9/11 Pentagon Conspiracy

Memory Hole

I've been meaning to give this a serious going over for a few weeks now. Someone received athe above powerpoint show in their email the other day at our office. The basic gist of this idiocy was that there was no attack on the Pentagon by terrorists that day. They claim it was the Military firing on itself for whatever political gain that might be expected to reap with a missle. The recurring theme in the presentation was that there was no wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon. They showed countless plane wrecks with debris spread all over the ground and said there should be more evidence of a crash at the Pentagon if it really was a plane. Where are the wings? it asks... Where's the plane?

OK, two immediate problems with this approach. First is that the plane crashes used as a control are all crashes which ocurred when a plane moving at 300+ MPH hits the ground (a horizontal plane nearly parallel to the plane's path. The key force at work... shear. Think of running a block of cheese along a cheese grater... you get lots of debris. The crash at the Pentagon is a plane travelling at full speed 450+ MPH into a masonry wall which is nearly perpendicular to the flight of the plane. Think about throwing a block of cheese against a wall. You get very different results. The second problem with this line of thought is that the author seems to not know much about airplanes. Airplanes are constructed of lightweight aluminum... like the soda cans. The wings are also the fuel tanks. Wings are not designed to handle head on forces against the wing edge... the wing of a plane works in lift... that is, the up and down direction. In a head on impact the nose of the plane and the fuselage will punch a hole in the masonry and when the wings reach that fuselage sized hole... they'll snap and fold back... releasing aviation fuel and exploding... though most likely, inside the building. Because an airplane is a hollow aluminum tube, the impact might punch one hole in a masonry wall but the force will largely be absorbed as the tube accordians up so it has much less forward force for a second impact.

Why did so much damage occur at the World trade Center and not at the Pentagon? Well, because they are two different buildings. With different weaknesses. There's plenty of documentation about the WTC collapse, you can look at that on your own time. The main thing to note is that the Pentagon is nothing like the WTC in construction. So you may be asking yourself, that's all well and good in theory, how can I be so sure? Many people do not know that this isn't the first time a New York icon has been hit with an airplane. On the morning of Saturday, July 28, 1945 a USAF B-25 bomber:



This crash resulted in 14 deaths including the crew of the plane. The Empire State Building was full on this Saturday morning because of the war. The US had gone to a 6 day workweek to increase productivity. The whole story and details can be found here Note the details of the crash: wings exploded, fire, one engine (on the wings) went into an elevator shaft, the other exitted a window (not a second wall.) And if you think a ten ton aircraft should leave a bigger hole in a building made of stone and brick and steel... here's the picture of the damage done by the B-25:



While researching my architectural thesis, I looked at tons of pictures of buildings in conflict with vehicles (planes, cars, trains, etc.) I have seen nothing in the 9/11 pictures that makes me suspicious at all. The neat little hole in the presentation is labeled punch out in the picture and is likely the exit hole for an engine... in the films own images you can see fire damage in vast areas of the Pentagon where aviation fuel ignited and spread flames throughout the building. In my opinion there is easily 8 times the damage at the Pentagon as there is the above Empire State Building crash picture... which adds up to the difference between an eighty ton modern airliner and a ten ton WW2 bomber. Please also bear in mind that the Pentagon is a military building. Look at it... it's no regular office building (although it is the LARGEST office building in the world,) it's a fortress. I also think the authors of this fantasy have about as good an idea of how fast 350 MPH is as they do about the physics of an airplane crash. So, if anyone gets this stupid powerpoint presentation, forget about the X-Files feel and the angst of the music during the fast paced collage editing... You can dip a turd in sugar and make it look pretty, but that doesn't mean it's OK to eat it. The whole thing is bunk... period.

Patriot Act takes a hit

Wired News: Part of Patriot Act Struck Down

I've been against the Patriot Act since it was first proposed. I wrote then-congressman Ernie Fletcher several times about the problems with the Patriot Act and its potentially far reaching consequences for a free society. The first thing I thought of was the Alien and Sedition Acts which nearly caused a civil war with Kentucky in the eye of the storm. We don't fight our enemies with thought police in the U.S. You'll see me complain about this trend in the U.S. a lot. I can't stand the idea that the governent or society can make conclusions about your or my thoughts. It's just wrong... Our thoughts are our own and it is only our actions which are to be judged. I hate this deconstructive, psychological archeology that says someone can guess your motives and judge you on their interpretations. It shows up in extreme left wing thinking, in hate "crime", and in this Patriot Act. What we think can only support the case against us... it is not the case itself. In the U.S. we are understood to be innocent until proven guilty. Therefore no suspicious activity can be considered a crime in and of itself... we have to act to break the law. So our emotions don't change that fact. I resent the temporary insanity pleas, I resent the notion that killing someone because you hate that they are black is more serious than killing someone because youhate the fact that they chew with their mouth open. I'm not going to avoid reading books because they might get me arrested, and I'm not going to stop writing John Ashcroft because it might be considered seditious.

I have never been opposed to the actual idea of the Patriot Act's tools for law enforcement... only that there was significant lack of oversight and balance in the proposal. There was no time limit on the provisions... it was simply written into law. One article about this over-ruling talked about American's willingness to put up with temporary privacy inconveniences for the greater good... and I am certainly willing to give our government a year or two of unprecidented latitude to capture our enemies. However, I'm not going to give them unlimited power to do whatever they want whenever they want... that's against the grain of the constitution and the spirit of the country's foundation.

In a small way both sides of this argument were right. In the short term only people doing bad things need to worry, in the long run we all need to worry. The problem with Patriot was that it was written into long terms... not temporary terms. This is classic Ashcroft. He is so utterly inept that it sickens me. He is so completely without tact or insight that he just closes his eyes and beats on whatever is placed in front of him. Just about everything he's done in office has been wrong by me; from the RAVE Act to the INDUCE Act, it's been one bad piece of legistlation after another. Then again he's no Janet Reno and inspite of the crack down we haven't seen any Wacos as a result. He's intellectually heavy handed where Reno was just plain heavy handed. (I looked for an objective article outlining Reno's stint as Attorney General but, since she's running for Governor in Florida, everything on the net seems to be forgiving of her actions at Waco or demonizing them... politics strikes again.)

So maybe we can let the courts work it out? Unfortunately I don't give the ACLU much credit for being a balancing force in the U.S. They are really out there these days. The Patriot Act may have been poorly conceived and executed but the idea was sound. Kudos to them for a deserved victory, but if they continue pressing it, they'll inevitably toss the baby out with the bath water. Why is it that balance is so hard to get in this country?

Quick Update

Weather: Cold and partly cloudy... rain is on its way
Listening to: Oddly, nothing... it sure is quiet.

Reading this week: I need to update the Library as well, but I may be finished with Lemony Snicket's The Hostile Hospital before I even get that far. I mean I read The Vile Village in a day on Wednesday. I mention it because one of Snicket's quirks is to slip literary references into his children's stories in funny ways... last night he used Haruki Murakami as a hospital patient. So the author of one book in my top 20 is referencing the author of another book in my top 20. I found it amusing... especially since the target audience for Snicket's books probably won't read Murakami for years to come. Though I should have noticed some of the influence Murakami has on Snicket's writing (thematically.) I have also borrowed a short book called The Gospel Reloaded which is about the religious symbolism in The Matrix movies. Something I noticed a while back during a discussion with some friends... If I get into that this weekend, it'll be a miracle, but it is sitting out and I do have to return it at some point. Poor Mr. De Landa just can't catch a break with me lately. A Thousand Years of Non Linear History has been sitting around with a book mark wedged 1/3 of the way into it for weeks. I have a new (to me) Phillip K. Dick novel lined up as well.

Well, I've been slacking this week. In the process of adding a hard drive to our server at work, I unfortunately discovered a nest of Legionares Disease spores in some thick, greasy black lint at the bottom of the computer case. Within hours of exposure I was certain that it would be effecting my blogging drive. Well, it felt like Legionares Disease... yuk... Filthy stuff. Worse part is that in the process of dealing with it has gotten into the air here and I'm hoping I haven't vetured back to work too soon.

It is Friday though so I'm sure I can make it one day without a relapse. I've building up momentum on the main website lately too. I'll be editing and uploading a lot of old work during the next few weeks to sort of get myself up to speed again and provide a framework for more entries. College was very prolific but also very naive for me. There are a lot fo great ideas in my research that ended up with not so great conclusions attached to them. I'm hoping that a re-examination of those ideas will yield better fruit the second time around. As things go up, I'll post their arrival here and link to them as need be.

Russian Cabinet Backs Kyoto Pact

Russian Cabinet Backs Kyoto Pact (washingtonpost.com)

Now here's one that never gets old. The Kyoto Treaty is back... again. Russia seems to still be toying with the EU over this treaty and entry into the WTO. The Kremlin has signalled several times in the past that is ready to back Kyoto... does anything make this time more believable? I'm entering a new journalistic technique into my collection today, and I'm calling it "issue-amnesia". It's basically conveniently forgetting the history of an issue to trump up a story's emotional punch. There is a similar story in The Age today which trumpets the gloom and doom Australia (another country opting out of the Kyoto Treaty) now that Russia has signed on (which is t really hasn't yet.) Tech Central Station had a good article with some strikingly different things to say about the news from Russia as well. It also had some interesting facts abou tthe Kyoto Treat y that I hadn't seen before. For example, that Brazil and China are exempt from the emissions reduction? This seems to put those countries at an unfair advantage in competitive markets. It dawned on me today what leaves a bad taste in my mouth about Kyoto... it smacks of re-distribution. Like taking success from one person and giving to someone who is less successful. Kyoto suddenly seems like it is about redistributing jobs, wealth, and technology than about the environment. Russia selling its credits to the EU? China being exempt from restrictions? What does it amount to? Well, it means that the market will be unnaturally swayed to favor China, Brazil and other countries who do not have to reduce or maintain emission levels. Since China is already using up like 75% of the world's resources right now, I can't see how they need any more help. People worry about outsourcing now... well when it becomes even cheaper to set up shop in places like Indonesia, China and Brazil, we'll see even more economic hardship in the U.S. But this seems to be part of the plan. The Kyoto treaty punishes established, industrialized nations and gives their production power to less advanced countries.

So, where's the environment in all of this? It really isn't there at all is it? Emissions go down in high emissions countries... unless they buy credits from low emissions countries. In which case, the emissions stay the same. Only the money moves around... :(

Bush-Kerry debate

KRT Wire | 09/25/2004 | For the Bush-Kerry debate, first, call all the lawyers

I watched a portion of the Bush/Kerry debates last night, not for political reasons, but to see the mediacracy at work. The rules for this debate seem to be as big of an issue as either Bush or Kerry. Why is that? because it is finally being widely noted that perception is as important as information... if not MORE important. Some may argue successfully that there is little difference between perception and information, via Heisenburg's assertion that the act of perceiving alters what you perceive to some degree. Now there's a big leap between a presidential debate and quantum physics, but in our minds there is not that big of a gap.

If you read this article, from the Miami Herald, you get a glimpse as to how sophisticated politicians (or their press secretaries) have become with regard to perceptions. The rules of this debate may seem triffling at first glance, but if you think about the reasons that the temperature of the venue is such a factor, or what items the debators can or cannot possess, you start to intuit the little things that effect your perception unconsciously. Now if the candidates know enough to negate these potential advantages prior to the debate, we have to wonder how often these are used outside of this venue to sway our thinking.

One of my favorite subliminal media techniques is "the subtle sigh". I catch Bill O'Reilly doing this on the radio all the time when people call in to the Radio Factor. He'll get close to his mike and breath in a labored fashion softly over the caller's point. He sounds bored or tired as the person speaks and you know that as soon as they stop talking he's going to dismiss the point for one reason or another... worse you start to empathize with Bill and become bored with the caller's point as well. Peter Jennings is really bad about that on TV. He's tones of voice and facial expressions can completely sway how you feel about a news story all by themselves.

Personally I found the debates mind numbingly dull. Of course, I'm not feeling well this week anyway. But, I also don't think some sterilized debate is going to sway me in either direction at this point. I've kept up on facts and I have made a decision based on that. Allowing a candidate's charisma or lack thereof to sway my vote would be irresponsible at this point.