States to have any greater a percentage of brilliant minds than does Britain. The only difference is that very few of our nutters have guns.
Rob C
-
Aptly phrased. I'm hoping the ghost of Ronald Reagan finds Trump in the White House and kicks his butt until he agrees to actually read the Constitution. Then maybe he'll know what he is supposed to be doing.
Would that not require someone to teach Reagan about the Constitution first? ;D
-
... those incoherent tough-sounding silly sound bites of his?...
I am saying this without any intention to offend anyone, but aren't you (rhetorical you) committing the same "crime" of judging him by the same silly soundbites that come from his opponents, whose only argument seems to be immediately labeling of those who have a different opinion as "racist, sexist, xenophobe, bigot, etc."
... It is not a good thing for the planet for the US to go nuts.
Or actually come to its true sense?
-
Well eye witnesses are pretty good. Google turns up a heap.
As to the conspiracy theorists, the trick is to spot the lie, and then their case falls apart.
I'm not particularly pro-American, but from day one some people have used this terrible event to push their own agenda, and it appals me.
David
Google turns up all sorts of eyewitnesses to all sorts of things, doesn't mean to say any of them are true though. The trick with the Pentagon is to find a pilot or aeronautical engineer who will stake their reputation on insisting planes can fly at zero altitude at 500mph, especially when piloted by an amateur. Google will also turn up various explanations of the 'ground effect'.
-
The same national psychosis that elected a certain mustachio-ed man to power in Germany in the 1930s - and without the brown shirts?
he was not elected, he was appointed
(https://www.ushmm.org/m/img/31385-700x468.jpg)
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/Hitler-Appointed-Chancellor.htm
-
Assuming you are not joking, I am really sorry for your loss. I'd expect you more than anybody else to want to understand what happened that day.
But I fail to see how the tragic disappearance of the people who were on the plane supposed to have crashed on the Pengaton tell us that the plane actually crashed there.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, it's true. Who could make a joke of it? My niece Lisa Raines and dozens of other people on Flight 77 died when the jet was crashed into the Pentagon by members of Al Qaeda under the direction of Bin Laden and Sheik Mohammad ( currently being held in Guantanamo). Hopefully, Obama won't let the Sheik go after our presidential election and he will be eventually executed for murdering 3000 people. To distract our attention with silly conspiracy theories of 911 that my niece and all the others on 4 planes just disappeared dishonors the people killed and their families and makes a mockery of their death. You really ought to grow up.
-
Obama won't let
couple+ of liars (WMD) responsible for hundreds of thousands deaths are walking with impunity... UBL & Co are innocent kids by comparison.
-
Bart, I am sometimes surprised by the condescending and patronizing tone coming from some non-Americans. Perhaps I shouldn't be (surprised).
Slobodan, it's not meant (not by me anyway) as condescending or patronizing (I have little control over how it is perceived), it's just how certain people from outside the USA look at their friends when it comes to specific topics that defy logic. I've said it before, the Germans have a saying : "Was sich liebt, das neckt sich". IOW, 'we' wouldn't criticize if we didn't care. There are also those who hate the USA, but that's another subject, it doesn't include me.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. The link is not only of an educational analysis of the USA electorate system (by an American) for Americans, everybody can learn something from it.
-
... it's just how certain people from outside the USA look at their friends when it comes to specific topics that defy logic...
The "logic" is shaped by one's experiences available to them, i.e., the availability bias. One needs to be in America longer than a tourist or business visit to understand it, in order not to base one's opinions on sound bites from the media.
-
... P.S. The link is not only of an educational analysis of the USA electorate system (by an American) for Americans, everybody can learn something from it.
That is a pure, unadulterated leftist BS.
-
The man makes me groan, the woman makes me puke. Groaning is better than puking.
If there are more people like me Trump will win.
I just want to ask you, so you thnk attacking the person instead of an issue is the proper way to talk. Also being completely absorbed with yourself is a quality you think is admirable?
-
I just want to ask you, so you think attacking the person instead of an issue is the proper way to talk. Also being completely absorbed with yourself is a quality you think is admirable?
How elegantly you managed to contradict yourself in just two sentences!
-
I am saying this without any intention to offend anyone, but aren't you (rhetorical you) committing the same "crime" of judging him by the same silly soundbites that come from his opponents, whose only argument seems to be immediately labeling of those who have a different opinion as "racist, sexist, xenophobe, bigot, etc."
Or actually come to its true sense?
when you can hear his entire speech and listen to the interviews he gives, its not sound bites. this apologetics that people use for his blantant racist and personal attacks is amazing. The man is just short of being a sociopath but does qualify as a malignant narcissist. his econonic views are childish, the way he can control other countries speak of strong man tactics. If antone has just the smalist of critism about him he rants.
-
...his blanrant racist...
Example, proof?
...his econonic views are childish...
You are qualified to assert that?
-
when you can hear his entire speech and listen to the interviews he gives, its not sound bites. this apologetics that people use for his blanrant racist and personal attacks is amazing. The man is just short of being a sociopath but does qualify as a malignant narcissist. his econonic views are childish, the way he can control other countries speak of strong man tactics. If antone has just the smalist of critism about him he rants.
No disrespect...But may we assume that English is not your first language.
Peter
-
examples, his opening speech, his calling people names like pocahontas.
my qualifications on his economic viewpoint. would a doctorate in social econmics qualify, would the tech industry coming out against his viewpoints as completely vapid. Would a right wing billionaire named koch, that said his policies were dangerous qualify
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/an-open-letter-technology-leaders-donald-trumps-candidacy_us_5787996ae4b03fc3ee4f6be2
"Perhaps the biggest surprise, though, might be the Kochs. Last month, Charles Koch told ABC News that it’s “possible” Clinton would make a better president than Trump. On Wednesday, a spokesman for the brothers declined to rule out the possibility of backing the former secretary of state, though he implicitly criticized both her campaign and Trump’s.
Mark Holden, the general counsel and senior vice president at Koch Industries, said Koch-funded political groups would consider supporting a general election candidate who is “able to garner support from the public with a positive message in support of the issues we care about, and did not engage in personal attacks and mudslinging.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-megadonors-koch-222825#ixzz4EPvlFPp7
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
You seem to think his economic poicies are correct, what are your qualification to determine they are correct.
He is still trying to puch the failed idea of supply side economics. it is a completle failure. it has decimated the middle class of this country and other countries. Want to see this policy taken to the extreme, look at the state on Kansas.
-
No disrespect...But may we assume that English is not your first language.
Peter
how about addressing the issues.
-
how about addressing the issues.
but after i read your opeing comment, i did not realize you were not in the reality, a 9/11 truther. really?
-
... what are your qualification to determine they are correct..
A Bachelor's degree in Economics and an MBA from #1 business school in the world, 30+ years of working for American government and businesses, 10 of which as a senior manager in several Fortune 200 companies world-wide. Theory and practice.
-
Charles Koch told ABC News that it’s “possible” Clinton would make a better president than Trump.
Koch has since clarified that his statement was taken well out of context and he believes no such thing. He has also compared the candidates as a choice between cancer or a heart attack.
-
so you really think protectionism that trump is try to introduce is a valid economic policy? Do you think trying to leave treaties entered into will work? Has any tax cut actually help the economy. How will trump on any of his policies bring back manufacturing to this country.
-
The "logic" is shaped by one's experiences available to them, i.e., the availability bias. One needs to be in America longer than a tourist or business visit to understand it, in order not to base one's opinions on sound bites from the media.
I'm saddened by the denial of (admittedly embarrassing) facts, and the lack of willingness to adjust behavior in accordance with objective knowledge about those facts. It's a bit like smoking, we know it's bad for one's health, yet still a lot (although decreasing numbers) of people do it (AKA Cognitive Dissonance).
One does not have to smoke oneself to know it's generally unhealthy, and a general surgeon doesn't need to have had his/her appendix removed before being able to diagnose Appendicitis in a patient (it does help to have training experience in actually removing the inflammation).
But then we're not running for president either, Trump is.
The question is not even whether he is qualified, but what does it take to win.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Koch has since clarified that his statement was taken well out of context and he believes no such thing. He has also compared the candidates as a choice between cancer or a heart attack.
nice try
same article, when you mine quote you lose all credibilty
Koch took some digs at Trump, saying “I’m sure he’s a fine fellow underneath,” but that Trump’s “guiding principles are antithetical” to those Koch advocates for–especially on free trade. The presumptive Republican nominee and billionaire in his own right has harshly criticized free trade policies that he says have caused American jobs to go overseas. Koch called Trump’s plans for increased tariffs “a monstrosity.”
And you can't take words on a video out of context, when you actually listen to the interview. This out of context crap is always used to try to cover up what was actually said.
-
...what does it take to win.
Only that the silent majority shows up on Nov 8.
-
Koch has since clarified that his statement was taken well out of context and he believes no such thing. He has also compared the candidates as a choice between cancer or a heart attack.
Wow! So Bart's TedTalk video was educational after all.
A country of 311 million people and this is the best we get for presidential candidates?
The answer as to why that is is pointed out VERY clearly for both conservatives and liberals in that video.
How to solve it would seem to require nothing short of a revolution, but we're so divided that's never going to happen.
-
Only that the silent majority shows up on Nov 8.
It speaks poorly of the country if the majority do indeed embrace Trump's views. His xenophobic disregard for the very foundations of the enlightenment ideals that have made this country great are, by themselves, literal disqualifications for holding the position. His core platform is contrary to the Constitution, for God's sake. But to answer the question, all it will take is for good people to stand by and do nothing while angry populism votes its heart while disregarding its head. (I'm a likely Gary Johnson voter BTW, not an HRC voter, though if Texas is close she'll get my vote just to thwart Trump)
-
Google turns up all sorts of eyewitnesses to all sorts of things, doesn't mean to say any of them are true though. The trick with the Pentagon is to find a pilot or aeronautical engineer who will stake their reputation on insisting planes can fly at zero altitude at 500mph, especially when piloted by an amateur. Google will also turn up various explanations of the 'ground effect'.
Yes, Google does turn up eyewitnesses to all sorts of things. In the case of the plane hitting the Pentagon however, apart from tons of plane wreckage, we have hundreds of real people with real jobs who you can find and contact.
The statement about flying at 500mph at zero altitude is the the usual thing conspiracy theorists put up, and has no connection with real events.
It's like their claim that the Twin Towers went into free fall and therefore must have had a demolition charge. The towers didn't free fall. Nowhere near it. I know how to use a stopwatch and by looking up the height of the buildings it's simple maths to disprove that one.
-
... His xenophobic disregard..
Again, proof?
A guy who married two (or is it three?) foreign-born wives is xenophobic?
-
Again, proof?
A guy who married two (or is it three?) foreign-born wives is xenophobic?
Well, look... Lots of racists have "black friends," and I'm not sure that marrying a series of foreign models absolves one of being xenophobic anyway, when statements about religious tests for freedom of movement and the generalities about Mexicans being rapists, murderers etc. are commonplace. The fact is, that when you look at Trump's supporters, they're not the best of us, like you and I are. They're honestly people with a lot of problems, and they've directed those problems toward blaming the "other." They're white supremacists, they're isolationists, they're populists, and some, I assume, are good people....
-
yes you can still be xenophobic with 100 wives born in other countries. You can be racist against jews with a son in law that's jewish. You can be absolutely vapid in international economics even if you own hotels.
Do you actually believe these childish excuses are vaild?
And there is some great irony here, many trump supporters do not look at you as an american who belongs here
-
Yes, Google does turn up eyewitnesses to all sorts of things. In the case of the plane hitting the Pentagon however, apart from tons of plane wreckage, we have hundreds of real people with real jobs who you can find and contact.
The statement about flying at 500mph at zero altitude is the the usual thing conspiracy theorists put up, and has no connection with real events.
It's like their claim that the Twin Towers went into free fall and therefore must have had a demolition charge. The towers didn't free fall. Nowhere near it. I know how to use a stopwatch and by looking up the height of the buildings it's simple maths to disprove that one.
Did you look up 'ground effect'?
-
Bernard,
I hugely respect your photographic skills and knowledge and ability to communicate your thoughts very clearly. I look forward to reading your posts when I see them and they, in fact, are about photography. Your one sentence long question ("What would it take for Trump to win?") that started this thread in the Coffee Corner would have led to "interesting" Coffee Corner bantering.
But my heart sank when you espoused the 9/11 conspiracy insanity. On one hand, your photographic skill is spectacular and photographic knowledge seems to demonstrate real intelligence and sound judgement. Yet on the other hand, as you've demonstrated here in this case and in some past non photographic threads, your opinion on world events demonstrates just the opposite.
Also, I must admit that I'm really disappointed in the LR audience because with 56 replies at this point, only Alan Weiss and Dave Sutton have challenged you on your 9/11 nonsense.
Brad Smith
-
Also, I must admit that I'm really disappointed in the LR audience because with 56 replies at this point, only Alan Weiss and Dave Sutton have challenged you on your 9/11 nonsense.
Brad Smith
Well I think it's BS but I've learned that calling people out on this particular brand is an exercise in futility.
In fact this whole discussion probably is unless anyone involved has changed their mind about any of this.
-
Bernard,
I hugely respect your photographic skills and knowledge and ability to communicate your thoughts very clearly. I look forward to reading your posts when I see them and they, in fact, are about photography. Your one sentence long question ("What would it take for Trump to win?") that started this thread in the Coffee Corner would have led to "interesting" Coffee Corner bantering.
But my heart sank when you espoused the 9/11 conspiracy insanity. On one hand, your photographic skill is spectacular and photographic knowledge seems to demonstrate real intelligence and sound judgement. Yet on the other hand, as you've demonstrated here in this case and in some past non photographic threads, your opinion on world events demonstrates just the opposite.
Also, I must admit that I'm really disappointed in the LR audience because with 56 replies at this point, only Alan Weiss and Dave Sutton have challenged you on your 9/11 nonsense.
Brad Smith
There might be a reason for that.
-
Also, I must admit that I'm really disappointed in the LR audience because with 56 replies at this point, only Alan Weiss and Dave Sutton have challenged you on your 9/11 nonsense.
Brad Smith
There are people in this thread that have personal connections that made the point quite well. No need to pile on IMHO.
-
Bernard,
I hugely respect your photographic skills and knowledge and ability to communicate your thoughts very clearly. I look forward to reading your posts when I see them and they, in fact, are about photography. Your one sentence long question ("What would it take for Trump to win?") that started this thread in the Coffee Corner would have led to "interesting" Coffee Corner bantering.
But my heart sank when you espoused the 9/11 conspiracy insanity. On one hand, your photographic skill is spectacular and photographic knowledge seems to demonstrate real intelligence and sound judgement. Yet on the other hand, as you've demonstrated here in this case and in some past non photographic threads, your opinion on world events demonstrates just the opposite.
Also, I must admit that I'm really disappointed in the LR audience because with 56 replies at this point, only Alan Weiss and Dave Sutton have challenged you on your 9/11 nonsense.
Hi Brad,
Thanks for the kind words.
The very same intelligence you saw elsewhere can only lead to questioning the official 9/11 story.
I am myself endlessly surprised to see many bright individuals refuse to look at facts in an objective fashion in this case. I don't know what happened on 9/11, but there are just too many incoherent elements to the official story for it to be fully accurate. Frankly, the only elements backing up the official story is that it's the official story.
Since when is thinking based on facts not a basic behavior of educated people?
Note that I didn't propose any conclusion, I just stated that an independant investigation would help clarify what truely happened. And I believe that there are millions of people in the US and elsewhere who share this hope. And I believe that Trump may use this in a few months.
And I am as surprised as you are that so few people even dare to discuss this here and elsewhere. It seems that in the dilemma between patriotism and free thinking, well free thinking went down the drain.
As far as the official stories being always true, aren't there compelling evidences that this isn't always the case? Did Snowden do what he did for nothing?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Do you actually believe these childish excuses are vaild?
Now, who is "attacking the person instead of an issue"?
...And there is some great irony here, many trump supporters do not look at you as an american who belongs here
I spoke to some of them and read from a lot of them, none has anything against legal immigration or me being a citizen. This is the standard trick of the left, constantly deliberately confusing illegal immigration with immigration when bashing Trump. America is a country of immigrants, and as someone who lived, worked, or visited 30+ countries, I can assure you that Americans are the most accepting of immigrants. Legal ones, that is.
-
Well I think it's BS but I've learned that calling people out on this particular brand is an exercise in futility.
In fact this whole discussion probably is unless anyone involved has changed their mind about any of this.
Hi Matt,
Hope springs eternal ..., but I won't hold my breath either.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So now the people of Nice, France will have to determine if their current terror was a conspiracy and never really happened. 911 is coming home all over. Time to wake up folks.
-
... As far as the official stories being always true, aren't there compelling evidences that this isn't always the case...
Operation Northwoods (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662)
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
-
So now the people of Nice, France will have to determine if their current terror was a conspiracy and never really happened. 911 is coming home all over. Time to wake up folks.
Nice, if proven to be a terrorist attack, would, just like the other recent terrorist attacks, be an indirect, and of course un-intended, consequence of the war in Irak.
Now proven with ample evidence, see the recent discussion in the UK house of representatives, to have been a terrible mistake, resulting from a political usage of 9/11.
So if there is anything to wake up from it is to blindly follow the war crusades proposed by some western leaders.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Time to wake up folks.
I've always found that phrase horribly condescending. Disagreement does not equal ignorance or stupidity.
-
I've always found that phrase horribly condescending. Disagreement does not equal ignorance or stupidity.
Amen, brother!
-
Another attack tonight in Nice most likely by Buddhist monks. We will never know their motives.
-
Hi Brad,
Thanks for the kind words.
The very same intelligence you saw elsewhere can only lead to questioning the official 9/11 story.
I am myself endlessly surprised to see many bright individuals refuse to look at facts in an objective fashion in this case. I don't know what happened on 9/11, but there are just too many incoherent elements to the official story for it to be fully accurate. Frankly, the only elements backing up the official story is that it's the official story.
Since when is thinking based on facts not a basic behavior of educated people?
Note that I didn't propose any conclusion, I just stated that an independant investigation would help clarify what truely happened. And I believe that there are millions of people in the US and elsewhere who share this hope. And I believe that Trump may use this in a few months.
And I am as surprised as you are that so few people even dare to discuss this here and elsewhere.
As far as the official stories being always true, aren't there compelling evidences that this isn't always the case? Did Snowden do what he did for nothing?
Cheers,
Bernard
Pretty much my thoughts. I've no idea what the truth is, only that it isn't what we are told.
-
Another attack tonight in Nice most likely by Buddhist monks. We will never know their motives.
Were the monks yelling "Allahu Akbar?" If so we'll probably never know their motive (according to the current US government).
-
For my overseas friends, who think we are going nuts :D
-
Now, who is "attacking the person instead of an issue"?
I spoke to some of them and read from a lot of them, none has anything against legal immigration or me being a citizen. This is the standard trick of the left, constantly deliberately confusing illegal immigration with immigration when bashing Trump. America is a country of immigrants, and as someone who lived, worked, or visited 30+ countries, I can assure you that Americans are the most accepting of immigrants. Legal ones, that is.
i did address the issue. And the very same people that you spoke to, would want the people that follow the faith of islam to go to another country. And the amount of countries that you have visited makes you an authprity. And I did not address immagration at all, i was bring up the point that trump followers are not fans of people who dress differently, people with forign accents, r follow a different faith.
But i did notice you have a history working in and supporting governments that have strong man leaders.
-
America is a country of immigrants, and as someone who lived, worked, or visited 30+ countries, I can assure you that Americans are the most accepting of immigrants. Legal ones, that is.
I tend to agree, although I'm not an American myself (my country did 'sell' New York to the Americans of yonder years), that immigration is one of the determining (success) factors of the USA as we know it today. However, I also do not underestimate the issues with the original Native Indian inhabitants, as I also do no deny the issues (obviously by today's standards, in hindsight, but nonetheless) of my home country's colonial history!
However, because of that, I am a bit (just a bit) surprised by the level of bigotry that still exists today (even after a relatively short period, on a cultural scale), although I do understand that populism feeds (and preys) on primitive sentiments (bringing out the worse / most primitive of 'underbelly' feelings). So Trump is very effective in mobilizing that, his tactics are effective.
Again however, what does it tell us. that a candidate for (no less) the office of President of the USA, needs to resort to such tactics. So far, he has not shown great insights or a clear analysis (which is bound to have some nuances in it somewhere, if he's honest) of the issues that face the USA, or the world for that matter (in its role as a world power, if at least for the benefit of the home nation).
From what I've seen and heard of him, he's not very strong in demonstrating that he even can understand or actually maneuver a path through the international minefield of diplomacy and consensus, getting fundamental support for his ideas (for the benefit of the nation's needs, not his own). It obviously also depends on the choice of members of cabinet, and the wiggle room they are given. So if solecism, or at best unilateralism (if he knows the difference), is his simplistic solution, he's a bad choice (no matter the support he can buy).
Whether Hillary Clinton is a better choice, and hence off-topic, is a completely different question. I tend to think she's more experienced though (less damage is also a benefit), if I were given the choice (which is not given to me, but to the American People). They'll get the president they deserve ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
... And the very same people that you spoke to, would want the people that follow the faith of islam to go to another country. And the amount of countries that you have visited makes you an authprity. ... i was bring up the point that trump followers are not fans of people who dress differently, people with forign accents, r follow a different faith.
But i did notice you have a history working in and supporting governments that have strong man leaders.
Once again, a bunch of straw-man arguments, imputed to Trump voters.
And the amount of countries I lived, worked, and visited makes me a bit better authority on the world events and its people than someone who never ventured outside of his county, let alone country.
My experience with socialism/communism is precisely the reason to not want to see it here, as it inevitably ends up in totalitarianism. And the last eight years was nothing but slow slide toward it. After all, the only brown shirts in action and organized violence were Bernie Jugend, now joined by BLM, not Trump supporters.
-
... he's not very strong in demonstrating that he even can understand or actually maneuver a path through the international minefield of diplomacy and consensus...
That might (or not) be true. However, it implies that the previous administrations were oh, so skilled in diplomacy and consensus... just look where the world is now, after all those glorious skills were so efficiently used. The last eight years of the "skilled" administration left the world in a terrible shape.
-
A country of 311 million people and this is the best we get for presidential candidates?ded that's never going to happen.
NFKidding
-
challenged you on your 9/11 nonsense.
Brad Smith
What "nonsense" precisely did he inject?
-
Pretty much my thoughts. I've no idea what the truth is, only that it isn't what we are told.
+1
The only story more preposterous than "They did it on purpose" is the one they tried to tell us was the truth.
-
For my overseas friends, who think we are going nuts :D
:) :) Well found, Slobodan.
-
That might (or not) be true. However, it implies that the previous administrations were oh, so skilled in diplomacy and consensus... just look where the world is now, after all those glorious skills were so efficiently used. The last eight years of the "skilled" administration left the world in a terrible shape.
who created the problem for this administration? hmmmm. that would be the gop.
look around the world, obama is more highly looked upon than bush, cheney and trump!
next time instead of using a stupid meme try using facts
-
Operation Northwoods (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662)
Here you are proposing an explanation about what may have happened on 9/11, which I am NOT attempting to do. How would I know?
But if you want to go there, there are legitimate historical precedents of people in power deciding to sacrifice some of their own people for what they think is the greater good. And it may have made sense from an ethical standpoint if the definition of the greater good is the right one in terms of being shared with a large majority of an educated population and aligned with a reasonnable common ground of humanitarian values.
When you think of it, it is exactly the dilemma of the president deciding to shoot down a hijacked plane with 300 people on board instead of letting it crash on a city and risking to kill 10,000 people. In this case the probability that 10,000 people would actually die is very high and most citizens would agree that there is no other choices. It would probably be an ethical decision according to the classical definition of the term that assesses causality, knowledge and choice. You know you decision will cause the death of 300 people, but you don't have any other choice. So in this case, killing 300 people purposedely is the the right decision to take. Not a story I would tell my kids obviously, but this is the world we live in and grown up sometimes have to make tough decisions, at least some people who put themselves in mission critical jobs such as presidents of large countries. There are many examples at smaller scale and letting a trekking companion die to save the rest of the group may be easier to relate to and is the exact same story. As the series 24 has gotten us accustomed to, sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do.
Anyway, this is ground for interesting debate, but this debate isn't let to happen because of what has become the sacred nature of 9/11, starting with my point which is figuring out what really happened on that day. Why would an independent investigation be an issue if the official story is a faithful description of what truly happened?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And the amount of countries I lived, worked, and visited makes me a bit better authority on the world events and its people than someone who never ventured outside of his county, let alone country.
Agreed. GWB, before he took office, never held a passport. Look where that got us. Trump, while apparently in possession of a passport, seems lacking in skills other than knowing where to put his carry-on luggage.
Blaming Obama for not being 100% effective in cleaning up the incredible mess left behind by GWB seems a little off the mark for me. The fact that America recovered at all after that insult is testimony to the skills, tenacity and resilience of both Obama and Americans.
-
was there a report saying what happened?
-
That might (or not) be true.
Indeed.
However, it implies that the previous administrations were oh, so skilled in diplomacy and consensus...
Not really, it doesn't imply that. However, does it promise any improvement (looking forward, towards improvement, if any) ??? Honestly?
And did the (John Boehner (R)) policies to oppose any (even if sensible) proposal by the (current) administration have anything to do with the lack of success of the (current) administration ?????? Or for responsible leadership, to name a not unimportant task for a 'publicly elected' functionary of the opposition?
Inquiring minds want to know ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed.
Not really, it doesn't imply that. However, does it promise any improvement (looking forward, towards improvement, if any) ??? Honestly?
And did the (John Boehner (R)) policies to oppose any (even if sensible) proposal by the (current) administration have anything to do with the lack of success of the (current) administration ?????? Or for responsible leadership, to name a not unimportant task for a 'publicly elected' functionary of the opposition?
Inquiring minds want to know ...
Cheers,
Bart
Do you know how this government works?
-
Bart, this administration had two years of absolute majority.
-
Do you know how this government works?
Wow, the whole post, albeit short, without a typo!? ;)
-
Bart, this administration had two years of absolute majority.
After this I am just going to ignore you. Yoo and your comments are worthless.
-
they did not have a super majority do you actually have a real fact in your head? You have been wrong bout just about everything, can you actually ewalk and talk at the same time?
There you go... shutupdave, Mr. no-ad hominem.
-
Do you know how this government works?
Hi,
I'm afraid that I might do understand a bit (not much different from other governments, but at a larger scale and somewhat different motivations, and with more global impact), which makes it even more scary.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There you go... shutupdave, Mr. no-ad hominem.
you make comments that are false and then you get upset, when i call you out on it. You make a comment about me and not adressing the subject at hand. And you accuse me of an ad hom?
there is nothing when i point out your mistakes and my opinion of you. An ad hom fallacy is improper, like trump going after someone's personal looks or where their family is from.
So far, you make nothing but grand assertions, but when it comes to actual facts, you bring an empty sack.
I can count about theree logical fallacies in your statements.
-
Hi,
I'm afraid that I might do understand a bit (not much different from other governments, but at a larger scale and somewhat different motivations, and with more global impact), which makes it even more scary.
Cheers,
Bart
So for our current president to create a policy that will take money, a jobs bill that will take money or any other action. How can his policies be an sucess or failure if they can't be put into place if congress does not pass the bills. Even ones they supported before he came into office.
the gop planned on not allowing him to pass anything he wanted to do
On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.
“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.
Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.
After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning.
Also on 9/11, you are saying the report was wrong, what form of education do you have to challenge that report
-
you makke comments that are false and then you get upset, when i call you out on it. You make a comment about me and not adressing the subject at hand. And you accuse me of an ad hom?
there is nothing when i point out your mistakes and my opinion of you. An ad hom fallacy is improper, like trump going after someone personal looks or where their family is from.
So far, you make nothing but grand assertions, but when it comes to actual facts, you bring an empty sack.
I can count about theree logical fallacies in your statements.
Judging by your writing skills, you sound more and more like a Trump supporter (at least by your own characterization of them) ;)
-
So for our current president to create a policy that will take money, a jobs bill that will take money or any other action. How can his policies be an sucess or failure if they can't be put into place if congress does not pass the bills. Even ones they supported before he came into office.
Which is part of my point, how could he?
the gop planned on not allowing him to pass anything he wanted to do
So much is obvious ...
On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.
I wasn't present , so I wouldn't know from personal experience. However, it would seem like a good storyline for "House of Cards", season 3 (or 4?).
“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.
Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.
After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning.
Again, I wasn't present, but the disruptive tactics seem to be understood, internationally at least ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Did you look up 'ground effect'?
Yes. I don't get the connection. On all flights I've been on over the last years, the landing approach speed has bee around 180 to 210 mph. So?
-
Here you are proposing an explanation about what may have happened on 9/11, which I am NOT attempting to do. How would I know?
But if you want to go there, there are legitimate historical precedents of people in power deciding to sacrifice some of their own people for what they think is the greater good. And it may have made sense from an ethical standpoint if the definition of the greater good is the right one in terms of being shared with a large majority of an educated population and aligned with a reasonnable common ground of humanitarian values.
When you think of it, it is exactly the dilemma of the president deciding to shoot down a hijacked plane with 300 people on board instead of letting it crash on a city and risking to kill 10,000 people. In this case the probability that 10,000 people would actually die is very high and most citizens would agree that there no other choices. It would probably be an ethical decision according to the classical definition of the term that assesses causality, knowledge and choice. You know you decision will cause the death of 300 people, but you don't have any other choice. So in this case, killing 300 people purposedely is the the right decision to take. Not a story I would tell my kids obviously, but this is the world we live in and grown up sometimes have to make tough decisions, at least some people who put themselves in mission critical jobs such as presidents of large countries. There are many examples at smaller scale and letting a trekking companion die to save the rest of the group may be easier to relate to and is the exact same story. As the series 24 has gotten us accustomed to, sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do.
Anyway, this is ground for interesting debate, but this debate isn't let to happen because of what has become the sacred nature of 9/11, starting with my point which is figuring out what really happened on that day. Why would an independent investigation be an issue if the official story is a faithful description of what truly happened?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I agree that there are always unanswered questions about events like these, and the attacks on the US on this occasion are no different, especially the involvement of Saudi Arabia. All I am saying is that contrary the conspiracy buffs, the Pentagon was certainly not hit by a missile, and the Twin Towers were certainly not brought down by demolition charges.
Let me look briefly at the latter.
There is no such thing as a silent explosive that gives off no light. When the 11 story Radio House building was brought down in Christchurch after it had been damaged in the earthquake, the entire building lit up and you could hear the bang from the other side of the city. See my photos below.
The world's press had their cameras and microphones running on that day and none recorded a flash and a bang. Remember an analysis of a news recording from on the ground had enough detail in the soundtrack to calculate the rate of fall of the core of the building.
The only person I have been able to find who claimed to have heard a bang was a police officer, who also claims that hundreds of people in the US are kidnapped each year by witch's covens. I'll go with the sound analysis I think.
The thing I find hard to understand is that there are people who use the deaths of innocent people to push their own weird agendas. After the Twin Towers attack I looked up the discussions by the main conspiracy theory authors on the websites where they hung out. They were foul mouthed ratbags as far as I could make out. I have no idea what their motivation is and was.
There are more pressing issues to put our energy into.
David
-
is right even for them to do this?
is it right for them to stop support of a bill that they once supported just because they do not like the president. And knowing that not supporting this bill can and would hurt people on their own congressional districts or states.
The GOP blocked job bills to help disabled vets that they help create, is that right?
Today the 2016 GOP convention came out
here are some of the crazy points they want to implement
declare coal as a clean energy source - even though just about every person in climate sciences has declared coal as one of the dirtiest sources of fuel
declare porn as a public health crisis - the watching of porn is actually a right given under the 1st amendment and they can't regulate that
they ask for law makers to use the bible as a source to create laws that follows god's laws. another violation of the constitution. They are trying to create a theocracy
they want the bible to be taught in school, another violation. it can be taught in a comparative religous course but other religions mus the given the same amount of study
remove the rights of gays to marry
every four years the GOP is moving more and more to the right. And only the fringe right wingers are supporting this
-
Bernard, I agree that there are always unanswered questions about events like these, and the attacks on the US on this occasion are no different, especially the involvement of Saudi Arabia. All I am saying is that contrary the conspiracy buffs, the Pentagon was certainly not hit by a missile, and the Twin Towers were certainly not brought down by demolition charges.
Hi David,
Ideally, this would have to be analyzed in details by experts belong to an independent committee sponsored by the UN for instance. The problem is that most people who don't want to be seen as "conspiracy theorists" look at the problem with a pre-defined interpretation of what happened shaped by the official story instead of looking at available facts. Science doesn't start with a model to which you try to match facts, it builds the most likely model from the facts at hand.
As far as the pentagon goes I don't know if a missile did it, but there is ample evidence that not a single experience pilot would have been able to fly a plane according to the flight path that is proposed by the official conspiracy theory. Let alone a beginner. Not to mention the fact that, at the speed at which it is reported to have hit (800+ kph which is way beyond the possible speed of this plane at low altitude), ground effect would make it simply impossible to fly that low. Not the mention the lack of debris,...
Let me look briefly at the latter.
There is no such thing as a silent explosive that gives off no light. When the 11 story Radio House building was brought down in Christchurch after it had been damaged in the earthquake, the entire building lit up and you could hear the bang from the other side of the city. See my photos below.
The world's press had their cameras and microphones running on that day and none recorded a flash and a bang. Remember an analysis of a news recording from on the ground had enough detail in the soundtrack to calculate the rate of fall of the core of the building.
The only person I have been able to find who claimed to have heard a bang was a police officer, who also claims that hundreds of people in the US are kidnapped each year by witch's covens. I'll go with the sound analysis I think.
I am not an expert in demolition, but I understand that there are several techniques that could be used to bring down buildings. At least in the case of the 3rd tower, there are many documented reports of explosions.
There guys seem to have serious doubts also: http://www.ae911truth.org/
There are more pressing issues to put our energy into.
Really? When you consider that the whole world in the following years was defined by the aftermath of 9/11, I am not sure to consider this as non pressing issue. The 80 people who died tonight in Nice would not have died if the Islamic State hadn't grown in influence, which would not have happened if the war in Irak hadn't taken place, which wouldn't have happened if the 9/11 hadn't happened.
So for the families of these 80 tragic casualities, 9/11 did indirectly, but beyond any possible doubt, impact their lives for ever... today.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The worst thing that can happen to a web forum and informational site that shares professional information in a collegial manner is to have a sub forum that allows the discussion of politics.
-
The worst thing that can happen to a web forum and informational site that shares professional information in a collegial manner is to have a sub forum that allows the discussion of politics.
I think I understand why you would say that, but I happen to disagree.
To me there is value in conversing with people you "virtually" know already and that you know are creative people you can respect.
Our views are part of who we are and as long as they are honnest what's wrong with discussing them?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As far as the pentagon goes I don't know if a missile did it, but there is ample evidence that not a single experience pilot would have been able to fly a plane according to the flight path that is proposed by the official conspiracy theory. Let alone a beginner. Not to mention the fact that, at the speed at which it is reported to have hit (800+ kph which is way beyond the possible speed of this plane at low altitude), ground effect would make it simply impossible to fly that low.
Hi Bernard.
Yes, I've seen that argument.
Here's my take on it FWIW:
I think it's style was made famous by the Inquisition in 1615 when it said that Galileo's observed facts were subordinate to biblical theory.
Right from the beginning there were credible witnesses who stood up to say they saw the plane. I'll go with that. Therefore there are errors in the theory.
Not the mention the lack of debris, lack of video footage,...
A massive amount of debris was found. I did a quick search and the first two entries were:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/
I am not an expert in demolition, but I understand that there are several techniques that could be used to bring down buildings.
There are several reliable methods to bring down buildings. All produce sound and light. For example, I've seen a container of thermite ignited. It doesn't go bang but produces an almighty "woomph" burning through the container walls and producing an amazing amount of light. You can't disguise that.
I agree the aftermath has been nasty for most of us, and I don't know what can be done about that. One issue I was thinking of when I said there are more important things, is the seeming determination of the current US administration to start a nuclear war with Russia. There is nowhere to hide from that one. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, and I think we are approaching that level of risk. At that time the USSR blinked, but the missiles were not on their own border. Hope I'm wrong about this.
Cheers,
David
-
Hi Bernard.
Yes, I've seen that argument.
Here's my take on it FWIW:
I think it's style was made famous by the Inquisition in 1615 when it said that Galileo's observed facts were subordinate to biblical theory.
Right from the beginning there were credible witnesses who stood up to say they saw the plane. I'll go with that. Therefore there are errors in the theory.
A massive amount of debris was found. I did a quick search and the first two entries were:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/
There are several reliable methods to bring down buildings. All produce sound and light. For example, I've seen a container of thermite ignited. It doesn't go bang but produces an almighty "woomph" burning through the container walls and producing an amazing amount of light. You can't disguise that.
I agree the aftermath has been nasty for most of us, and I don't know what can be done about that. One issue I was thinking of when I said there are more important things, is the seeming determination of the current US administration to start a nuclear war with Russia. There is nowhere to hide from that one. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, and I think we are approaching that level of risk. At that time the USSR blinked, but the missiles were not on their own border. Hope I'm wrong about this.
Cheers,
David
Billions upon billions of people have seen the sun rise in the east and set in the west, it therefore follows that the sun revolves around the earth. Are you going with that as well?
As for the wreckage then there are just as many sites pointing out that there was none and that the fire chief changed his story about it being inside the building and so on. We are also expected to believe that the wings folded up and followed the soft nose fuselage through an 18 foot wide hole despite the fact that two great spinning lumps of hardened metal, the engines, would have needed to overcome huge gyroscopic forces for that to happen.
We could argue all day about this and the only thing that will be proven is who believes in reality and who still thinks Santa brings the pressies.
-
Billions upon billions of people have seen the sun rise in the east and set in the west, it therefore follows that the sun revolves around the earth. Are you going with that as well?
That's a weird argument, no?
As for the wreckage then there are just as many sites pointing out that there was none and that the fire chief changed his story about it being inside the building and so on.
Never read about the fire chief. Just looked all the the photos.
We are also expected to believe that the wings folded up and followed the soft nose fuselage through an 18 foot wide hole
I think this may be fantasy. From memory, the front of the building collapsed after 20 minutes, and so we are relying on simulations to work out the size of the hole. The estimate is 75ft. Do you have a link to a photo taken before the collapse?
Edit: It must be getting late if I'm discussing minutiae. Hundreds of people saw the plane. No-one saw a missile. QED
-
A few years ago Donald Trump - referred to as trumpet gub in Scotland - invested in real estate and golf courses in Scotland. At first he was welcomed especially by Alec Salmond of the SNP. However he quickly became known as a bully. In Aberdeenshire, where he has a golf course, he tried to bully residents off their land in order he could expand his golf course and mostly failed. He told the SNP government to demolish wind farms at sea on the horizon because they spoiled the view from his golf course. His recent tax returns highlights that all of his enterprises are heavily in debt. Most Scots find him contemptible and he is a figure of ridicule.
-
How many of the members on the site who are US republicans are willing to reveal that they will vote for him? It would be interesting.
-
Also, I must admit that I'm really disappointed in the LR audience because with 56 replies at this point, only Alan Weiss and Dave Sutton have challenged you on your 9/11 nonsense.
Brad Smith
Perhaps many people just chose not to respond to that person's opinion. Not everything has to be discussed and non-discussion does not mean acceptance, agreement, or even acknowledgement.
-
That's a weird argument, no?
Never read about the fire chief. Just looked all the the photos.
I think this may be fantasy. From memory, the front of the building collapsed after 20 minutes, and so we are relying on simulations to work out the size of the hole. The estimate is 75ft. Do you have a link to a photo taken before the collapse?
Edit: It must be getting late if I'm discussing minutiae. Hundreds of people saw the plane. No-one saw a missile. QED
Here we go, something else to believe in because thousands of people claim to have seen it -
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/crowds-still-flock-to-moving-statue-site-at-ballinspittle-three-decades-on-343777.html
-
Here we go, something else to believe in because thousands of people claim to have seen it -
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/crowds-still-flock-to-moving-statue-site-at-ballinspittle-three-decades-on-343777.html
Well it is only by the word of a few dozen astronauts that we know for sure the Earth is round and that there is indeed a vacuum outside the atmosphere. Is there really doubt that people 'imagined' a plane flying into the Pentagon? I certainly suspect the motives behind the US and UK governments use of the events of 9/11 to justify going to war, but cannot believe they orchestrated the attacks......
Or am i just gullible?
Jim
-
Well it is only by the word of a few dozen astronauts that we know for sure the Earth is round and that there is indeed a vacuum outside the atmosphere. Is there really doubt that people 'imagined' a plane flying into the Pentagon? I certainly suspect the motives behind the US and UK governments use of the events of 9/11 to justify going to war, but cannot believe they orchestrated the attacks......
Or am i just gullible?
Jim
I really have no idea what the truth is and to try and guess at it just brings misguided ridicule from the ultra conformists. However, the psychology behind witness accounts is not as straightforward as we would be led to believe, it's been shown that should there be a shock happening and you then quickly tell people what they saw they will come to believe that is indeed what happened. A quick google brought this up -
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
-
Correct, Justin. Your quoted example is also known as "anchoring," i.e., using a specific word or number in a question to "anchor" the answer around it.
-
How many of the members on the site who are US republicans are willing to reveal that they will vote for him? It would be interesting.
Why would that be interesting?
-
Why would that be interesting?
Because he is divisive and some prominent republicans have even said they would rather vote for Hillary. Although I suspect it's like when Bill O'reilly says he would move to Canada if Obama got reelected. He didn't and Canada doesn't want him anyway.
-
Because he is divisive and some prominent republicans have even said they would rather vote for Hillary. Although I suspect it's like when Bill O'reilly says he would move to Canada if Obama got reelected. He didn't and Canada doesn't want him anyway.
l think you are confused, O'Rielly satyrically commented he would move to Ireland if Bernie Sanders was ellected president.
And anyone thinking that the Twin Towers were brought down by demolition rather than the impact of airplanes is a FOOL!
-
l think you are confused, O'Rielly satyrically commented he would move to Ireland if Bernie Sanders was ellected president.
And anyone thinking that the Twin Towers were brought down by demolition rather than the impact of airplanes is a FOOL!
Right, I forget who said Canada but it was one of those loudmouth pundits. I try not to pay too much attention to them.
But I do think it's funny when something looks like too much Socialism to someone and they declare they will leave the USA for some country with a lot more Socialistic tendencies.
-
Because he is divisive...
I think you missed the point of my question, Matt, which was: "Why would it be interesting who on this board will vote for him?"
-
I think you missed the point of my question, Matt, which was: "Why would it be interesting who on this board will vote for him?"
Oops, I did. I went broader with Republican party members. This board surely contains a subset of that but you are right, it's not really that interesting.
-
Hi Bernard.
Yes, I've seen that argument.
Here's my take on it FWIW:
I think it's style was made famous by the Inquisition in 1615 when it said that Galileo's observed facts were subordinate to biblical theory.
Right from the beginning there were credible witnesses who stood up to say they saw the plane. I'll go with that. Therefore there are errors in the theory.
Absolutely, credible witnesses should definitely be given credit.
I agree the aftermath has been nasty for most of us, and I don't know what can be done about that. One issue I was thinking of when I said there are more important things, is the seeming determination of the current US administration to start a nuclear war with Russia. There is nowhere to hide from that one. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, and I think we are approaching that level of risk. At that time the USSR blinked, but the missiles were not on their own border. Hope I'm wrong about this.
I hope you are wrong as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"What would it take for Trump to win?"
Speaking as an outside observer and therefore not `invested' in any candidate or party:
A willingness for US voters to forego critical thought perhaps? Possibly in conjunction with an episode of national psychosis and/or a complete and collective suspension of disbelief.
Trump addresses some legitimate concerns from the white middle class about loss of good manufacturing jobs, but to vote for him based on this would be the height of stupidity. The best analogy I can come up with: if your car is not running properly, then set your garage on fire. We all know that he is a vile racist, misogynist, and xenophobe, but it's important to realize the astounding depth of his stupidity. How many failed businesses has he run? How many businesses has he driven into bankruptcy (sometimes to his own personal gain)? Smart? Does not seem so. And his ignorance - he proposed invading Iceland, beloved of we photographers, because it was harboring ISIS (speech before the SC primary). Who with the wits of a gerbil would want this man as president?
-
Assuming you are not joking, I am really sorry for your loss. I'd expect you more than anybody else to want to understand what happened that day.
But I fail to see how the tragic disappearance of the people who were on the plane supposed to have crashed on the Pengaton tell us that the plane actually crashed there.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Are you serious? This is an honest question.
Rand
-
"I am not an expert in demolition, but I understand that there are several techniques that could be used to bring down buildings. At least in the case of the 3rd tower, there are many documented reports of explosions.
There guys seem to have serious doubts also: http://www.ae911truth.org/ "
.....................................
Well, Bernard, one could say the plot thickens by the day.
Whether 'explosion' sounds were due to explosives or simply to physical failures of materials isn't shown; in either case, if there were explosives involved, then by whom were they placed? Would internal Tower Security people not have been able to see them being planted, either by terrorists or by the darker arm of government? Were they planned as early as during the actual construction, wouldn't the builders have twigged what was going down?
Perhaps witnesses simply do not know what they hear, which in that context, wouldn't be at all surprising. As stun grenades are used to gain access to building in the hope of disorientating armed thugs, the effect on the public must be fairly similar when present in the scale that the Towers represented. I was in one car crash - I hope the last - many years ago, in in my mind it was all in very slo-mo; the reality? Who the hell knows, least of all myself!
Rob
-
I really have no idea what the truth is and to try and guess at it just brings misguided ridicule from the ultra conformists. However, the psychology behind witness accounts is not as straightforward as we would be led to believe, it's been shown that should there be a shock happening and you then quickly tell people what they saw they will come to believe that is indeed what happened. A quick google brought this up -
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
I've not seen that example but I am aware of the principle. However to me the shocking unexpectedness of the events concerning the hijackers does still seem more likely to me than the alternatives. But then i'm always a sceptic when it comes to conspiracy theories.
Jim
-
Are you serious? This is an honest question.
Rand,
That's a difficult question to answer in the time available today.
In short, it seems pretty certain that if a plane indeed crashed on the Pentagon that day, it couldn't have been flown at the reported speed/course by a beginner since many expert pilots who dared to speak claim that even them couldn't have done it. So this tells us that the official story is not very credible. Btw, in case you haven't bothered to check, as far as I could find out, there is no other known report of a 757 flying at that speed so close to the ground. It is far outside its flying envelope.
I guess that you are a believer in the official conspiracy theory? Out of curiosity, how do you explain these elements?
- Do you think they are inexact?
- Do you think that they are exact but irrelevant since we know what happened?
Anyway, back to your original question, even if we consider reasonnable that the proposed perpetrators weren't in command of this 757 this leaves many possible options, some of them with the reported victims on board that plane, some with them somewhere else.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Rand,
That's a difficult question to answer in the time available today.
In short, it seems pretty certain that if a plane indeed crashed on the Pentagon that day, it couldn't have been flown at the reported speed/course by a beginner since many expert pilots who dared to speak claim that even them couldn't have done it. So this tells us that the official story is not very credible. Btw, in case you haven't bothered to check, as far as I could find out, there is no other known report of a 757 flying at that speed so close to the ground. It is far outside its flying envelope.
I guess that you are a believer in the official conspiracy theory? Out of curiosity, how do you explain these elements?
- Do you think they are inexact?
- Do you think that they are exact but irrelevant since we know what happened?
Anyway, back to your original question, even if we consider reasonnable that the proposed perpetrators weren't in command of this 757 this leaves many possible options, some of them with the reported victims on board that plane, some with them somewhere else.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard - I'm not an aviator, but it doesn't surprise me that many pilots have claimed they would not/could not have flown the plane so low at such speed. I would imagine that even the test pilots for that type did not try such a procedure. That is because it would probably be suicide to try - which of course is precisely why the hijackers were prepared to attempt, and succeed.
Jim
-
"I am not an expert in demolition, but I understand that there are several techniques that could be used to bring down buildings. At least in the case of the 3rd tower, there are many documented reports of explosions.
There guys seem to have serious doubts also: http://www.ae911truth.org/ "
.....................................
Well, Bernard, one could say the plot thickens by the day.
Whether 'explosion' sounds were due to explosives or simply to physical failures of materials isn't shown; in either case, if there were explosives involved, then by whom were they placed? Would internal Tower Security people not have been able to see them being planted, either by terrorists or by the darker arm of government? Were they planned as early as during the actual construction, wouldn't the builders have twigged what was going down?
Perhaps witnesses simply do not know what they hear, which in that context, wouldn't be at all surprising. As stun grenades are used to gain access to building in the hope of disorientating armed thugs, the effect on the public must be fairly similar when present in the scale that the Towers represented. I was in one car crash - I hope the last - many years ago, in in my mind it was all in very slo-mo; the reality? Who the hell knows, least of all myself!
Rob
The rumours are that the explosives were laid a week or so before when the building was closed down for 'maintenance ' of some sort. The fact that these are the only know instances of high rise buildings collapsing due to the effects of fire is also of interest to those who doubt the official account. If you would like to know why there are so many questions still being asked about the event the following book is a good place to start -
https://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529
It was written by an academic rather than a web jockey and asks many questions that have yet to be fully answered.
-
The fact that these are the only know instances of high rise buildings collapsing due to the effects of fire is also of interest to those who doubt the official account.
The heat created by fire does bring down buildings by warping the steel that holds them up once it hits around 1000 degrees F. The fires in the WTC were particular hot due to the aviation fuel that burned. The planes themselves damaged a few of the floors just from the crashing. Building codes require that all steel members in high rise building like the WTC are sprayed with fireproofing materials to stop or at least delay the effect of heat. There were a lot of issues with the fireproofing materials applied to the WTC that may have contributed to their collapse. Also, the fireproofing probably was damaged on the floors where the planes hit and most of the fire occurred. So the steel was vulnerable at that point.
Also, there was also the basic design of outside steel holding up the building that contributed to the their collapse, a design not used in most office buildings and which was not repeated in the new WTC. Most buildings have interior vertical columns and horizontal beams forming a horizontal and vertical grid; the WTC did not. The WTC was built like an airplane on its nose. The plane has no interior supports. Same with the original WTC. The skin acts as the full vertical support with the attached floors acting to stabilize the structure and outside shell. Once the plane damaged floors started to collapse, it continued to collapse each subsequent floor beneath cascading through the building shell bringing down the entire tower.
-
Just to clarify a point I made. Fireproofing materials are require on all steel members regardless of the height of a building. It's not limited to high rise buildings as I indicated in my last post. As a construction manager in NYC, I was always involved with inspections of the fireproofing installation. Today the materials are far superior than those used when the WTC was built. There are also very involved inspection requirements by licensed firms and inspectors to assure the proper application, inspections that were probably limited back when the WTC was built. Fireproofing was a new requirement then.
-
Rand,
That's a difficult question to answer in the time available today.
In short, it seems pretty certain that if a plane indeed crashed on the Pentagon that day, it couldn't have been flown at the reported speed/course by a beginner since many expert pilots who dared to speak claim that even them couldn't have done it. So this tells us that the official story is not very credible. Btw, in case you haven't bothered to check, as far as I could find out, there is no other known report of a 757 flying at that speed so close to the ground. It is far outside its flying envelope.
I guess that you are a believer in the official conspiracy theory? Out of curiosity, how do you explain these elements?
- Do you think they are inexact?
- Do you think that they are exact but irrelevant since we know what happened?
Anyway, back to your original question, even if we consider reasonnable that the proposed perpetrators weren't in command of this 757 this leaves many possible options, some of them with the reported victims on board that plane, some with them somewhere else.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm 86, so I've read some asinine stuff in my life, but this idea probably takes the cake. I'm also an experienced pilot. It's easy to fly low and slow. Since I was a fighter-bomber pilot I did it many, many times. Tell me about this "flying envelope." As long as you're a bit above stall speed you can fly as low as you want to as long as you don't hit anything -- like the Pentagon. You folks need to do a bit of research before you spout off about stuff you know nothing about and make yourselves as silly-looking as you are in this thread.
-
The heat created by fire does bring down buildings by warping the steel that holds them up once it hits around 1000 degrees F. The fires in the WTC were particular hot due to the aviation fuel that burned. The planes themselves damaged a few of the floors just from the crashing. Building codes require that all steel members in high rise building like the WTC are sprayed with fireproofing materials to stop or at least delay the effect of heat. There were a lot of issues with the fireproofing materials applied to the WTC that may have contributed to their collapse. Also, the fireproofing probably was damaged on the floors where the planes hit and most of the fire occurred. So the steel was vulnerable at that point.
Also, there was also the basic design of outside steel holding up the building that contributed to the their collapse, a design not used in most office buildings and which was not repeated in the new WTC. Most buildings have interior vertical columns and horizontal beams forming a horizontal and vertical grid; the WTC did not. The WTC was built like an airplane on its nose. The plane has no interior supports. Same with the original WTC. The skin acts as the full vertical support with the attached floors acting to stabilize the structure and outside shell. Once the plane damaged floors started to collapse, it continued to collapse each subsequent floor beneath cascading through the building shell bringing down the entire tower.
Alan, I think it best that I restrain from further involvement with arguments over 9/11 as they tend to go on endlessly and there is probably little I have not come across before. However, I will say that if they were to fall due to the planes crashing into them then they would have done so a lot earlier.
I have recommended a book in another post which outlines the the serious questions hanging over the official account in far more detail than can be done here - https://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529
-
I'm 86, so I've read some asinine stuff in my life, but this idea probably takes the cake. I'm also an experienced pilot. It's easy to fly low and slow. Since I was a fighter-bomber pilot I did it many, many times. Tell me about this "flying envelope." As long as you're a bit above stall speed you can fly as low as you want to as long as you don't hit anything -- like the Pentagon. You folks need to do a bit of research before you spout off about stuff you know nothing about and make yourselves as silly-looking as you are in this thread.
I'm quite sure you are right Russ. However just to point out that Bernard's assertion in Post 100 was that the plane was flying in excess of 800 kph at the time of impact. Which is why I noted that probably they don't test airliners at that speed below tree-top height!
Jim
-
The terrorists weren't testing the planes. They intended to crash them at the base of the Pentagon, something easily done.
-
Hi,
Thanks…
The nearest I have been a cockpit is row one in the passenger cabin on way from Salt Lake City to Fanning Field. But that doesn't mean I am not interested in flight…
I am always a bit skeptical about conspiracy theories, common sense says that the most probable explanations should be tested first.
Quite a few years ago a ferry went under here in Sweden on the Baltic Sea. Experts quickly found out that the cause of the sinking was failure of the bow port and flooding of the car deck. Perfectly good explanations consistent with the facts.
But soon enough there were a lot of conspiracy theories involving KGB, Swedish Military and also probably some three letter organisation from the US and the Dark Side.
Quite possible but not very probable…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia#Official_investigation_and_report
Best regards
Erik
I'm 86, so I've read some asinine stuff in my life, but this idea probably takes the cake. I'm also an experienced pilot. It's easy to fly low and slow. Since I was a fighter-bomber pilot I did it many, many times. Tell me about this "flying envelope." As long as you're a bit above stall speed you can fly as low as you want to as long as you don't hit anything -- like the Pentagon. You folks need to do a bit of research before you spout off about stuff you know nothing about and make yourselves as silly-looking as you are in this thread.
-
The terrorists weren't testing the planes. They intended to crash them at the base of the Pentagon, something easily done.
Alan - you may not have read the posts I was referring to. Bernard stated that many pilots said it was not possible to fly such an aircraft at such a high speed/low altitude. I was pointing out that probably they were not tested in such circumstances, but that the hijackers were not constrained by safety issues as they were intending to destroy themselves and the plane anyway.
Jim
-
A quick google search indicates that the stall speed for s 757, is between 126 and 150 knots (a bit below 172MPH) - surely slow enough to allow a competent pilot to fly low without stalling ?
-
How about that interview last night (http://deadline.com/2016/07/donald-trump-mike-pence-60-minutes-interview-dominates-mornings-rnc-coverage-1201787902/)?
-
A quick google search indicates that the stall speed for s 757, is between 126 and 150 knots (a bit below 172MPH) - surely slow enough to allow a competent pilot to fly low without stalling ?
Things are different at ground level, the airflow around the wing changes dramatically providing extra lift.
-
... We all know that he is a vile racist, misogynist, and xenophobe..
Uh-oh... whenever the sentence starts with "we all know..." we all know it ain't so ;)
...Who with the wits of a gerbil would want this man as president?
Maybe those with gerbil wits wouldn't, but plenty of smart people would.
-
Uh-oh... whenever the sentence starts with "we all know..." we all know it ain't so ;)
He could just be faking it to appeal to his base.
-
A short film: https://vimeo.com/174697267 (https://vimeo.com/174697267)
-
I'm 86, so I've read some asinine stuff in my life, but this idea probably takes the cake. I'm also an experienced pilot. It's easy to fly low and slow. Since I was a fighter-bomber pilot I did it many, many times. Tell me about this "flying envelope." As long as you're a bit above stall speed you can fly as low as you want to as long as you don't hit anything -- like the Pentagon. You folks need to do a bit of research before you spout off about stuff you know nothing about and make yourselves as silly-looking as you are in this thread.
Hi Russ,
Are you telling me you had never read anything about these discussions prior this post? ;)
Out of curiosity, and based on your expertize, is the flying envelope of an airliner identical to that of a fighter bomber? Is flying low at high speed not a key design purpose of a fighter bomber and clearly not part of what airliners are designed to do?
It seems factual that the 757 was outside its flying envelope, but i agree that it doesn't mean it couldn't have flown at the reported speed/altitude. What it does probably means though is that this brings additional challenges to controling a plane in those conditions. Do you really think, as a former pilot, that a person having never flown an airliner and with zero overall flying experience, could have done this?
Anyway, as a former pilot you may be interested in these: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"I don't vote for Politicians, it only encourages them."
Mark Twain
-
I think it's going to take better speech writers.
But on the other hand it warms my heart to know that room was so receptive to Michelle's words.
-
I think it's going to take better speech writers.
But on the other hand it warms my heart to know that room was so receptive to Michelle's words.
Hi Matt,
I agree on both counts (compare (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbiGsDMmCM&feature=youtu.be)). But then, Michelle is a pretty hard act to follow, and while speech writers can help, she is a gifted speaker (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB1eGI8Gqcg) as well (the teleprompters seem to get little use).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I've just heard another speech by Melania Trump. Honestly, the racism she suffered when she was studying at Princeton ... appalling.
-
Maybe those with gerbil wits wouldn't, but plenty of smart people would.
I'm honestly having trouble with this. Trump has advanced very few actual realistic policy positions, and has actively advocated literal war crimes (deliberately targeting civilians/families of suspected terrorists) as solutions to the problem of terrorism. His appeal, so far as I can see, is almost solely to the base instincts of a scared/angry demographic. I understand why the emotional appeal resonates with a certain group of people, but for the life of me, I can't see a rational reason for voting for the guy.
-
... for the life of me, I can't see a rational reason for voting for the guy.
It takes a bit more than taking things literally to understand why.
-
Out of curiosity, and based on your expertize, is the flying envelope of an airliner identical to that of a fighter bomber?
Where did you read about a "flying envelope?" Sounds like Amazon delivering mail. Every airplane performs differently from every other airplane. What's that got to do with anything?
Is flying low at high speed not a key design purpose of a fighter bomber and clearly not part of what airliners are designed to do?
Absolutely not. Fighter-bombers drop bombs and fighter-bombers strafe, and fighter-bombers fire rockets. Airspeed varies in all these missions. Also, you frequently fly slowly for reconnaissance purposes.
It seems factual that the 757 was outside its flying envelope, but i agree that it doesn't mean it couldn't have flown at the reported speed/altitude. What it does probably means though is that this brings additional challenges to controling a plane in those conditions. Do you really think, as a former pilot, that a person having never flown an airliner and with zero overall flying experience, could have done this?
Here comes that Amazon mail drone again. It's no harder to fly an airplane at a relatively slow speed than it is to fly it at a high speed. It may be a little less stable but it still flies just fine. As far as your second question is concerned, evidently these guys had gone through some pilot training. If they'd flown airplanes before they probably could fly the airplane without a problem. The problems they'd have faced would be with takeoffs and landings and that wasn't part of their planned "flying envelope."
Anyway, as a former pilot you may be interested in these: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
Interesting. I don't know who these guys are, but it appears they've swallowed their conspiracy theory whole-hog. Let me sum it up for you, Bernard: The damned airplane crashed into the Pentagon. That's the bottom line. Everything else may be up in the air (oops), but the crash is all that matters? Maybe these guys think the pilots flew their own airplane into the Pentagon. I didn't bother to read the whole article. I've seen tons of this kind of bullshit already. Don't need to read any more. The bottom line is the airplane contacting the Pentagon. That's all that really matters.
-
I think it's going to take better speech writers...
Seems like a pen-wielding terrorist infiltrated Trump's speech writers group ;)
A funny anecdote from Melania's home country, Slovenia. Every year there was a design contest for a poster celebrating Tito's birthday. In one of the last years of his life, a poster designed in Slovenia won. After it was officially accepted, printed and distributed, the prankster design team revealed that they deliberately copied a Nazi-era German poster for similar events. Not long after, Slovenia was the first to secede from Yugoslavia.
-
. . .but for the life of me, I can't see a rational reason for voting for the guy.
Take a look at Hillary Clinton's record and her campaign. That's as rational a reason as anyone in his right mind needs. The future of the Supreme Court is another rational reason. There's one vacancy already and there's sure to be one or two more in the near future. Those replacements are going to define the court for a generation or two, and may determine the future viability of the U.S.
-
It takes a bit more than taking things literally to understand why.
So what you're telling me is that YOU can't see any rational reason for supporting him either? ;)
-
Take a look at Hillary Clinton's record and her campaign. That's as rational a reason as anyone in his right mind needs. The future of the Supreme Court is another rational reason. There's one vacancy already and there's sure to be one or two more in the near future. Those replacements are going to define the court for a generation or two, and may determine the future viability of the U.S.
No, Russ, "Hillary is worse" isn't a reason why Trump is qualified, capable, or reasonable. As for the USSC, I'm always surprised when conservatives act as if they are nobly standing guard over the laws and traditions this nation when, in fact, it is the conservative wing that has gone to incredible semantic lengths to defend a lack of equal protection under the law, not to mention our rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, the standard reply is that liberals are anti-second amendment, but since Heller found an individual right to bear arms, gun rights haven't rolled back at all, but equal protection and 5th amendment rights have been under almost constant attack by a 5-4 conservative majority (albeit with Kennedy sometimes serving as a rational centrist, and Roberts occasionally deferring to the legislative branch's assumed intent).
-
Hi James, You don't tell us which planet you're on but it obviously isn't Earth.
-
Hi James, You don't tell us which planet you're on but it obviously isn't Earth.
Quality response. Why don't you explain to me how the dissents/decisions written by Ginsberg/Kagan/Sotomayor/Breyer either would have or do "threaten the future viability of the US," because I can sure as hell point out decisions and opinions written by the conservative wing that are directly contrary to the Enlightenment foundations of the US Constitution.
Until you can do that, your contention that an HRC presidency would be cataclysmic to the future of the nation because of who she would appoint to the USSC can, I think, safety be construed as, if not paranoia, wholly lacking in logic (unless you're one of those people who are convinced that the Gay Agenda is coming for you, but I believe you are better than that.)
-
Take a look at Hillary Clinton's record and her campaign. That's as rational a reason as anyone in his right mind needs. The future of the Supreme Court is another rational reason. There's one vacancy already and there's sure to be one or two more in the near future. Those replacements are going to define the court for a generation or two, and may determine the future viability of the U.S.
I agree. This is a great list of reasons to vote for Hillary over Trump. Sold!
On a serious note the SCOTUS vacancies are probably the number one reason to keep Trump out of office.
-
Sorry James, I'm simply out of time. There's no way I could convince you that you're wrong. That's okay. I think the election is well under control at the moment. I suspect Ginsburg will be the next to go off the court. She ought to be off right now after her recent comments, but our system leaves it up to her. If we have a Republican congress and a Democrat court the congress may exercise their right under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to limit the court's jurisdiction on matters of policy. That would be a good thing.
-
Sorry James, I'm simply out of time. There's no way I could convince you that you're wrong. That's okay. I think the election is well under control at the moment. I suspect Ginsburg will be the next to go off the court. She ought to be off right now after her recent comments, but our system leaves it up to her. If we have a Republican congress and a Democrat court the congress may exercise their right under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to limit the court's jurisdiction on matters of policy. That would be a good thing.
Have a great day, then, Russ :) FWIW, I agree that Ginsburg's comments were unbecoming of her position and improper, though I'd argue that your mistaken in your assertion that there is a "republican" or "democrat" court.
-
... I agree that Ginsburg's comments were unbecoming of her position and improper...
I am torn on this one. On the one hand, the value of free speech is that we know where people stand. She had, and will continue to have, a negative opinion of Trump, whether that was public or not. I guess, in this case, I would rather know. On the other hand, it is pretty much the same as a waiter spitting in your soup in the kitchen or in front of you. I which case, I would rather not know ;)
-
I think it's going to take better speech writers...
For Obama, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc&feature=youtu.be
-
I am torn on this one. On the one hand, the value of free speech is that we know where people stand. She had, and will continue to have, a negative opinion of Trump, whether that was public or not. I guess, in this case, I would rather know. On the other hand, it is pretty much the same as a waiter spitting in your soup in the kitchen or in front of you. I which case, I would rather not know ;)
Except, in this case Slobodan we've always known where the lady stands. She just hasn't come out in full ugly mode until now. Looks to me as if she's going to have to recuse herself from some of the things bound to come up after this election.
-
For Obama, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc&feature=youtu.be
Yes, quite similar, but not a verbatim copy.
Maybe they had the same speechwriter who was hired by the Democratic party. At least they didn't use the speech from the opposing party ..., nor did he claim to have written most of himself.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...At least they didn't use the speech from the opposing party ...
Which only goes in Trump's favor, proving that he can unite the country, provide for bi-partisan support, work with the other side and "cross the aisle" ;) ;D
-
Which only goes in Trump's favor, proving that he can unite the country, provide for bi-partisan support, work with the other side and "cross the aisle" ;) ;D
;)
Who knows what will happen (maybe he'll borrow some more Democratic principles), although I do not believe in miracles when it comes to politics.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Then again, it serves as a basis for some good jokes:
-
Rand,
That's a difficult question to answer in the time available today.
In short, it seems pretty certain that if a plane indeed crashed on the Pentagon that day, it couldn't have been flown at the reported speed/course by a beginner since many expert pilots who dared to speak claim that even them couldn't have done it. So this tells us that the official story is not very credible. Btw, in case you haven't bothered to check, as far as I could find out, there is no other known report of a 757 flying at that speed so close to the ground. It is far outside its flying envelope.
I guess that you are a believer in the official conspiracy theory? Out of curiosity, how do you explain these elements?
- Do you think they are inexact?
- Do you think that they are exact but irrelevant since we know what happened?
Anyway, back to your original question, even if we consider reasonnable that the proposed perpetrators weren't in command of this 757 this leaves many possible options, some of them with the reported victims on board that plane, some with them somewhere else.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Thanks for the reply. Have you considered the amount of explosives that would have to have been secretly "installed" in the Pentagon to create that much damage? And then to make a 757 disappear, passengers and all in the right time frame to create the inference. Nobody in government is that smart, trust me on this, I worked in government. As to the pilots, air speed, etc., I think the example of the two planes that hit those two really skinny (relatively speaking, given the speed of the planes) Trade Towers is all the example you need re the ability of amateurs with a decent gps and coordinates to pull it off. And what was the point of the plane that went down w/o hitting anything? What was the target and why didn't it just blow up w/o a plane involved? Do you think the coordination was so good that they called off the last explosion of whatever the target was and removed all the explosives before anyone noticed? I seriously doubt it.
I don't know if your doubts extend to the Trade Towers themselves, but I can tell you this... I spent 30 years in the fire service in the greater Los Angeles area (think high rise buildings) and as I watched events unfold the morning of 9/11 I told my brother that the tops of both buildings were going to collapse AND that the one that was hit second in chronological order would go first. Why? Because the plane hit lower and the amount of building mass above the plane's destruction of the load bearing building elements was MUCH larger than the first building hit and would fail first.
I have a relative (who will remain unnamed) who was at the time highly placed in the anti-terrorism world in NYC (he was interviewed on CNN on 9/11). He had been predicting the use of commercial aircraft for quite a while before 9/11.
Rand
-
Back to Melania... the most important thing of that evening is that she wore a dress designed by a Serbian designer (Roksanda) ;)
-
Back to Melania... the most important thing of that evening is that she wore a dress designed by a Serbian designer (Roksanda) ;)
And she's not skinny; she filled it beautifully!
If she gets the dump from Trump, she can always model 'larger'. She'd better not write an autobiography - might turn out to be Cleopatra's.
Rob
-
Assuming you are not joking, I am really sorry for your loss. I'd expect you more than anybody else to want to understand what happened that day.
But I fail to see how the tragic disappearance of the people who were on the plane supposed to have crashed on the Pengaton tell us that the plane actually crashed there.
Cheers,
Bernard
I watched the plane that hit the Pentagon flying at top speed just a few hundred feet above my head and heard the explosion when it hit a few seconds after it dissapeared over the hill by the Navy Annex. In keeping with the request to be civil on this forum I will leave it at that. To the gentleman who lost his niece my condolences and admiration for your restraint.
-
Where did you read about a "flying envelope?" Sounds like Amazon delivering mail. Every airplane performs differently from every other airplane. What's that got to do with anything?
Except for the condescending tone, we agree. Every plane flies differently and the limits of what is supported by the manufacturer in terms of low/high speed at every altitude (as well as turn rates, G forces,...) is defined as flight envelope. This is a well known concept and I am surprised you don't seem familiar with it. Wikipedia seems to know about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_envelope
It appears that the 757 supposed to have hit the Pentagon was around 15% above its supported top speed at ground level (470 knot vs 400), although Boeing apparently never gave a clear answer to these enquiries.
I am not saying that it is impossible to fly a plane outside its flight envelope (in this case at higher speed), but controlling the plane in those conditions appears to be more challenging. Flying low at high speed (where the air is up to 3 times denser than at the typical 30,000+ feet where airliners normally evolve at high speed) introduces complex air flow patterns around subsonic airliner wings that render accurate manoeuvring more challenging (at least in theory because I have never found evidence of someone flying a 757 at this speed so close to the ground). This would be the case for all pilots, but experienced ones would probably be able to deal with this. The odds that a beginner manages to cope with that on top of a very challenging flight path are incredibly low.
To give you and others a concrete idea, at that speed you cover about 230 yards in one second. The slightest over/under pressure on the controls will make you overshoot or hit the ground (probably overshoot being more likely than hit the ground due to ground effect). By the way, if you bothered to read the information referred to after the link provided, you'd see that the data captured in the blackbox that was analysed reveals that the plane whose data was made available was indeed flying higher than the roof of the Pentagon at the moment of impact. ;) Not only is the hit unlikely based on common sense, but the official data seems to confirm that there was not hit due to an altitude mismatch... Or, if we assume that there is enough evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon (which I would agree with), the only possible logical conclusion is that the data provided isn't that of the plane that hit the Pentagon.
In my view, there is sufficient doubts and contradictory data to justify a re-opening of the case by an independent body of investigation. What would there be to lose? If all the incoherent facts are cleared up I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong.
Absolutely not. Fighter-bombers drop bombs and fighter-bombers strafe, and fighter-bombers fire rockets. Airspeed varies in all these missions. Also, you frequently fly slowly for reconnaissance purposes.
As you know better than I do, fighter bombers have been replaced by multi-role combat aircrafts, but one of the flights patterns important for those planes remains low altitude infiltration at high speed, currently enabled by terrain following radars. So again we agree, all planes flight differently, fighter planes are designed to have a wide flight envelope and to remain controllable in a wider area of circumstances, including flying low at high speed.
Commercial airliners are optimised for cost of operation, their flight envelope is finely tuned to perform very well in the single flight pattern they have to deal with 99.99% of the time during their life time (take off, fly mostly straight, land) and that does obviously not include flying low at high speed. I am not sure why you would want to dispute this?
As far as your second question is concerned, evidently these guys had gone through some pilot training. If they'd flown airplanes before they probably could fly the airplane without a problem. The problems they'd have faced would be with takeoffs and landings and that wasn't part of their planned "flying envelope."
That would have to be the case... except that there is zero evidence of that having happened. As you know, again better than I do, flight schools follow strict regulations, there would have been traces of another attempt if the supposed terrorist had had the opportunity to take additional flight lessons are proven to be an amazingly quick learner.
I agree that taking off and landing would be challenging steps for such a beginner, but hitting a small target at very high speed close to the ground following a complex flight pattern is just as, if not more, challenging.
Interesting. I don't know who these guys are, but it appears they've swallowed their conspiracy theory whole-hog. Let me sum it up for you, Bernard: The damned airplane crashed into the Pentagon. That's the bottom line. Everything else may be up in the air (oops), but the crash is all that matters? Maybe these guys think the pilots flew their own airplane into the Pentagon. I didn't bother to read the whole article. I've seen tons of this kind of bullshit already. Don't need to read any more. The bottom line is the airplane contacting the Pentagon. That's all that really matters.
Once again, the fact that the official story may not be true is so unacceptable for you that you don't seem to be willing to consider the facts being proposed.
So in short, you believe it happened because you are told it happened. As a smart, educated, experienced and free thinking person, why not consider facts instead and admit that some of them do not match the official story and would deserve to be looked into by some people without vested interest in reaching the conclusion that Muslim extremists did it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I watched the plane that hit the Pentagon flying at top speed just a few hundred feet above my head and heard the explosion when it hit a few seconds after it dissapeared over the hill by the Navy Annex. In keeping with the request to be civil on this forum I will leave it at that. To the gentleman who lost his niece my condolences and admiration for your restraint.
Thanks for joining the discussion, there is nothing like first hand witnesses. Being there at this very moment must have been a terrible experience.
If I may ask, and if it is not too much trouble remembering this tragic day, did you see the actual impact or was there some obstacle in the way between you and the Pentagon?
How far were you from the Pentagon and how long did elapse between you seeing the plane fly over you and you hearing the sound of impact?
Finally, how loud was the plane when it flew over you? Did you see it come or hear it come?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I watched the plane that hit the Pentagon flying at top speed just a few hundred feet above my head and heard the explosion when it hit a few seconds after it dissapeared over the hill by the Navy Annex. In keeping with the request to be civil on this forum I will leave it at that. To the gentleman who lost his niece my condolences and admiration for your restraint.
Ha, the Annie Hall moment on Lula -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY
-
If I may ask, and if it is not too much trouble remembering this tragic day, did you see the actual impact or was there some obstacle in the way between you and the Pentagon?
Bernard, you need to get some help. You are carrying this to the extreme. I told myself not to look at the Coffee Corner, but I did. Hopefully for the last time.
-
Bernard, you need to get some help. You are carrying this to the extreme. I told myself not to look at the Coffee Corner, but I did. Hopefully for the last time.
Hi David,
I think that I am doing fine, but thanks for your concern. ;)
Like many, I had decided to let it go and go with the flow, believe the cute story we were being told about these arab terrorist with super powers able to fly planes in incredibly challenging conditions without being training. Then people started to get killed in Europe as a result of IS actions and I realized that there was a need to go back to the root cause of the current mess (the war in Irak and events having led to it, starting with 9/11). Anyway you look at it, the official story doesn't fly in so many ways that it simply can't be the truth.
This just can't be given a pass any longer. It just takes objectivity to look at available elements and ask questions.
But I now realize that the subject is still a lot more taboo than I had assumed in the US. In foreign parts many people see it as pretty obvious that the official 9/11 story can't be the whole truth. Probably because it is easier to look at facts in a detached way when you are not directly concerned. Probably also because we were not served constantly with the whole "we are under attack" patriotic speech. Probably also because the consequences in terms of what it would mean wouldn't be as bad outside the US.
It is kind of ironic that trying to re-open this for the greater good ends up with me seen as the disturbed one, but I should have known better.
But fine, as the OP I will lock this thread and leave you in the comfort of your current beliefs. Apologies for having disturbed your summer gentlemen.
Cheers,
Bernard