Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin, etc

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby norton ash » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:34 am

Sheepdog here, but I'm old and don't give a damn and bothering Canada geese in the park is enough for me these days.

Good to see you, Bruce, and thanks for this chewy contribution.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby Harvey » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:02 am

Very chewy, but I agree with Kos.

Any successful theory should be required to address all the available evidence, but in general, the logic of Occams razor ought to be applied to 'before the event' rationale as well as post facto deduction. Which elements are strictly necessary/unnecessary* to make it happen in view of the known facts. In any case, the value of limiting a theory to necessary/unnecessary is that the short list of those with opportunity becomes usefully short.

I'll bet there are unknowing accomplices still out there among trained personnel (with strict chain of command, conditioned to accepting even the most awkward, odd or unusual orders as a matter of routine) who have in subsequent years begun to find their conscience troubles them.



*In other words, which elements are probably incidental and unnecessary, however provocatively coincidental or unlikely. Not all strange coincidences ought to be treated as part of the design of a successful conspiracy, although they may be indicative of something else. Also, not all related events are or should be attributable to one 'agency' or another, this is one of the most common misunderstandings about synchronicity I personally made, and ignores the more exotic though ultimately undeniable aspects of gestalt behaviour, group dynamics, non-conscious, or I suppose 'super-conscious' motivation etc.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby operator kos » Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: the phone calls, they were improbable but not impossible, and certainly become less and less improbable when you consider that everyone on the planes was probably repeatedly trying to make calls whenever they could get away with it. Electromagnetic radiation and the atmosphere can interact in strange and unpredictable ways. A simple ham radio can be used to communicate past the curvature of the planet under the right conditions (a ham radio doesn't work the same way a cell phone does, but you get what I'm saying).

Re: witnesses, there are scores of witnesses who described seeing a large jetliner hit the Pentagon. Only a handful said they saw something else, so unless all in the former category are paid shills, have been intimidated, etc.... then I'm going with a large jetliner having hit the Pentagon. Plus, the physical evidence at the Pentagon is entirely consistent with a plane having hit, despite what a few people with a poor understanding of physics and a few misleading pictures would have you believe.
User avatar
operator kos
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby chump » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:25 pm

operator kos:
Although I find remote control to be a believable hypothesis, the rest seems like overly elaborate BS. Why would you do ANY of that if you could just remote control the planes into their targets with the passengers on board? And "no plane at the Pentagon" has been debunked from within the movement time and time again...

http://oilempire.us/pentagon.html
http://oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html
http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_ ... ation.html


:starz: What?? :starz:



Those links are a waste of time.

What do you mean the 'no plane at the Pentagon' has been debunked? Where? I've yet to see verifiable evidence of a "large passenger plane" at either location! Show me. Please! I would love to dispel this 'myth'.


I (kinda) listened to Ms Roth. Nothing new, but a decent summation of the stories that we've been reading for years and years. I liked the way she analyzed the propaganda. Amidst a myriad of disparate - but connected - stories, she reminds us of Zakhem, the $2.3 trillion Pentagon shortfall, the WTC gold, P-Tech, Mitre (Boston?), Cleveland, that the Boeing Uninterruptable Auto-Pilot could've prevented - or facilitated - the hijack, that 10 of the 19 'hijackers were not involved, that no one followed the official protocol, and so on.

More importantly, she mentions the drills... Drill baby drill: Always the drills...

Then she said, "the 'Illuminati' love to tell you the details... Right in plain sight."

Ultimately, no matter her intentions, she's banging the mighty wurlitzer baby -yukkin' it up and twangin' along - reinforcing the notion that we stupid Americans get what we get for being so stupid.
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby Harvey » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:08 pm

There is a small irony about the police procedural story we're all so familiar with in crime fiction. That when actually followed, it often works. The official theory is the story of how not to do it. The dog that didn't bark is that the procedures were never really followed. The dog was that someone already knew who had done it. The official theory doesn't fit the facts. All any competing theory has to do is merely account for the facts. That's all. Another small irony.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby Elvis » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:16 pm

Harvey » Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:08 pm wrote:There is a small irony about the police procedural story we're all so familiar with in crime fiction. That when actually followed, it often works. The official theory is the story of how not to do it. The dog that didn't bark is that the procedures were never really followed. The dog was that someone already knew who had done it. The official theory doesn't fit the facts. All any competing theory has to do is merely account for the facts. That's all. Another small irony.



I've always said, any good small-town detective could figure out the basics of the crime sufficiently to make some arrests.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:52 pm

Good to here from you Bruce. I hadn't read of Ms. Roth before. The control has at least two components, the one mentioned for its capabilities and the Command Transmitter System for its. Perhaps the radar gizmo too was essential?
Take a good look at the menu items on the page.

And no giant pod necessary.

I have never seen footage of the first plane impacting the tower, though I happened to tune in to tv that morning only moments after it hit the building. Has any been found?

The second jet performed some pretty tricky maneuvers, but not nearly as tricky as the "plane that hit the Pentagon." (I think this was something other than a passenger liner. I cannot accept any jetliner being capable of penetrating so deeply as this did. Also, I've never seen a commercial airliner under construction and granted my experience fabricating advanced military aircraft was nearly 50 years ago, but the green metal parts being recovered from the Pentagon's gaping hole had what in my experience was a top secret military coating meant to detect slight scratches during construction. Scratches deep enough to penetrate this coating and reveal the underlying metal might require the part to be scrapped. Under the stresses high speed aircraft experience, any scratch to the metal could become a potential microscopic crack and a crack in the wrong place could cause catastrophic failure of the aircraft.) So, if somebody want to visit Boeing and take a look at a skeleton with some skin on it, please note its color... Passenger jets only, please!
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby operator kos » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:05 pm

chump » Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:25 pm wrote:
Those links are a waste of time.

What do you mean the 'no plane at the Pentagon' has been debunked? Where? I've yet to see verifiable evidence of a "large passenger plane" at either location! Show me. Please! I would love to dispel this 'myth'.


On the contrary, arguing with no-planers is a waste of time, and you've just demonstrated exactly why. Anything showing that there was a plane is automatically called junk in the most generally dismissive way. The specific facts are never addressed. YOU explain away the scores of people who saw a large passenger jet if you want to contend that there wasn't one.
User avatar
operator kos
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby solace » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:45 pm

operator kos » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:05 pm wrote:
chump » Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:25 pm wrote:
Those links are a waste of time.

What do you mean the 'no plane at the Pentagon' has been debunked? Where? I've yet to see verifiable evidence of a "large passenger plane" at either location! Show me. Please! I would love to dispel this 'myth'.


On the contrary, arguing with no-planers is a waste of time, and you've just demonstrated exactly why. Anything showing that there was a plane is automatically called junk in the most generally dismissive way. The specific facts are never addressed. YOU explain away the scores of people who saw a large passenger jet if you want to contend that there wasn't one.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17023&p=177517&hilit=no+planes#p177517

Jeff's blast from the past:


I've always liked Judge, and this is one of my favourites. I was thinking of posting it yesterday myself, so thanks.

Pretty good companion piece here by Sander Hicks, from 2004, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of "9/11 Truth":

At its worst moments, the 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term “conspiracy theorist” came to be shorthand for “discredited whacko” in the invisible guidebook of mainstream media. Suddenly, it’s not hard to understand why the obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper attention in accepted media channels. If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you have honest scientific inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat drowns in the chaff.

Similarly, the 9/11 Truth Movement bears the seeds of its own destruction. At times, the serious questions seem threatened to be drowned by the theories about “pods” being attached to the bottom of the planes, “napalm” being planted in the World Trade Center explosions, or the real ringer, “Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon at all.”

This reporter attended the movement’s first national conference in San Francisco in late March. Anyone who still believed that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon was instantly labeled an agent of “limited hangout.” In the movement, this term (coined by President Nixon while trying to limit disclosure on Watergate) is always pronounced with a sneer.

...

The No-Plane-Hit-the-Pentagon theory was first advanced by Thierry Meyssan, in two books he first published in France, The Big Lie, and then in the follow-up, Pentagate. Due to the lack of evidence left by the wreckage, the flight pattern of the plane, and the lack of security video footage, the theory goes: American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Instead, it was probably a smaller plane or a cruise missile.

On the other side of the argument are people like John Judge, director of 9/11 Citizens Watch, and Penny Schoner. The former personally knows a female flight attendant who was regularly on flight 77. Visiting the wreckage, she was shocked to find a bracelet that once belonged to her friend. (Which is not the only odd coincidence in 9/11 information: Kristen Breitweiser was unable to recover any of her late husband’s Ron’s remains from the WTC, except for his ring finger, still wearing their wedding ring.) In a widely-read piece entitled “Not all conspiracies are created equal,” Judge lashed out at the No Plane posse, writing, “Rumor is not research, and we only sully the truth by jumping to believe the sensational. Cynicism is healthy, but informed cynicism is the only way to avoid paranoia and confusion. Not all conspiracies’ are created equal. The government did kill JFK, and they lied about it. That does not mean there was never a Holocaust, or that the world is run by the Illuminati.”

Penny Schoner is a colleague of Judge’s and published a booklet called “American Airlines #77 Hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01.” Spiral bound and self-published, the book includes 86 eyewitnesses, most of whom saw the American flight actually make impact with the Pentagon. This reporter bought a copy from Schoner at the conference in San Francisco. Even though she charged me $20, the full color photos made it totally worth it.

Part of Meysan’s theory is that the nose cone of the plane could not have penetrated 3 layers of the Pentagon, and have made such a small distinct hole on the third. At the street level, most proponents of the theory (most of whom obviously haven’t read Meysan’s book) believe that his theory is that the original hole on the outside of the Pentagon was too small for a 757 to have caused it. After reading Schoner’s booklett and viewing her pictures, I realize something. Part of the problem is the image that has come to be associated with Pentagate, and Meyssan’s entire theory is this one:

Yet that photo is admittedly inside, on the third layer of the Pentagon (and on the front cover of Pentagate.)

...

for the sake of argument here, let’s consider that John Judge and Peggy Schoner are correct, that No Plane theory is just a distraction. It certainly is an effective way to discredit the movement. How can I prove it? My mom.

Mom’s a right-leaning “independent” who voted for Bush I, Reagan and Bush II. She’s vocal, and stubborn and fiercely anti-abortion. But after the London Daily Mail favorably reviewed David Ray Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor, and after she saw Fahrenheit 9/11, things began to change. She swiftly withdrew her support for Bush, and (temporarily) planned to vote for Kerry/Edwards. But what about 9/11? Are the theories that she once dismissed as “kooky” now more considerable?

No.

Why not Mom?

“I know two people who saw the PLANE (not a missile) go into the Pentagon.”

The entire 9/11 Truth Movement can be dismissed by the dismissal of its most outlandish theory. The 9/11 argument is a chain of logic, but in any chain, with a big weakest link. Mom happens to live within ten miles from the Pentagon. She knows a priest and a friend’s daughter who saw the plane hit. Neither want to talk about it much.

...

How can this movement advance when people who are skeptical and smart find an unacceptably illogical theory? They will be turned off, and run from the entire inquiry. If there’s one theory out there that is obviously false, the masses can be kept in intellectual submission, because the official story will represent safety, validation, freedom from ridicule. The 9/11 Commission report acts as a kind of co-dependent parent, offering the promise of comfort and delivering more addiction to a big family lie. The architects of disinformation take it as given that people fear ridicule
solace
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 11:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby solace » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:57 pm

Good thing Jeff isn't still a mod or this no plane thread would be locked/fire-pitted:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=13618&p=137824&hilit=no+planes#p137824


"Advocating or advancing theories contending that no planes whatsoever struck the WTC is discouraged, and such threads will be subject to locking, moving to the Fire Pit, or deletion."
solace
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 11:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby 82_28 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:03 am

Where did I miss the part of this being a "no plane thread". Seems to be pretty open to me.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby Elvis » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:53 am

Image
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:08 am

I need to clarify a few things. I do believe two planes smashed into the towers, with the first actually doing more damage to the core internal supports than the second could have caused. I do not believe the heat of the fire was sufficient to warp the steel supporting the floor enough to cause catastrophic failure of the redundant internal and external main building supports. I do not believe that together, the fires and crash damage, could have caused catastrophic failure of the redundant building supports. It might seem obvious to some that the planes caused their collapse, and while I remember Jeff arguing that damage to 7 was sufficient to cause its collapse, I do not believe it was.
Image

Image

Image

Image

According to more than one pilot familiar with the aircraft, it would have been impossible for the "plane" that hit the Pentagon to have made the maneuvers as those recorded on radar. That the footage from the many security cameras that captured whatever it was that hit the pentagon were never released only helps to increase suspicion and lends credibility to the argument that some 'thing' other than a plane hit the building, causing deeply penetrating tremendous damage to a blast-proof building, yet left no damage on the exterior from its wings, as its wingspan was 124'. No apparent damage from its tail, either, and it reached 45' above the fuselage.

The missing money only feeds suspicion, and rightly so. And I'm not only talking about the gold. And let's not talk about the flight schools or their shady connections or our government's prior knowledge of the "Muslim assassins."

The whole thing stinks like a dead Kennedy. With a whiff of Warren.

Imho, of course.

Forgive me for this. Note the top of the plane and the top outer wall.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:10 am

82_28 » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:03 pm wrote:Where did I miss the part of this being a "no plane thread". Seems to be pretty open to me.



when solace decided it was...he tried the shame thing and that didn't work so try something else ...solace it's not working anymore as if it ever did
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Methodical Illusion: 9/11, Zakheim, Ptech, Daniel Lewin,

Postby Searcher08 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:50 am

82_28 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:03 am wrote:Where did I miss the part of this being a "no plane thread". Seems to be pretty open to me.


The idea is to conflate any discussion of Israeli involvement

with 'no planes' and
with 'virulent anti-Semitism' and
with violation of board rules.


in the hope of getting it firepitted, I imagine.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests