What do you think of the clip of the other Pentagon camera? Seems to me that consistency requires that you also interpret the white object there as "smoke."

I do interpret it as smoke, and Stratus has demonstrated that there appears to be a 757-shaped blur in front of the smoke.

As such, we have to believe that a white 757 in a sunlit field is effectively and inexplicably invisible, except for the inexplicable emission of horrendous amounts of white "smoke" from its engine(s). The easier explanation is that the white object is the white 757 that hit the Pentagon.

First of all, as jt-3d has pointed out, American Airlines livery is not white; it is approximately what is shown in the below-linked model. Here is a page that illustrates very well the difference between AA livery and that of various other airlines. As for the smoke, as mentioned, if one of the engines had ingested metal fragments from one of the light poles, it could well have begun smoking profusely.

Actually, that model matches my point. Examine it in a graphics program and you'll see that a shade filter has been placed over white fuselage that appears just above the foreground box. There is a little bit of the white surface that the filter did not extend over located at the rear base of the vertical stabilizer.

No. No shade filter has been used; the model is merely a different color at that location. Here is another screen shot I made this morning of just the 757 model. I meant to post it earlier but the school's web site was down for maintenance. Note that this doesn't look quite the same color as the model in my measurement, due to differences in lighting combined with an insidious SolidWorks surface color/texture bug , but I assure you it's the same one in as in the camera view of the entire Pentagon assembly.

But when we're talking about an area of an inch, more or less, assuming that the given model is perfect is pushing the limits. And look at the actual image below it, the alleged vertical stabilizer isn't even a coherent object, it looks like several disjoint things. Face it, the white 757 that hit the Pentagon is the white object.

The disjoint appearance is most likely due to the low resolution of the camera at that distance and speed. Again, Stratus has demonstrated that there is likely a roughly 757-shaped object in front of what we claim is probably a smoke trail.

Com'on guys, it's time to admit that the expert authors of the ASCE report (see page 13) probably know what they're talking about and sunlit white 757s don't appear to be black against a dark background.

Again, American Airlines livery is not white, or even close to it, and, as discussed, the aircraft's port side, which is toward the camera, would have been shaded. Ian, you may wish to consider the possibility that it is time for you to admit that civil engineers are not necessarily experts in aircraft identification, and that an exact location of the aircraft in the video frame was not required for the report.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Agreed. Other CTs actually use that fact as evidence for the conspiracy, i.e. They(tm) tried to minimise casualties at the Pentagon.

Other CTs actually use that fact as evidence for the conspiracy, i.e. They(tm) tried to minimise casualties at the Pentagon.

Exactly. Just as "the fact that a documentary cameraman happened to capture American 11 hitting 1 WTC is suspicious," but "the fact that there is no clear video of American 77 hitting the Pentagon is suspicious."

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Thank you.

In post 405, Turbonium said:

(My bolding)

Pentagon releases AA77 video

Now you say:

To me, that is contradicting yourself.

No doubt you'll point to the next section of your above quote, which says:

As you have said, MIL-STD 130 applies to military contracts, not commercial. Boeing applies it under special provisions sections to a military contract.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

CTs appear to be able to "explain" any set of observations. It reminds me of the old (apocryphal) story of a theoretical physicist walking down a corridor and bumping into one of his experimental colleagues walking the other way. The experimentalist is holding a graph and the theorist takes one look at it and says "Well of course it should look like that because...". The experimentalist responds by saying that the axes are the other way around, to which the theorist says "Well of course it should look like that because..."

After fooling around with Photoshop and the images, I have little doubt that the "white" is a smoke or dust trail behind an object of different color than the background that was there before the object and "smoke" appeared.

Anyone who was in the vicinity of the Pentagon in the days following 9/11 did. Including me.

I asked....

Please point out the many questions asked multiple times over several days to me which I have failed to address.

First, all three of your links - "asked", "ignored", and "asked again" - are all the exact same post - # 542. Is that your "many questions asked multiple times over several days"?

Second, if you had actually read my earlier posts, you would have seen that I had already addressed the issue of differing witness accounts, twice.

Post #369 included a link to some of those accounts, after I said...

Despite this, the Pentagon witnesses still gave widely varying and often conflicting accounts of what hit the building.

Pentagon releases AA77 video

Post #492 has examples of those acounts as well...

Pentagon releases AA77 video

So, rather than waste time explaining what it's like to be in a minority, just respond to the questions please.

I suggest your accusation is the true waste of time - especially mine.

You're not fooling anyone, turbonium. The proof is there for all to see in the JFK thread. Why do you continue your disingenuous insinuation that you haven't intentionally failed to answer questions when the evidence is overwhelming that you do so whenever the questions get too hot?

Spitfire, you are quite a piece of work. I can see my time away from the JFK thread has puffed up your bravado quite prominently. You even go to the effort of joining another forum I'm on for no other reason than just to basically say "Hey, gang - look over here on this other forum - he's refused to answer any of my questions for over 2 weeks now! Look! Look!"

Your statement is belied by the evidence from the JFK thread and other threads here and on apollohoax.com.

Like the post I was just asked about?

And don't worry, I'll be getting back to the JFK thread soon, I've been looking into other issues with the time I've had available. I hope you haven't spent too many more hours looking for me on thousands of other forums, to spout off about how your unmatched brilliance has scared me away from the JFK thread "for over 2 whole weeks now!"

However.....you show your total ignorance for your own theory. The ISO standard was concieved in 1987 and introduced as a voluntary compliance in 1994. The new standard ISO 9000/90001.2000 (Introduced in 2001) requires compliance in many parts of the world such as the EU.

The aircraft that hit the Pentagon was built in 1991

I said "that would be programs such as ISO9000/9001...". I'm not ignorant of Quality Systems - I've worked in the medical device manufacturing field for 20 years. We used GMP's previous to ISO 9000/9001, and have been fully audited by the FDA throughout both programs. The aircraft built before ISO would certainly have been under comparable Quality Systems. And that includes (among many other things) full traceability of parts, sub-assemblies and parent assemblies.

But you first said the aircraft were built to MIL-STD, then you said they were built to MIL-STD 130 - and yet they were not.

So you admit you were wrong? The aircraft were not built to MIL-STD and they did not have MIL-STD 130 applied to parts?

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Like, oh... I dont know... Jet Fuel???

Jet fuel is a combustible, while some fuels are used as an incendiary; it is not categorized as an explosive. The term "explosives" means chemical materials to create an explosion.

So, overall, did more people smell cordite, or see a 757 hit the bulding? If not a 757 then a plane of similar size? Why are the people in the building that claimed to smell cordite more reliable than the ones that saw the jet?

It isn't a matter of one account "overruling" the other. Fewer people are on record for smelling cordite than seeing a 757. So what? Are you saying a more common account means the less reported account is wrong? How would people driving on the freeway two miles away be able to smell cordite at the Pentagon?

And I'm not saying the people who smelled cordite are "more reliable". All the witnesses accounts need to be considered and studied within the overall investigation.

I don't think the "WHY" they used cordite is specultion, I think the presence of cordite is speculation.

As are all the witness accounts, which I said earlier.

Substituting a plane in flight in 1962 over international waters would be a tad different than doing it over Washington DC in 2001. Would you at least agree to that? How many radar stations monitor air traffic in the Washington area in 2001? How many between Florida and Cuba in 1962? See where there might be a bit of a gap there?

The complexity of our technology has increased drastically, so why wouldn't the complexity of a conspiracy?

Yeah, pretty much accepted.

One point we agree on. At least at a satirical level.

But you still haven't explained what you think was used, other than maybe a bomb or missile or a smaller plane. You still haven't explained how they managed to get all the debris in there without anyone seeing them. You still haven't explained the theory in any sort of specific terms. All that has been done is to cast doubt on the evidence presented so far, the eyewitness acounts that support that evidence, and the official story as a whole. The few bits that you have presented are other sites that have been debated in this thread already.

I would love to be able to make a firm assertion on exactly what I believe hit the Pentagon. My current thought is that more than one object was involved (missile, military jet, etc.). I think a 757 was used as a decoy in conjunction with a missile fired from a jet and possibly planted explosives and planted parts from either a 757 or other commercial aircraft. That would resolve the contradictory witness accounts mentioned earlier, and the debris (eliminates the need to plant plane debris after the hit). That's why I believe identifying the parts of the actual Flt. 77 needs to be fully corroborated and proven.

But you first said the aircraft were built to MIL-STD, then you said they were built to MIL-STD 130 - and yet they were not.

So you admit you were wrong? The aircraft were not built to MIL-STD and they did not have MIL-STD 130 applied to parts?

No, I was thinking of Mil-Std. 130 from the beginning for the 757's, which is indeed incorrect. If you would like me to swear to my grievous error or provide you with a handwritten letter to that effect, let me know.

The point I was making is that there is traceability to the parts of a 757. That is correct, and the relevant issue.

Even granting for the sake of argument that it is a viable indication, though, how would you propose that the issue should be further investigated?

Well, the obvious time to best investigate would have been earlier than over 4 years later. But they could still look into the possibility others smelled cordite, and interview those who already have further. There may be other avenues to investigate, which forensic specialists would come into play - if they could access any of the debris still existing.

As I've pointed out in the past, Northwoods as approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved only fake casualties. Whether the plan actually violated US law is questionable.

Wrong.

We could sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)

A "Remember the Maine" incident suggested that

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba."

Over 250 Americans died when the Maine blew up. The JCS added no caveat about avoiding casualties.

Many of the other points suggest sabotage, riots, terrorism, explosives, etc. all over the place. The JCS suggested incorporating plans selected from other agencies into theirs for an "integrated" and "logical build-up of incidents" within an overall "time-phased plan."

The notion that the murder of innocent civilans was not considered in the plans is ridiculous.

Didn't make it past the brainstorming phase.

That simply is your way of trying to downplay just how serious and near to implementation this operation actually was. They went beyond "brainstorming" (what an ironic usage of this term). They certainly must have brainstormed - that is, thrown out all sorts of ideas for consideration and feasability, etc. From these ideas, they selected certain ones, and formulated specific details of operations. Each individual plan was combined into one document, Operation Northwoods, and approved by every member of the JCS. The document was then forwarded to the Sec. of Defense for implementation, in whole or in part, along with any additional plans from other agencies. The JCS requested that they be assigned responsibility for "both overt and covert military operations" of this plan.

The plan was never implemented, possibly because "they" weren't confident that they could pull it off (or, more likely, keep it a secret long enough). Also, as I've pointed out, the risk/reward calculation is completely different when one is facing a one-way trip to the execution chamber if the plan is exposed.

Your suggested reasons for why the plan wasn't implemented aren't applicable to the JCS, since they gave it the green light. That either McNamara or JFK quashed the plan for the reasons you suggest (or any others) are only speculation, and we are most likely never to know the true reasons that either one or both of them vetoed the plan.

Fast forwarding to 2001, we sub in Bush and Rumsfeld for JFK and McNamara. Could the new JCS (and/or other agencies) have made the plan for 9/11, approved it and forwarded it, only this time it was given final approval?

Spitfire, you are quite a piece of work. I can see my time away from the JFK thread has puffed up your bravado quite prominently.

No, it has merely convinced me that you aren't interested in a meaningful debate, and that you are unwilling to admit to or retract demonstrably erroneous statements or to respond to difficult questions (except occasionally with answers that defy logic by effectively claiming that black is white). And if we were hypothetically to take a poll here about which of us is the far greater "piece of work," what do you suppose the results would be?

You even go to the effort of joining another forum I'm on for no other reason than just to basically say "Hey, gang - look over here on this other forum - he's refused to answer any of my questions for over 2 weeks now! Look! Look!"

Your attempt to make sport of me does not change the fact that Jay stated that he felt my posts in the Radiation for turbonium thread on apollohoax.com were relevant, and that he disagreed with your characterization of them as disruptive, irrelevant, and troll-like. Further, I had stated earlier in the JFK thread that I was planning to join apollohoax at some point, basically whenever I felt I had something to contribute to a thread there. Finally, I again note, as I did on apollohoax, that you denied none of my assertions; you simply attacked me for posting them.

[edit: Another point: there is obviously a tremendous amount of crossover between badastronomy and apollohoax; I'm fairly certain that everyone who had posted in the Radiation for turbonium thread regularly posts here and uses the same nicks, which was another reason for my feeling that at least some of them would appreciate the information I offered.]

Like the post I was just asked about?

The fact that you do answer some questions from time to time does not alter the fact that you have in the past avoided many difficult and problematic questions, even when specifically requested to answer, and I stand by my original statement.

And don't worry, I'll be getting back to the JFK thread soon, I've been looking into other issues with the time I've had available.

My point exactly. When I repeated my request that you stop arguing peripheral issues and answer the dozen-plus direct questions that you had been ignoring, you simply withdrew from the debate, without even the courtesy of "I'll have to get back to you on these questions at a later date." You then went on to engage in other debates here and on apollohoax, rather than continuing the JFK debate. And you now have the temerity to attack me for calling attention to your behavior.

I hope you haven't spent too many more hours looking for me on thousands of other forums, to spout off about how your unmatched brilliance has scared me away from the JFK thread "for over 2 whole weeks now!"

Ad hominem. I've made no such claims. I claimed that you had repeatedly failed to answer problematic questions after your claims of a conspiracy had been totally demolished, and that when pressed to do so you had withdrawn from the debate. I stand by those claims.

[edit: repeated word]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

It isn't a matter of one account "overruling" the other. Fewer people are on record for smelling cordite than seeing a 757. So what? Are you saying a more common account means the less reported account is wrong? How would people driving on the freeway two miles away be able to smell cordite at the Pentagon?

I'm not saying the less reported account is wrong. Obviously the peole two miles away would not have been likely to smell something they may or may not have been able to identify as cordite. What I AM saying is that given the number of people that reported SEEING a jetliner hitting the building, the only way to explain the presense of cordite would be to either have it on the jet or placed in the wall where the jet would hit.

Yes, I'm still saying a jet hit the building. I have not seen any witness reports that actually SAW something else hit it. "Felt like", "sounded like", etc, is not "saw".

To have it in the bulding already would require that the jet had a specific point of impact from the start. And then there is the problem of just why a 100 year old easily detected explosive would be used over something better.

And I'm not saying the people who smelled cordite are "more reliable". All the witnesses accounts need to be considered and studied within the overall investigation.

And yet those who saw the plane are dismissesd.

As are all the witness accounts, which I said earlier.

All the witness acounts are speculation? Then why even consider them? Speculation will never hold up in court.

The complexity of our technology has increased drastically, so why wouldn't the complexity of a conspiracy?

Because at some point a thing can become too complex to be done. You are suggesting that an unidentified aircraft could appear over Washington DC and change places with AA77 on the radar screens. But earlier you said it had completely vanished from the screens. Now, once this change has been made, flight 77 needs to get out of the area undetected. This is going to take a lot of people to do. Air traffic controllers from all airports in range of the area. Military bases. People on the ground to spread the false witness reports. None of whom have come forward at all.

One point we agree on. At least at a satirical level.

I did get a laugh out of that actually

I would love to be able to make a firm assertion on exactly what I believe hit the Pentagon. My current thought is that more than one object was involved (missile, military jet, etc.). I think a 757 was used as a decoy in conjunction with a missile fired from a jet and possibly planted explosives and planted parts from either a 757 or other commercial aircraft. That would resolve the contradictory witness accounts mentioned earlier, and the debris (eliminates the need to plant plane debris after the hit). That's why I believe identifying the parts of the actual Flt. 77 needs to be fully corroborated and proven.

Okay... If "they" are able to smuggle in debris like engine parts and landing gear struts, why couldn't "they" also forge the ID numbers that trace it back to the originating craft as you are suggesting?

No modern missile would use cordite. There are far better options. The explosives planted at the scene must have been cordite then. So what made the huge fireball seen on the video? That is far more consistent with a combustable substance than an explosion, as has been pointed out on here more than once.

Also, how would a missile hitting be the building be mistaken for a jet liner? What did the people who say they SAW a jet liner really see? Cruise missile is not an aceptible answer. Cruise missiles run around 25 feet long, anyone that makes that error should not be driving in the first place, they have no depth perception or sense of scale. A missile will also not explain the damage to the light poles, the helipad, or the generator.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

True enough, but you would have seen them in the first place, so you should not have ignored them:

asked

ignored

asked again

Now, you are able to see my questions again and so you can actually address what I asked of you.

Wrong.

No, right.

We could sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)

No mention is made of killing anyone. A viable plan would have been to have had a Coast Guard cutter take off the refugees before sinking the boat by gunfire, and subsequently to have coached some of the refugees to claim that they had been attacked by a Cuban aircraft. Presumably at least a few of the refugees would have been staunch anticommunists and eager to cooperate.

Further, the next point makes clear that the deaths even of Cuban refugees are not contemplated.

A "Remember the Maine" incident suggested that

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba."

Over 250 Americans died when the Maine blew up. The JCS added no caveat about avoiding casualties.

Yet another burden-of-proof confusion. The fact that this particular point did not include such a caveat does not imply that real casualties were intended, and again the point immediately following makes clear that they were not.

No mention is made of an option for real casualties; if bogus casualties are deemed sufficient to "cause a helpful wave of national indignation" in the case of an attack on a ship at sea, why should real casualties be required for an attack on a ship at anchor? You are merely attempting to read into the Northwoods memo what you wish to see--proof that the US Government might actually stage a terrorist attack with a huge number of real American casualties.

Many of the other points suggest sabotage, riots, terrorism, explosives, etc. all over the place. The JCS suggested incorporating plans selected from other agencies into theirs for an "integrated" and "logical build-up of incidents" within an overall "time-phased plan."

And again, it is clear that no American (or even friendly Cuban) deaths are necessarily intended. Having said that, I will concede that the risk of a few such deaths (or deaths of citizens of third countries) might have been considered acceptable. This is very, very far from carrying out an attack deliberately intended to cause the deaths of thousands of US citizens, however.

The notion that the murder of innocent civilans was not considered in the plans is ridiculous.

No, your claim that murder of innocent civilians was intended is ridiculous. Where is your evidence? Again, you merely assume that because only some of the points expressly disavow any intention of causing real casualties, that the other points must necessarily allow for such. My interpretation is that a lack of intentional friendly casualties is an implicit subtext throughout the memo, and is only explicitly mentioned when required for clarification (e.g., a ship destroyed at sea would have to have been a drone). As the claim that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would endorse a plan that called for the murder of innocent American civilians or service members is clearly an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that was the intention.

That simply is your way of trying to downplay just how serious and near to implementation this operation actually was.

The "operation" was nowhere near implementation; you are merely characterizing it as such in an attempt to legitimize your contention that the Northwoods documents somehow demonstrate that the American military might actually have planned the September 11 attacks. You and other conspiracists have seized on these documents as proof of your claim, while conveniently ignoring the fact that no explicit attempt to cause US casualties is indicated, and the fact that the plan was far from being fully developed, let alone implemented.

They went beyond "brainstorming" (what an ironic usage of this term). They certainly must have brainstormed - that is, thrown out all sorts of ideas for consideration and feasability, etc.
From these ideas, they selected certain ones, and formulated specific details of operations. Each individual plan was combined into one document, Operation Northwoods, and approved by every member of the JCS. The document was then forwarded to the Sec. of Defense for implementation, in whole or in part, along with any additional plans from other agencies. The JCS requested that they be assigned responsibility for "both overt and covert military operations" of this plan.

Again, you greatly overstate how well developed the "plan" was, and how close it came to being implemented. From General Lemnitzer's cover memo:

Clearly, the Northwoods memo was a response to a request for ideas about possibly staging some sort of incident, and in no way constituted a complete, stand-alone plan that was anywhere "near to implementation."

Your suggested reasons for why the plan wasn't implemented aren't applicable to the JCS, since they gave it the green light. That either McNamara or JFK quashed the plan for the reasons you suggest (or any others) are only speculation, and we are most likely never to know the true reasons that either one or both of them vetoed the plan.

Again, the JCS didn't give "the green light" to the plan; they merely responded to a request for some suggestions.

Fast forwarding to 2001, we sub in Bush and Rumsfeld for JFK and McNamara. Could the new JCS (and/or other agencies) have made the plan for 9/11, approved it and forwarded it, only this time it was given final approval?

The JCS (and the CIA leadership) in September 2001 were all appointed by Bill Clinton--was he also in on the conspiracy?

One point that appears to be lost on you and many other conspiracists is that the primary purpose of Northwoods was not to stoke anti-Castro sentiment among the American people (though this was viewed as a "helpful" potential side effect); rather, the primary purpose was to provide a pretext intended to mute international criticism of a US attack on Cuba and possibly forestall intervention by the Soviet Union.

Therefore, the plan only needed to be kept secret for a few months, until after a US invasion had toppled Castro, and the removal of the Communist government from Cuba was a fait accompli, and "old news." Again, any US government September 11 conspiracy would have needed to have remained secret for decades.

[edit: spacing]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I think I've said this elsewhere, but I want to repeat it here, since we're talking about the high-level "theme" of this supposed conspiracy:

Bush was jonesing to attack Iraq. 9/11 was pinned on Al Quada, which led to an attack on Afghanistan. If the Secret Cabal could engineer a conspiracy involving hundreds of people and tons (literally) of manufactured evidence, why could it not manage to plant evidence that Iraq (Bush's "primary target") was responsible?

Also, when Iraq was eventually invaded, why was the Secret Cabal unable to plant any stockpiles of anthrax or mustard gas out in the desert somewhere? Surely if you can wire three skyscrapers with tons of explosives, you can plant something... anything... a bottle of Grey Poupon... out in the desert (a desert whose airspace you control utterly.)

Oh, and... how can I say this within the forum rules...? The current administration? Not my favorite. Defending them is definitely not my motivation.

__________________
See? Because of me, now there's a warning. -Homer Simpson

jt-3d, as your animated 2-frame GIF is quite illustrative and I think there is a significant possibility that you're right, perhaps you should mail the ASCE report authors with the simple and confined question whether they are sure the white blob the arrow on figure 3.3 points to is the aircraft and not engine smoke as

a)the jet itself apperars to be visible in front of the white blob
b)the explosion shots show white smoke, so it might be smoke, what would be consistent with a).

All this accompanied with the GIF you made, and a clear discription stating that this is nothing more than a zoomed-in version. (and possibly the acknowledgement that it would be smoke and not condense trails as these are not existent at 1m altitude . )

It would be interesting to know their response. Not from a conspiracy point of view, but just to know whether we're seeing things that aren't there or what .

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Absolutely right Zap.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Swift: The eck-chay is in the ail-may...

__________________
See? Because of me, now there's a warning. -Homer Simpson

Oh, and... how can I say this within the forum rules...? The current administration? Not my favorite. Defending them is definitely not my motivation.

Several people have made comments to this effect, but the conspiracists don't really seem to care. As for myself, the proof is here and elsewhere that I've strongly defended both liberal Democrats FDR and LBJ and conservative Republican George W. Bush from baseless accusations of involvement in conspiracies. But I'm sure the die-hard conspiracists will claim I'm just a paid disinformation agent, and the defense of former Presidents is just part of my cover. I kind of wish I were a paid disinformation agent--I could really use the money.

Seriously, though, as Jay has pointed out, ill-founded criticism is a blessing for rulers, as it is so easily deflected. Those who, like Brumsen, desperately hope that There Is a Conspiracy simply because that would provide a handy excuse to get rid of the current US leadership would do well to concentrate on legitimate criticism, as it will be far more productive in the long run.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

There certainly IS a difference between legitimate and productive criticism of a politician or administration and mindless ideologically-based witch hunting.

I find that even on a forum where political posting is unwelcome I find it necessary sometimes to remind those who believe that anybody who disagrees with the notion that the current administration killed 3000 of its own countrymen is a blind sheep that I neither approve nor did I vote for the current administration.

It's almost become a mantra directed at those in a fervor of disbelief that anybody rational would remain dubious against the "smack down evidence" of evil conspiracy they are spreading.

The only explanation must be that we are in on the plot, trying to cover it up, or blind followers of the the current administration, right? Right?

I find that even on a forum where political posting is unwelcome I find it necessary sometimes to remind those who believe that anybody who disagrees with the notion that the current administration killed 3000 of its own countrymen is a blind sheep that I neither approve nor did I vote for the current administration.

This brings up a point I've been wondering about--what's the singular of "sheeple?" Would it be "sherson?" Anyone have any ideas?

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

LOL yup. Sherson it is!

Exactly. On other forums I am often told to stop watching Faux News. For me, that's a no-brainer. Meaning, Fox News has no brain.

I think we're entering a dangerous time. It appears that nobody bothered to teach the current generation that not everything on the internet is true. This, and the ability of anyone to make a quick soapbox that all the world can see, is going to cause trouble.

Sherson. Isn't that the female form? Would the male be a Ramman? Or is sheep generic for both sexes?

__________________
See? Because of me, now there's a warning. -Homer Simpson

Exactly. On other forums I am often told to stop watching Faux News. For me, that's a no-brainer. Meaning, Fox News has no brain.

Hey, Zapp, that's a rather judgmental comment. Every network has its biases. And for the record, my two favorite news networks are Fox News (conservative) and NPR (liberal). You just have to recognize that no human endeavor can be free from biases when reading/watching/listening. Furthermore, I believe getting news from souces with a variety of points of view is important, no matter what one's political persuasion.

I think we're entering a dangerous time. It appears that nobody bothered to teach the current generation that not everything on the internet is true. This, and the ability of anyone to make a quick soapbox that all the world can see, is going to cause trouble.

If I were in charge of designing a high-school curriculum, I'd require a one-year course in critical thinking, with heavy emphasis on advertising, pseudoscience, and conspiracism.

Sherson. Isn't that the female form? Would the male be a Ramman? Or is sheep generic for both sexes?

I believe "sheep" is generic for either a male or female adult, or a mixed group of adults and lambs. A ram is in fact a male, but a female sheep is a ewe. A lamb is a non-adult of either sex, IIRC.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

It's an extension of the "not everything printed in books is true." Many years ago, as a callow youth, I was a great believer in the idea that there was a hole at the north pole. Why? Because I couldn't understand why anyone would go to the lengths of getting something into print if it wasn't true. These days I'm a lot wiser (which isn't saying much ), but there are a lot of people who have transferred my naive belief to the new media.

That settles it then. A sheepish individual is either an eweson or a ramson.