Slashdot Mirror

why there was NO remainder of anything a passenger plane crash leaves in a crash site, and there were NO bodies, passenger belongings, pieces of bodies, ANYTHING but fairly intact TWO bodies in the scene.

Are you saying there were no bodies, or were you saying there were two?

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers (a company involved in providing emergency engineering and post-collapse assistance) said "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts."

Of course, once you reach the level of batshitness you've achieved, you can simply ignore his testimony by saying "they got to him too!"

And I'm sure you simply don't accept the claim that the remains of 184 people were identified; surely "they" got to all 102 DNA analysts, sample processors, logistics staff, and administrative personnel at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory. It's a DOD facility, after all.

Are you saying there was no debris from the plane? That's simply incorrect; hell, you can even see photos of a bunch of it at this batshit conspiracy site. And photos of the plane debris inside the building (where, in answer to your question about the lawn, most of it ended up, in agreement with conservation of momentum) can be seen at this somewhat less batshit crazy site. And some more photos here. And more photos, with amazingly detailed analysis, here

But I'm sure "they" got to the owners of all of those sites.

tell me where the hell did the 767's huge tail has vanished.

757. If you can't get that much right after being corrected, I don't see any point in talking to you further.

Like most of the plane, the tail and wings got shredded, and ended up inside the building. As Mete Sozen, a structural engineer who studied the impact in computer simulation, put it, "At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin. It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

It's like shooting an aluminum foil origami crane out of an air cannon at high speed, through a stack of steel cheese graters, and then demanding "where's the crane's tail? There must be a trick!"

please, spare the bullshit. as if the world has never seen a passenger liner crash.

Into a building? One as hardened as the part of the Pentagon that was hit? Please, name me one similar crash.

Oh, and by the way, regarding your original question about simulating the piloting of the crash, see this:

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terroris

or somehow account for approximately 60 tons of missing aircraft debris at the Pentagon.

Huh?

Let's take a step back for a moment:

1. There were dozens upon dozens of eyewitness reports who say that a commercial jetliner was what crashed into the Pentagon. These were all just ordinary people, going about their business in the DC area, some affiliated with government and/or miltary, some not. Of the witnesses who say it "sounded" like a missile (note the word "sounded"): how is that even relevant? I ask because of the obvious: how many of these people even know what a missile "sounds" like? How many people have heard a commercial jetliner just hundreds of feet (and at some point, tens of feet) off the ground travelling at ~400-500mph? And to repeat, many, many, many people reported directly seeing an American Airlines commercial jetliner.

2. All of the "conspiracy" reports talk about how "no wreckage" was found at the scene. That is patently false. There was TONS of Boeing 757 wreckage recovered, in total, from the Pentagon. Ironically, here are even large pieces of 757 wreckage visible in the photos used to try to "prove" there was no wreckage! Not to mention that the air disaster photos picked for the video were no doubt picked because there WAS wreckage.

3. Remains 184 of 189 of the victims aboard flight 77 were identified AT THE SCENE from DNA: http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/nationa l_news/12279-1.html

4. The ONLY place I've EVER seen any claims about supposed video from the Sheraton, gas stations, etc., is in the internet flash video. I have seen no reference or proof ANYWHERE else, from ANY source, that videos have supposedly been confiscated "minutes" later by the FBI.

5. Also, stop and think about this: where was the (visible) "wreckage" from the WTC towers? Is the only reason we even believe that commercial planes crashed into the towers is because we were able to see it with our own eyes? And even that isn't enough for the conspiracy theorists: they still claim that the WTC towers were *rigged with explosives*, such that they could be made to fall AFTER jetliners rammed into the buildings!

For a detailed analysis, see:

Detailed analysis of building, crash, and events:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_7 57_plane_evidence.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg 1

Article debunking the conspiracy story:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/11 0804factsstraight.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

Purdue University also did a simulation, with associated report, that approximates what happened to flight 77 that day:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/p entagonVis_files/pentagonVis2003.mpg
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/p entagonVis_files/paper_422.pdf

And finally, you might be interested in a test done years ago at Sandia National Laboratory, in which an F-4 was crashed into a concrete wall. Not a 757 and not the Pentagon, but I'd implore you to find any recognizable "wreckage":

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_ slow.mpg

I just read an article here: http://www.dcmilitary.com/airforce/beam/10_42/nati onal_news/37782-1.html

We can now have see-thru and amazingly durable products using aluminum.

Apple should do that for those of us geeks buying their products.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of see-thru aluminum iPods that lets you watch them operate!

While I'll be the first to admit that the US operates covertly no too many situations to count, or at least does not publically announce everything, it is always difficult to have a big-picture understanding of something if you are either not looking for the truth (but only what you want to see) or you do not have access to the other pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to understand what the real picture is.

Within the last year, the Army has reinstated the Anthrax inoculation policy and has re-started their efforts in getting all troops their vaccines. This issue is near and dear to my heart as I'm in the Army and that vaccine is particually painful (not to mention tests that have variable evidence of short term memory loss).

Dugway Proving Ground seems a logical place for these types of biological defense activities to be undertaken. We'll need plenty of vaccines to take care of all the Soldiers and probably Airman, Saliors, and Marines too. I'm not saying that this is definitvly the answer, but it is at least consistant with other Army reporting.

I take about 200 mg per day of Provigil to improve performance when I pull 80 - 100 hour weeks (got it from my doc to combat "excessive sleepiness.")

One study of the drug had US Airforce pilots working 80 hours out of 88 (40 awake, then 8 asleep, then 40 more awake,) without the ill effects of amphetamines.

Anyway, the stuff works great. I don't feel all "cracked out," and I'm able to stay productive many hours longer than before. We should put the stuff in the water supply, like we do with floride....

See ComputerWeekly for an article with a nice timeline and more specifics on where he attacked. Note that he's considered an "average hacker" in this article, which to my reading of the facts seems fair.

This all happened back in 2001/2002 but he fought extradition to the US until this past week apparently.

This military publication states that he didn't get to any classified info.

Wired covers a bit more on how he got caught. They tracked down his copy of RemotelyAnywhere.

Apparently the definition of "censored" for this site are "stories that match our left-leaning biases".

Now, I personally think the media is liberal, and I've done the studies to prove it (a few nights with Lexis-Nexis is enough), but this kind of thing represents a fringe view of the world. Did the authors of this list ever consider that maybe the reasons these "stories" didn't get reported are because they have no basis in fact?

Take reinstating the draft for example. Did the authors of that list ever consider the facts that the Army has met and exceeding its recruiting goals, that the Secretary of Defense has said he doesn't want a draft and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said the same thing repeatedly? Did they ever consider that the bill to reintroduce the draft came from a group of anti-war congressman as a way of scaring people and was swiftly killed in committee and had no chance of ever passing?

Look, this kind of stuff irks the hell out of me. Telling us that a story that doesn't even pass the smell test has somehow been "censored" is an insult to our critical thinking skills. It's the same old crap as they people who say that the government is keeping aliens on ice at Area 51 right next to the engine that runs on water and the Ark of the Covenant.

Given that Slashdot's audience is supposed to be people with critical thinking skills, I would hope that tripe like this would be seen for what it is. "Censored" my ass!

You can see the ship from the outside here and here

So, how is it justified calling an attack on a Navy ship a terrorist act?

After the media abuse of the word "terrorist" that surrounded that story, I firmly believe that the word no longer has any meaning, and is ONLY used by persons trying to sway opinion.

Not a non-government force: The UN??
Not an un-declared attack: Bin-Laden called for war on the US long ago.
Not an attack on civilians.
Not an violent action to change political opinion: The US does that all the time.

It seems that there is no definition of terrorism that the US doesn't fall into - except "Anything that somebody we don't like does"

I'm no expert on the situation, but in the Navy, when they're making flight-ops plans, they make sure they go around large flocks. The weather radars will give a reflection for large flocks, and the aerography guys know what's fowl and what's weather. Keeps the navy from F.O.D.ing the engines out with animal parts. It's the single birds they gotta worry about. Damn Turkey Buzzards ;\

When George Fisher, the outgoing president of Motorola went to Kodak to help lead their "digital revolution," he was asked by the press what lesson he was taking. He said roughly, "For a technologist it was humbling to realize that you could triple the sales of a pager just by offering it colors other than black."

Unfortunately, the US Military disagrees:

Under the upcoming regulation only one electric device will be authorized for wear on the uniform in the performance of official duties. The device may be either a cell phone or pager -- not both. The device must be black and may not exceed 4 x 2 x 1 inches.

So, while black may be the cool new color for computers, it's long since passe for pagers and cell phones, and in fact has become military-conservative.