My intern brought this back from a recent tour of Europe, knowing I would enjoy it, but told me it was banned in the US. However, I find it for sale at Amazon.com, which is odd.
But so far, (the first chapter of the book) I too have many questions! After skimming through the information, it is very obvious that an airliner did not make a perfectly shaped 7 foot diameter exit hole through to the third ring of the Pentagon.
So what happened? I have serious doubts about the objectivity of the said author, in fact the cover reads "coordinated by" instead of just "by", which is odd as well. There is also a very interesting appendix entry in which the author address the Arab League, and the tone of the address is very much pro-Arab, and less objective in its speculations. Then again, if I were addressing the Arab League, I would suppose pissing them off by antagonizing or bantering them might be a bad idea.
posted
FG, that is what I thought as well. But again, the rumor of this being a banned book was all hearsay from some Slovenian loonies who were just dying to educate my poor American intern.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A quick search online determines that bookstores banned the book for being "anti-American". Strange that nearly all of these bookstores sell the Satanist's Bible if you only dare ask for it...
Anyway, here is a link to a journalist from the American Free Press who is also listed as one of the reviewers of the book on the Amazon website. Interesting!
posted
The book is listed on Amazon, but not as a "new" book but as one that can be apparently bought from other users. Being shipped in 1-3 weeks usually indicates it isn't one they stock.
While the US only bans books in school districts and private organizations (such as a church who says "no one reads Harry Potter here!"), books (like movies) need only be kept out of easy access to effectively "ban" them. Check out ALA Banned Book Week for a discussion on this.
It was neat. Just because something is "challenged" doesn't mean it does poorly or isn't read since JK Rowling has caused a lot of ire among US readers where some groups and parents have attempted to get the book out of the hands of kids because it teaches witchcraft or some such nonsense.
That said, a book published overseas doesn't automatically get published over here, right? Won't it need someone to distribute it and if they aren't found, then it just doesn't get published over here?
posted
FG: you're kidding. The U.S. has a proud history of banning books. Even if you ignore the local efforts which continue to happen every year and concentrate on official U.S. government bans there's still a hefty list in our past, such as Joyce's Ulysses, Voltaire's Candide, Aristophanes's Lysistrata, Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Confessions, and Chaucer's Canterbury's Tales. And trying to sell or import books discussing birth control back in the 1800s-early 1900s could get you in deep water indeed.
This was some time ago - although as late as the 60's there were still lawsuits flying on banned books - and there are still classes of books that are banned by the U.S., generally for public safety reasons. Attempts were made to ban E for Ecstasy, a book on the drug MDMA, because it disseminated information on drug use. They were patterned after the bill passed in 1999 outlawing certain dissemination of information on explosives.
[ July 08, 2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Schools and libraries refusing to stock books is NOT the same as banning it. I don't think the U.S. (as a whole, as a government) bans books. Each retailer has their own rights to choose what they want to offer the public.
And although libraries are usually locally government owned, they don't ban books -- but they might have a librarian who uses their own personal prejudices on deciding what to order/stock. Because they don't have every book in existence.
posted
The US Government has, in the past, banned books.
Currently, some local school boards and library systems will make efforts to ban books, but as it has been noted, is not representative of the Federal government as a whole.
Reasons will vary, but usually it involves some argument about "public decency" and so forth.
Usually at the behest of some irate and vocal parents, but not always.
quote:Schools and libraries refusing to stock books is NOT the same as banning it.
True, but there are very fuzzy lines. I know some schools and libraries have removed books after they've been paid for due to public pressure, which always seemed almost criminally wasteful to me. And some schools do ban books in the sense that children can't bring them to school, even for reading periods where the child is supposed to select the book and there are no criteria on the type of book.
posted
The books I listed were ones that were, at one time or another, banned by the U.S. government and seized by the U.S. Postal Service. It's happened.
I didn't include the local libraries, school libraries, or booksellers. But yes, libraries have banned books. Not just by refusing to buy them; controversial books are physically removed from library shelves every year in response to irate groups of one kind or another.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem that libraries and bookstores used to have, and possibly still do, was deliberate vandalism and booktheft by people who wanted the damaged/stolen books banned.
I've read that StevenBrust's To Reign in Hell (concerning the Revolt of the Angels from Satan's point of view) and MichaelMoorcock's Behold the Man (in which a very neurotic timetraveller goes into the past in search of the historical Jesus of miracles, and through mishap becomes the historical Jesus, but without miracles) are notorious in science fiction publishing for that reason.
Even though the novels initially sold enough copies quickly enough to be profitable, the retailers lost money on them due to the absurdly high rate of theft/damage, and therefore the bookstores couldn't afford to keep them in stock. Similarly, libraries bought the books, and had them destroyed or stolen so often that the amount of reader demand became insufficient justification for replacing them.
quote:One problem that libraries and bookstores used to have, and possibly still do, was deliberate vandalism and booktheft by people who wanted the damaged/stolen books banned.
I've read that StevenBrust's To Reign in Hell (concerning the Revolt of the Angels from Satan's point of view) and MichaelMoorcock's Behold the Man (in which a very neurotic timetraveller goes into the past in search of the historical Jesus of miracles, and through mishap becomes the historical Jesus, but without miracles) are notorious in science fiction publishing for that reason.
Even though the novels initially sold enough copies quickly enough to be profitable, the retailers lost money on them due to the absurdly high rate of theft/damage, and therefore the bookstores couldn't afford to keep them in stock. Similarly, libraries bought the books, and had them destroyed or stolen so often that the amount of reader demand became insufficient justification for replacing them.
I'm here to tell you.
I read Moorcock's "Behold the Man" maybe fifteen years ago. Got it from the library. Good book. Well, I got it in my mind recently that I'd like to read it again, so I went on the library's online catalog and looked it up.
The title comes up on the list of Moorcock's books, alright, but when I click on it to find out which branches have it, under "Copy/Holding Information" the message "No item information" comes up. Which is interesting, since usually when something is lost or stolen, the message "Lost/Stolen" generally comes up next to the branch name that the book is missing from. And if they've just gotten rid of copies because they've become worn out, it will say "Weeded". The point here is that there is no information at all. I'm going to have to ask at the library about that.
Of course, being that I live on the buckle of the California Bible Belt, it shouldn't surprise if someone has tried to "cleanse" the library of the book. Which is something that makes me very angry; I've tried to get other books out of the library which that has apparently happened to.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG and Mabus, Yes this is another conspiracy theory book, and I read them for fun. I do not wear all black clothes or a black beret or pretend that we never landed on the moon.
However, the pictures of the Pentagon crash site do not look like a plane crashed there at all. I have no idea what happened, but I am fairly convinced it was not a Boeing 757, Flight 77, that hit the Pentagon.
One of the most interesting points of the book thus far is that during the rumors of the first minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center that there were as many as 11 planes rumored to be highjacked, as opposed to the 4 that we were told about.
Insider trading on September 11th, 2001 can be evidenced concerning shares of American Airlines, United Airlines, and KLM Royal Dutch.
The official version omits the attack on the White House annex (Also called the Eisenhower Building), yet ABC showed footage (on Sept. 11th only) LIVE of the presidential service building burning.
The official version also does not account another building that collapsed in the World Trade Center complex. This building was not hit by a plane, but rather burned for undetermined reasons, and was used by the CIA for controversial reasons concerning economic intelligence gathering. Evidently, high-ranking members of our government were feeling pressure from the military-industrial lobbyists to reassess the use of this facility for strategic intelligence gathering.
The object that struck the Pentagon hit almost 30 minutes after the first plane stuck the WTC. How did the object enter the Pentagon's airspace without being detected and destroyed by one of the 5 missle batteries that protect the Pentagon?
How did the fighters that were scrambled 6 minutes after the first plane struck the WTC not reroute and intercept the object that struck the Pentagon? Hos did this object travel "500 kilometers" without being detected by our radar defense system?
The entrance hole in the side of the Pentagon measured roughly 15 by 18 feet. The damage travelled through 3 different layers of the Pentagon, and exited in a neat 7 foot diameter hole through section 3.
Where were the plane's engines, which are by far the heaviest and most durable of a 757-class airliner? (There is no evidence of scoring or marking of the airliners engines striking the facade of the Pentagon) This first answer given was that they melted (occurs at 1100 degrees F). When questioned as to where 100 tons of melted aluminum went, the official answer was that the fire turned the airliner gaseous (5400 degrees F). So how does a fire 5400 degrees or hotter not burn through the roof of the Pentagon, but incinerate the airliner?
As usual, there are many more questions than answers.
quote: However, the pictures of the Pentagon crash site do not look like a plane crashed there at all. I have no idea what happened, but I am fairly convinced it was not a Boeing 757, Flight 77, that hit the Pentagon.
It looked like nothing else from where I saw it…
quote:One of the most interesting points of the book thus far is that during the rumors of the first minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center that there were as many as 11 planes rumored to be highjacked, as opposed to the 4 that we were told about.
There were also reports that the state department had been hit. The flight that crashed in PA was down for almost an hour before we heard confirmation. We had people all over DC and were worried about them getting out of there, so we paid close attention.
quote:Insider trading on September 11th, 2001 can be evidenced concerning shares of American Airlines, United Airlines, and KLM Royal Dutch.
This should all be available on public SEC documents. Let’s see ‘em.
quote:The official version omits the attack on the White House annex (Also called the Eisenhower Building), yet ABC showed footage (on Sept. 11th only) LIVE of the presidential service building burning.
This I doubt. It could have been mislabeled, but the building is still there (you’re talking about the executive office building that’s connected to the White House, right?)
quote:The official version also does not account another building that collapsed in the World Trade Center complex. This building was not hit by a plane, but rather burned for undetermined reasons, and was used by the CIA for controversial reasons concerning economic intelligence gathering. Evidently, high-ranking members of our government were feeling pressure from the military-industrial lobbyists to reassess the use of this facility for strategic intelligence gathering.
I don’t know the official version, but I remember watching that building go down. It wasn’t a secret. They predicted the collapse of the towers would weaken it’s foundation and might bring it down. They had cameras set up just to catch it.
quote:The object that struck the Pentagon hit almost 30 minutes after the first plane stuck the WTC. How did the object enter the Pentagon's airspace without being detected and destroyed by one of the 5 missle batteries that protect the Pentagon?
I’m not sure, but it deviated from a flight path to National by very little – that’s where the planes used to fly in. Changing course a couple miles out doesn’t give a long time to bring it down.
quote:How did the fighters that were scrambled 6 minutes after the first plane struck the WTC not reroute and intercept the object that struck the Pentagon? Hos did this object travel "500 kilometers" without being detected by our radar defense system?
Because there were many planes in the air at that point, and it was impossible to tell which ones were still under pilot control in that short a time.
quote:The entrance hole in the side of the Pentagon measured roughly 15 by 18 feet. The damage travelled through 3 different layers of the Pentagon, and exited in a neat 7 foot diameter hole through section 3.
This one I don’t know about – I never got that close. I’d be interested in his proof.
quote:Where were the plane's engines, which are by far the heaviest and most durable of a 757-class airliner? (There is no evidence of scoring or marking of the airliners engines striking the facade of the Pentagon) This first answer given was that they melted (occurs at 1100 degrees F). When questioned as to where 100 tons of melted aluminum went, the official answer was that the fire turned the airliner gaseous (5400 degrees F). So how does a fire 5400 degrees or hotter not burn through the roof of the Pentagon, but incinerate the airliner?
There was a big hunk taken out of the Pentagon. I have no idea if it was big enough to cover the engines. But it was a lot bigger than 15 x 18.
quote:As usual, there are many more questions than answers.
But this guy sounds like way too much of a nut. I’d be interested in seeing a good solid debunking, like the one on the “faked” moon landings.
In my experience, the government is not competent to pull something like this off. There’s been more investigation and television coverage of 9/11 than almost anything in history.
Obviously, I don’t have the detailed knowledge to truly debunk this. But enough of these have fairly easy explanations that the ones that don’t seem doubtful.
Dagonee Edit: Would the phase change from solid to liquid to gas absorb a lot of heat? Would the aluminum solidify somewhere nearby?
One of the neat things about this book is the picture section that shows the entry and exit of the damage. The entry hole and exit hole are exactly as described. Over time, fire ravaged the outermost section of impact, and the roof caved in. Excavation started the next day and the entire section was ripped down to the framework. What are most enlightening are the pictures minutes and hours after impact.
You are also right to mention the trajectory change that occurred before impact. What you might not know is that the speed of the contact was about 800MPH, as monitored by an ABC newsroom (which is now most likely very hard to confirm). Boeing 757s do not go that fast. Also, the two F-16s that were scrambled were sent to survey the wreckage of the flight that crashed in PA, but could have been sent to intercept the Pentagon scenario.
Lastly, the photos also illustrate very well the impact angle, which was about 45 degrees from the center of the Pentagon to the outermost wall. What is startling is the lack of debris, especially between the 2nd and 3rd ring. There is just this very evident hole that punctured through the rings like a bullet. The thing that comes to mind is a cruise missle. Also, if a plane fuselage did make this hole, the wings and engines would have decimated the facade of the outer ring wall. This did not happen. Ecperts said the roof must have been targeted. This did not happen either. Then the plane must have touched down and entered after briefly touching the ground, but the lawn is unscathed.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Also, photos that show impact or near impact have been lacking, even though there were security stations that captured the event.
posted
Oh, I'd be interested in seeing the photos. But this is definitely a library book, not a purchase book.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ecperts said the roof must have been targeted. This did not happen either. Then the plane must have touched down and entered after briefly touching the ground, but the lawn is unscathed.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Unless the picture leaves out the helicopter tarmac that is on that side of the Pentagon lawn. The version I have always heard is that the plane touched down on the tarmac before crashing into the Pentagon.
Other than that, Dag's already answered pretty much anything that I could.
Edit: I'm going through the Washington Post's coverage to see what I remember and found this photo gallery of the Pentagon. The hole is obviously much bigger than 15x18, and the roof where the plane hit collapsed, whether that was due to fire or just impact, I couldn't tell you.
posted
Sorry. I know people who were there, in the building, when it happened. It was definitely a big freaking airplane that hit the Pentagon. Full of aviation fuel that destroyed the place. But it didn't do as much damage as it could have because the wedge it happened to strike had *just* been renovated with a number of safety measures designed to keep catastrophic damage confined.
A week later, I talked to a taxi driver who said he saw it hit. I don't know if I believe him or not, but I believe my colleagues, especially those who had to sort through the rubble.
Picture 5 of 13 is one of the better ones. However, that picture is AFTER the roof collaped, most likely due to the widespread fire that weakened the superstructure. There are a few pics in this book that show just minutes after impact, the actual hole the object made.
I am trying to be objective, but the photographic evidence is shocking. I showed the pics to a co-worker who thinks conspiracies are silly. He was fascinated and plans on reading the book next.
I am not trying to rewrite history. I am just hoping anyone interested will discover if this book is banned by bookstores in the US or not. Then, if still curious, I recommend checking it out for yourself, and letting me know if you have any questions.
The author of this book infers very strongly that what might have struck the Pentagon was a cruise missle, which looks like a plane as well. One of the witnesses quoted in the book claimed he saw a plane that could seat 12 or 18 persons. This gentleman is also in engineering and design, and was watching the tragedy that was unfolding in NYC on TV.
I found that strange that with all the publicity of two airliners crashing into the WTCs that this gentleman still had presence of mind to attempt to scale the size of the object that hit the Pentagon.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about "presnce of mind" so much as instinctive reaction.
Being in unusual, especially stressful situations, the human mind will often act on reflex while the higher processes are trying to digest what's going on.
I find myself analyzing staged fights in tv and movies and pointing out obvious flaws. I try not to do it out loud, but I am running through a mental checklist.
I suspect an engineer, being more involved in his craft, would be more inclined to analyze the details without actually comprehending the entire picture.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
