I find it entirely disturbing that $40 mil was dropped on the Clinton investagationS (and it was for more than a little extra-martital tonsil-hockey, that just happens to be all that stuck). However that was over a several year period. Frankly I also do not trust the assertion that $600,000 is all that was spent (start tallying up safety reviews of SOP for emergency workers etc.). Perhaps on this one report. Besides the fact that the experts in this one report were volunteers (usually means working for free or for nominal fees), that would be just one aspect to it.

I don't believe it did make an impossible turn. How many degrees over what span of time? It probably made a very unusual turn - commercial jets generally try very hard to reduce how much they shift their contents, but that doesn't make it impossible (unless you're a flight control operator who spends 40 hours a week watching jets make long, gradual turns. In which case it really might look pretty impossible.) Anyone who has run a fight simulator should be able to say that even a larger jet can turn 270 degrees in a reasonable amount of time, and the most the jet should have to turn is 180 degrees, which isn't very much.

I have no idea what you're saying here. If it's flying say a hundred feet above the lamp posts, I do believe the four engines could have enough power to cause significant damage to them (and the jet is still about 140 feet above the ground. Close, but not impossible.) I also wonder why, if people thought the lamp posts were taken out due to actual impact, why would the lamp posts not be bent in two? Clearly the posts were pulled up by another indirect force, perhaps similar to the same force that can knock an SUV over at fifty yards and tear the tarmac off a landing strip.

I didn't say the plane was vaporized. I said people on the scene said they saw large plane parts. They just weren't all caught on film. Remember all those big things brought out under the blue tarp?

I'd have to follow up on that.

Did it? (Ask that twice, once for each statement).

No, but one of the people interviewed said it was cordite. I pointed out that is mighty suspicious because there aren't a lot of concievable uses for cordite.

Well from what i've seen and the little research i've done, the turn it made, at the speed it made it, is not possible for the plane to do so. Combine this with the plane maneuvering so as to look like a fighter jet earlier acording to radar...

Was it flying 100 feet above the lamposts? And I think it was you who said it would have been the engine back wash...which would have thrown the poles the opposite direction. Ie when laying down they would have been pointed sideways this way or that, but in all likely hood would not be pionted to the pentagon, and would be more damaged than they actualy were.

Yet the official story is that it was...

Also, whatever hit the pentagon was caught on tape...but all of those tapes were taken away and have yet to be relased. Furthermore, why were the anti aicraft batteries that surround the pentagon silent not firing a shot or issuing a warning...they're supposed to be there to shoot down anything entering the protected airspace of the pentagon...

Go ahead and check the numbers...they identified most of the bodies in autopsy.

Acording to the official stories yes. Acording to footage...no skid marks... Planes of that size don't leave small skidmarks...they leave big skid marks of which none can be seen in any of the coverage that I saw.

One of the people interviewed also said it was a leer jet...One said it was a cargo plane...several said they heard a secondary explosion...cordite doesn't really factor into weather or not it was a 757 that hit the pentagon or not. It factors into the discussion of 'if it wasn't a 757 then what was it' but not in the discussion, of is the event of a 757 hitting the pentagon, at that angle possible.

Want to understand? Read the first line of my post.

They do this repeatedly through the video.

So they have someone quoted shooting from the hip about what the 757 could or couldn't do based on whatever info that pilot had been given, which very easily could have been incorrect or incomplete information. Stop for a momment and think about the thousands of people they'd have to buy off/kill/silence if it was so areodynamically improbably for a given flight path.

Frankly given the patently out and out crap shoveled is parts of that video I certainly am not going to take at face value any particular partial, without context, quote they toss out. Buying this sort of slanted drivel is exactly why so many people bought into the WMD crock that the Whitehouse was shoveling about Iraq. That there were few, if none left was actually fairly predictable when the publicly available information was viewed without the bias that they had to be there.

My response is threefold. (1) I agree with you, and I encourage anyone to look into the matter for themselves--on a different forum. Posting a link to this movie on a Shadowrun forum is spam and the thread should be closed.

(2) When you look into the matter, make sure that your critical faculties are engaged in both directions. For example: someone points out that puffs of smoke can be seen exiting the WTC several floors below the level of collapse. Ok. Now the same person says that this is unexpected. Is it? I have no expectations about it either way. He then suggests a theory: it's a squib. But is that the only possible explanation? Even if I can hypothesize an alternate explanation, why should I be expected to? It is not my area of expertise, so anything I say is just speculation (which is all the other guy is doing anyway). This continues in a "shotgun approach" fashion, until eventually there are enough unanswered questions to invoke doubt in an official explanation.

Incidentally, this process is simplified by the heritage of a Christian culture, which emphasizes experience at the grass-roots level (democratic in politics, revelatory in religion), as opposed to the expert or "ivory tower" level. Personally, I would find it unusual if I could answer every single question. It would mean that I got more than my money's worth in education in a completely unrelated field.

(3) Parallels are easy to find--e.g., crop circles. The "paranormal investigators" would claim that the designs were impossibly complicated, that the grass was bent in an unearthly fashion, that there was no way in or out of the field, etc. etc. How would you respond to such claims? As it turns out, a crop circle can be duplicated with a board and a piece of string. Now how would you respond to those claims? It seems not inappropriate to dismiss them as the product of an overactive imagination. (Let us just hope that no one decides to duplicate the events of 9/11.)

Apples and oranges. And what reason do I have to assume that dollar value is a reliable measure of the extent of a conspiracy?

Exactly right. One person claimed to see a a 100-ton commercial airliner, another claimed to see a small commuter plane, and another a helicopter. To settle the issue, LC quotes a woman who didn't see anything. (However, she says that the Men In Black thought it was a plane.) Therefore it must have been a missile!

Unfortunately, conflicting accounts are the norm among independent eyewitnesses. Not surprisingly, no one saw Pentagon officials scattering debris on the lawn or ripping up lightpoles. But did I mention that Donald Rumsfeld was IN HIS OFFICE at the time?? The mystery deepens.

Amen.

Closest i can come is "Donald Rumsfeld was in his office. But the plane/missle/helicopter/flying saucer/rocket powered bathtub was crashed into the other side of the Pentagon. Do your legwork, runners!"

Huh. This whole thread smells off-topic to me, and making the response "9/11 was the greatest Shadowrun ever" seems pretty weak. Not to mention the misleading forum title, the almost complete lack of Shadowrun references before a moderator popped up...etc.


There are entire sections of the web open for conspiracy-mongering: there's no real need to grind your axe here.

In much the same manner the bearded lady draw a crowd yes....

Do you even know what a shadowrun is?

Last time I checked, Shadowrun was fictional. Oh, wait. I see your point.

The thread didn't turn out in a way that's on topic. I confess to be very interested in this video, but I agree that the discussion as it evolved does not belong in this forum. Maybe if someone made a relevant parallel to some event in the Shadowrun metaplot, this thread could live on. Otherwise, I thank you for bringing the video to my notice, but I'm voting for a close.


Maybe you could tell us about what you're planning on using this for in your game?

And what about effects. What if this conspiracy was true; what would the consequences be in your Shadowrun game?

Oddly enough, there used to be one.

It was shut down when people couldn't play nice.
As I recall, many of the problems stemmed from arguments over politics and such.

Namecalling and other such flames were also a large problem.

That this topic can be tangetially applied to Shadowrun does not make it Shadowrun-related. I suppose I could make a shadowrun about Oprah's Book of the Month Club too, but that doesn't mean I should start a topic about A Million Little Pieces on Dumpshock. That you threw that in merely as an addendum shows that you know that "the huge amount of interest in this topic" has nothing to do with role playing.

Critical thinking involves examining all sides of an issue, evaluating the merits and flaws of each, and coming to an objective conclusion. I am one of those interested in this topic, but I obviously think that the thread should be closed. I would be in favor of creating an off-topic area for this kind of discussion, however if you want a serious analysis, then specialized forums like those at abovetopsecret are far more valuable. This is only an RPG website, after all. Yet you ignore all of this, and suggest persecution even if the moderators "find good reason" to close the topic. (Note to self: "good reason" = browbeating censorship.)

The truth is out there, but a good story pays better.

yes, i do.

and i still dont think that this topic has jackshit to do with Shadowrun, the game.

I also think we should've clocked Sadam in the head, the first time.

Apples and oranges. Why would you start a thread about an Oprah book? That has nothing to do with Shadowrun in the least. The 9/11 event had all kinds of Shadowrun related events going on. Demolitions, hijackings, drones, psyops... Like I said, it may be the greatest real life shadowrun ever.

On another note, there's alot of thread crapping going on here. Let's stop it now.

sure it does. didnt you hear the people bribe her to get on her book list. And i've heard a couple of authors have had their writing had cracked to keep them offa it. Entry level shadowrunning work all the way.

my point is ANYTHING can be made into a shadowrun. And since this ISN'T a conspiracy forum, and since thats what MOST of this conversation is, i dont feel it belongs.


Edit:remove extrenous had.

I don't understand you.

P.S. Shadowrun has conspiracies.

what don't you understand? it's like the mafia capping someones kneecaps, but since that wouldnt affect a writer, you crack their hand, in a very painful way.

sound luidacris?


my point.exactly.

I didn't understand it either. It says "have had had their writing had..." But now I see it's supposed to say "have had their writing hand cracked."

Yes. And so could Oprah's book club, but that doesnt mean we can talk about Oprah's book club here.

You are forgiven if you haven't heard the controversy behind A Million Little Pieces, but as with many things it involves lies, cover-ups, and a lot of money and credibility on the line. A shadowrun based on it is fairly easy to imagine.

Regardless, there is a difference between saying "x would make a great basis for a shadowrun" and saying "x was a great real-life shadowrun." At best, the latter is inviting debate about the facts alleged in the video. At worst, it is an easy troll on your part. In either case, the course of the thread followed predictably enough.

Suppose that, instead of A Million Little Pieces, I started a thread about a Tom Clancy novel. If the discussion centered around whether or not Clancy was a better writer than Grisham, I am not then entitled to claim that the thread should be kept open simply because the thread is "popular"--and besides, shadowy things happen in Tom Clancy novels. That's a blatant red herring. Similarly, this thread has centered around whether or not the video is factual, and by all indications, that is exactly what you wanted.

I'm not sure specifically to what you are referring, but you've already cried foul once when people objected that the thread is off-topic. Calling it "thread crapping" just seems to be the latest iteration of a theme. (By that standard, even the admin who issued a warning was thread crapping.)

You still have one too many.

Shouldn't that not be "You still have had one too many"?