Rolling Stone on 9/11 conspiracy theorists

[BestCenter]

What do you think of it?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies">Here.

[petgoat]

1. I think it's silly. If the guy had just asked around, he would have

seen that his points can be easily answered.

[freedom fighter jh]

2. His objections are common.

People I talk to share some of his misconceptions:

1. That everyone who sees holes in the OCT agrees on every point with everyone else who sees holes in the OCT. This leaves the door open for anyone to smear the whole truth movement by promoting a wacko theory and attributing it to all of us; and

2. That you have to have a complete theory of what happened and be able to explain everything if you question the OCT and infer that 911 was brought about by the only people who have access to the systems that allowed it to happen.

[Sinti]

3. Welcome to DU freedom fighter jh! n/t

[freedom fighter jh]

4. Thank you, Sinti!

Happy to be here.

What does "n/t" stand for?

[Sinti]

5. No text in the body of the message. :) n/t

[freedom fighter jh]

11. Thanks. n/t

[BestCenter]

7. But for #2

It's easy to find counter theories for what REALLY happened to JFK. It's impossible to find a "complete" theory for what happened on 9/11. That's because the differences in what it takes to rig one are so vast.

Besides, there's plenty of reasons to find fault in the gov't for 9/11 without making up demons. Just because there are holes in the official story doesn't mean you have to go pointing fingers at the government. That's just overcrediting them with competency.

[petgoat]

8. "Just because there are holes"

Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.) (and the Democratic
candidate for Congress in Florida's 15th district) cites the coverup:

"If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?"

He also says:

"The truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the truth about 9/11--and we should!"

[mhatrw]

12. Overcrediting who with competency?

Do you really think that there is no group of professionals in the United States with the competence to pull off 9/11? How then did a ragtag group of Muslims manage to pull 9/11 off so easily?

[BestCenter]

17. If they had the competency

Then they wouldn't have screwed the pooch on Iraq and everything thus far. Bush is turning into another Hoover, if not another Harding. Unless you're saying the conspirators are another group we know nothing about, it's sure not the GOP who did it.

And yes, it is highly dubious that there is anyone competent enough to pull off such a massive feat without ANYONE finding out at all. Unless you can start finding suspects, then all you're doing is claiming that the flag is waving in the wind.

[mhatrw]

20. Well, how did a ragtag bunch of Muslims pull it off then?

Who helped them pull it off? Why aren't these people in jail?

It just doesn't make sense to think that it would be easier for a 19 Muslims to pull 9/11 off without the help of a few powerful well-placed insiders than with the help of a few powerful well-placed insiders. If 19 Muslims could keep the whole thing quiet despite our best efforts to stop them, why couldn't any insiders who helped them manage to keep their own involvement just as quiet?

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Just what did a "ragtag" bunch of muslims pull off?

They searched the flight schedules and found a small number of airplanes that took off at relatively the same time.

They bought tickets for those flights.

They took boxcutters on board with them.

They took over the planes by means of barbaric attacks so that no one would challenge them for fear of dying the same way others had already died.

They flew their airplanes into some landmarks.

That doesn't sound like too much of an awesome accomplishment to me... "If 19 Muslims could keep the whole thing quiet despite our best efforts to stop them..." What efforts were being made to stop them? None if I recall correctly.

If you want to shift the argument to "how did they fly those jets without excellent piloting skills?", I'll put it to you this way:

I was lucky enough to "fly" in a Naval flight simulator due to being selected as Sailor of the Quarter in my command, back in the day. With no flight training whatsoever other than a thorough working knowledge of the theory of flight (due to my job as a flight control mechanic-AMS), I was able to make two successful night carrier landings in five tries in an A-6E Intruder. I would have no problem in claiming that anyone who can competently ride a motorcycle can fly an airplane with minimal instruction.

I don't think the muslim terrorists accomplished too much other than to place a nation on its ear and drive an even bigger wedge in between the right and left than already existed.

[mhatrw]

35. OK. You think they did nothing special.

So why couldn't anyone else do the same thing? Why would it be so hard for professional intelligence assets but so easy for them?

[StrafingMoose]

22. Bush didn't screw anything in Iraq

The only thing that was screwed in Iraq was the Iraqi people and the Americans as well.

You're telling me Bush is screwing by getting the USA into a 12 years war, or even more ?

The same people who were involved in manufacturing fake intel over this are the same people profiting from weapons sales, logistics and all what's needed to move an army around and maintain them there.

Do they make more money if the US stays there a year or 12 for that matter?

[BestCenter]

28. If this continues

They will be seen as the McNamarras, the LBJs, the Nixons of our era. You're saying that's not a bad thing for them?

[StrafingMoose]

34. Re...

Who cares? You think they will have to go back and flip burgers at McDonalds if the people think that's what they are? These people are taking all the dirt on them because they'll know that after their public "service" they will have their lifetime cozy spot for them and their children.

By the way, McNamarra had his spot as director of the World Bank right after he left and also sold a shitload of books peddling the theory that Vietnam was a "mistake" and covering up the Gulf of Tonkin.

That these guys turn into the people you mentionned is bad for US, not for THEM.

They didn't lie about pre-war intelligence to then try and do "good" in Iraq.

[BestCenter]

39. But...

they could have done that without being part of an intricate plot to kill 3 thousand Americans, and without putting themselves at risk of being very violently lynched. You think Nixon enjoyed the political fallout of Watergate?

[quicknthedead]

41. Of course they could but...

We need to know for sure and that is why we need a new 9/11 investigation, except this time one with teeth.

[RedSock]

37. they are not screwing the pooch

they are doing everything they want to do, exactly as they want to do it -- though the pesky trappings of democracy and world opinion sometimes gets in the way, but they are slowly taking care of that.

what is going on in iraq is EXACTLY what they hoped for -- and what they got.

mission accomplished (and ongoing).

[mirandapriestly]

38. Agreed, I can't believe people can't see that

Destabilization, and maybe an eventual end to Iraq as a country. I heard some talking head refer to separate countries for the different factions (whose rivalry imo is perpetrated frequently by the US and blamed on Sunny versus Shiite). The very fact that they are getting away with this, is tribute to how competent they actually are.

[smirkymonkey]

57. And if a ragtag group of Muslims can pull off a job as sophisticated

as 9/11, why have they all gone back to piddly little suicide bombings as usual? Why haven't we seen anything of the kind since? They could have brought us to our knees by now, but they haven't. But "they" will again when it's politcally expedient for certain parties in the U.S. government.

[mirandapriestly]

61. yes, if BushCO is so "incompetent" then why aren't more

9-11 happening?

[Nozebro]

26. Your message makes the R.S. article almost seem reasonable by comparison

You said "Just because there are holes in the official story doesn't mean you have to go pointing fingers at the government."

Just who WOULD you (BestCenter) point fingers at if not the perps in the GOVERNMENT?

[BestCenter]

30. Nobody.

It could just mean they were flawed in their report. And incompetent. Like in Katrina. And so many places.

[Nozebro]

31. DU 9/11 Truth Seekers are too smart for such totally flaky BS

Most of the bushco audience left the building more than a week ago, but thanks for playing.

nt

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Norrin Radd]

10. Nicely put! n/t

[BestCenter]

6. The problem is that

9/11 Truth people really do serve as an easy scapegoat for the Bush people to discredit the opposition with. Tonight's South Park episode was right- the conspiracy theories only empower the gov't.

[petgoat]

9. conspiracy theories only empower the gov't.

Tough. Trust the American people to handle the truth,
or kiss democracy good-bye.

[BestCenter]

19. Fine.

Then trust for the Republican Revolution to keep on rolling, as the Left becomes discredited further.

[StrafingMoose]

23. How about sh*tcanning the traditional Left/Right ?

"Dems" and "Liberals" have concocted Vietnam, now the "Conservative" and the "Right" cooked Iraq.

Need further proof that both sides can be discredited ?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

13. What is that supposed to mean?

How does it empower "the government" for a significant percentage of our population to suspect some powerful US insiders -- rather than the Muslim bogeyman that they so desperately want us to fear -- of mass murdering US citizens on 9/11?

[BestCenter]

18. Because the majority of people don't believe in such theories

And thus they ever-increasingly dismiss the people who believe in the conspiracy theories, and the GOP is able to use theorists as a scapegoat and to demonize the Left in general. It's like what intelligent design people do for religion.

[mhatrw]

21. OK, so the GOP is making 9/11 conspiracy theories an election issue?

Who? Where? When?

Sorry, but nobody (except perhaps the South Park boys and a few other "alternative" commentators) is going there, and for good reason. Such rhetoric would only help fuel the fire that they want to put out.

Remember all the Clinton conspiracy theories -- Waco, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, etc.? Did these theories destroy the Republicans? Were Democrats able to use these theorists as scapegoats to demonize the right in general? Why does the right always get away with doing what the left can never get away with doing -- even when the left has much better arguments and evidence for its suspicions?

[BestCenter]

29. The Left sucks at demonizing the Right.

It's just that simple.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

36. OK. As long as we all realize that the playing field is uneven,

and they will always win no matter what. Right? Or am I missing something?

[mhatrw]

14. Articles like this simply help to wake more people up to the truth.

Once you get past the enormity of the lie, the prime suspect for 9/11 is obvious. That's why the best way to suppress 9/11 truth is to ignore it entirely and act like it's too ridiculous to even deserve a response.

They said they wanted it. They said they needed it. And then they all twiddled their thumbs as it was happening. Then they told seven different stories about why they did nothing to respond. What more does anyone need to know about it?

[thingfisher]

16. Conspiracy by its very nature

is meant to be difficult to prove. The fact is that holes in the official story gives birth lots of "theories" based on a plethora of possibilities that arise as people reflect on possible scenarios. This gives rise to negative responses by people not inclined to question officialdom who demand clear cut answers to a complex event carried out with deliberate secrecy and deception.
Truth seekers need to patiently weed through all the information and misinformation, not to mention the more fantastic theories put forth. The 911 Truth movement is in the same position as the early truth seekers in the aftermath of the JFK murder. The fact that the JFK murder has been successfully spun for 50 plus years doesn't bode well for those in the 911 Truth movement.
Eventually most people weary of the subject, adapt to the new paradigm and abandon the effort to expose the truth. Those who continue on are labeled "conspiracy theorists" and fairly successfully marginalized.
My belief is that the JFK murder is just part of a much larger arc of events which we are seeing brought to fruition before our eyes here in the 21st century.

[Nozebro]

15. Is this garden variety propaganda or would you call it disinformation?

Were you already a confirmed believer in Osama's power whenever you just happened to come across this "article"?

[canetoad]

24. Boring, self-indulgent piece of writing. nt

[whistle]

25. Rolling Stone gone establishment, who would have thunk it?

[Marie26]

So what is the affirmative theory of the crime?

It seems like there's at least as many alternate theories as there are 911 conspiracy theorists, & that might be part of the problem. How can you know the "real truth", if 911 theorists can't even agree among themselves about what happened?

[freedom fighter jh]

43. Which comes first?

You have to FIND the real truth first; then you all agree on it.

"Conspiracy theorists," as you call us, are mostly, at this point, showing inconsistencies in the OCT and hypothesizing about what really happened. Can we prove our hypotheses? Mostly not; we can prove just some pieces. But we're trying to see how the whole thing fits together, and we're trying to alert others that the OCT does not hold up.

Yes, some theories about what happened on 911 are wacko. Maybe we "conspiracy theorists" just have a lot of imagination, or maybe those theories are proposed by people who seek to undermine efforts to find the truth.

It's been said many times on this forum, but I'll say it one more time: The first thing we need is an investigation that is interested in finding the real truth.

[Marie26]

44. There's a difference between finding holes,

and finding a viable alternate hypothesis that explains the facts. There's holes in the evolution theory, for instance; does that make the creation theory logical or correct? No. There's holes in the OJ Simpson case, does that mean that Nicole Brown was really killed by Columbian drug dealers? No. And so on. No theory is perfect, and a theory of the crime will often have some holes or unexplained threads. That's always true. And it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a massive cover-up, or that the theory is totally wrong. I TOTALLY agree that a full investigation is needed after the Democrats take control, so that we can get an in-depth examination of the facts w/o the need to provide political cover to Bushco. And I suspect that more evidence will come out in the future.

But, IMO, there is a difference between pointing out the holes in the official theory, and coming up w/fanciful theories & speculation that actually make less sense. It makes the reasonable demands for investigation seem less legitimate, and makes it easier for Republicans to discredit the entire issue. This Rolling Stones writer said that the 9/11 theorists have yet to offer a consistent, coherent affirmative theory of the crime, and you seem to agree w/that. Until they are able to do so, it will be extremely difficult to convince most people of the merits of the various conspiracy theories that are out there.

[pauldp]

45. Fanciful theories...

You mean like that CIA drug running, Al Qaeda's lead hijacker, the Bush Family and the Bin Laden
family could all be closely connected to the same little flight school in Florida? Oh that's right
that's not a theory, it's a fact.

I have very well informed liberal friends who were shocked recently to learn this. When things like this are
under reported and ignored, wild speculation should be expected.
The best way to minimize wild speculation is to promote established relevant facts. Demanding the speculation
stop is like telling someone to sit in the corner and not think about a white elephant. You can't not do something, you can
only do something in it's place. Many here are also convinced wild speculation is promoted as dis-info. So perhaps finding a common denominator in conspiracy theory is pointless.

All we can do is demand the truth, promote the facts, and make it clear that we know we are being lied to.

[Marie26]

46. Agree there

See, I know about those facts, but those facts alone don't explain 9/11. In fact, they do nothing to actually explain & prove what happened on that day. I'm not talking about lesser-known facts, but weird theories that have little to no basis in fact. Like how all the hijackers are still alive, Barbara Olson is currently in Europe, missiles were used instead of planes, planted explosives, remote-controlled planes, and on and on and on. What happened, IMO, is that once people believed that the media is lying to us, they started to believe that the media and government is lying about EVERYTHING. W/o any authority to trust, people began making up their own version of events.Lacking real facts from a trusted authority, rumors & conspiracy theories can circulate unabated. I agree that the best way to find the truth is to demand an impartial, full investigation (which hopefully the Democrats can undertake after this election). Until then, using critical thinking to sift through the BS from both sides is a pretty good policy.

[mirandapriestly]

48. Alive hijackers are not a "weird theory"

There were six, I believe , whose id's were used and they came forward, then "oops" & new "hijackers" were identified. There are multiple identities, more than one face attributed to more than one of them and there are descriptions of personalities which differ from other descriptions of the same "hijackers". It has not been, of course, followed up on, and it was poorly investigated like everything else, but there is evidence that the people who were called "hijackers" are indeed still alive, in fact, there is more evidence of that than there is of most of the government's "case".
Someone went to a great deal of trouble to find people who looked very similar, but were not the same for some of those id photos, and "al qaeda" had no motive to do that or to have doubles.

[pauldp]

49. Actually those facts do help explain what happened.

The circumstances surrounding Huffman Aviation and the ISI's involvement
in 911 financing, along with many other instances of the ISI supporting terrorism
and funding Al Qaeda, all help to paint a picture of Al Qaeda as an intelligence asset.
Definitely an asset of the ISI and most likely the CIA and MI6 as well.

It does not matter what hit the Pentagon or how the towers fell if Al Qaeda is an intelligence asset
then we are dealing with state sponsored false flag terror.

[freedom fighter jh]

47. I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

You say you want to see "a consistent, coherent affirmative theory of the crime," but you have a problem with speculation. How is this affirmative theory supposed to arise? If you see holes in the OCT, either you can just talk about the holes and leave the hypothesizing for another person or another time, or you can try to come up with your own alternative theory. Developing your own theory necessarily involves some speculation. And that's just what one person can do. For a bunch of people to agree on a theory they would have to exchange lots of facts, bat around lots of possibilities, and think out of the box. When you do that, some -- perhaps most -- of what you come up with will be wrong. You do it, though, because it's a good way to come up with the true answer, once you throw away the trash.

So let me ask you: Let's say you saw enough problems with the official story to be pretty well convinced that it's not true. What would you do? Keep your mouth shut? Just point out the holes and leave it at that? Do some research to piece the story together and then tell your conclusions to everyone you could? Bat around possibilities on a forum like this one? What's the right response, and why?

[Marie26]

51. Depends

Speculation is fine, as long as it's recognized as just speculation. My point is the same as the author's point: There is not a consistent affirmative theory of the crime. And I sort of agree that until a consistent theory is created that explains all these events, you'll have a hard time convincing people of the validity of the various conspiracy theories that are out there. I think batting around possibilities & explanations is natural & even helpful. But IMO you can't really be offended if other people don't agree w/that speculation. Also, if a possibility clearly makes no sense at all, move on. The scientific method is a pretty good model for finding the truth, but it involves discarding hypothesis that don't confirm w/the evidence. If people aren't using reason to discard illogical theories, or theories that contradict the evidence, then you're really just spinning your wheels rather than discovering the truth.

Speculation is valuable when it leads to a coherant, consistent theory that explains the evidence. Specluation isn't as valuable when a thousand people simply offer their own pet theory w/o examining the evidence first. The facts should create the theory. But, IMO, a lot of times people come up w/a off-the-wall theory first, & then just twist or ignore contrary facts. I guess all of the possibililites you offer are helpful, but they've got to be in sequence - first, noticing the holes, second, doing research to understand the holes & coming up w/a valid hypothesis that explains the evidence; and third, coming to a tentative conclusion & presenting it in a forum of similarly interested (or obsessed) experts for feedback. That feedback needs to be critical & skeptical, in order to point out the holes in that hypothesis, and allow it to be revised & improved. Forum feedback that automatically approves any 9/11 conspiracy, and attacks any doubters, isn't particularly helpful to finding the truth about 9/11. Critical thinking & skepticism are NECESSARY. I think there's a real lack of critical thinking anymore, which leads to people simply swallowing Iraq WMD claims, or 9/11 conspiracies, w/o sufficiently questioning either.

[Nozebro]

52. In other words, you can't give a "consistent theory" that makes sense.

How could you? How could anyone possibly give a "consistent theory" that takes into account all of the known lies, omissions, manufactured and planted evidence, false flag operations prior to 9/11 and so on? No one has yet done that, because it would be an impossibility, since we now know enough to conjecture with a very high level of certainty (100%) that 9/11 was an inside job and Osama bin Laden was made the "pet scapegoat" for it.

[Marie26]

53. I know it's

basically flamebait to try to dispute the 9/11 conspiracy theories here. If you don't see all the unproven assumptions in that post, I can't really help - planted evidence, manufactured evidence, false flag operations? That's not explaining what happened on that day. The 9/11 conspiricists need to come up with a coherant, CONSISTENT, explanation for how the US gov. planned & executed 9/11. Lacking that, it's not going to get the recognition & respectibility to get out of the dungeon. And maybe it shouldn't. The 9/11 Commission has flaws, but they have come up w/a fairly exhaustive explanation of what happened that day. If the 9/11 conspiracists can't come up w/a similar timeline & explanation, it's going to remain basically a fringe group.

[Nozebro]

54. The OCT'ers have mostly left the building because their efforts to

sell the 9/11 fairy tale have failed. Most of those folks are very smart, well-trained in argumentation and advocacy, very knowledgeable about the facts and the evidence, and they are/were energetic and aggressive. Despite all that, theirs was always an impossible goal because they didn't have the truth on their side. WE do. And the truth is, 9/11 was an inside job. A false flag operation that was blamed on a cave-dwelling long-time CIA asset named Osama bin Laden -- who, like LHOswald, probably didn't realize that he had been set up until AFTER the crime(s) had been committed.

[Marie26]

59. Thanks for proving my point.

You have THE TRUTH on your side, so who needs to learn anything, engage w/anyone, or refine your beliefs when it conflicts w/the evidence? So Bin Laden was framed, huh? You realize that even most 9/11 conspiracists think Al-Queda did it - though they think Cheney hired them.

My wider point is about the dangers of fundamentalism, which seems to be on the rise in a variety of totally disparate areas. Fundamentalists already know THE TRUTH, so anyone who disagrees with them should only be attacked & surpressed. In this way, Islamic radicals, Christian fundamentalists and the Bush Administration are quite similar. They think the same way - it's my way or the highway. End of argument. But because they can't adapt to new evidence, that rigid ideology eventually clashes w/reality, w/disasterous results (See: Iraq). What fundamentalists don't realize is that it's that very rigidity, that unwillingness to consider opposing views, that makes it impossible for them to ever really find the truth. In the same way, your post reflects someone who has sole posession of THE TRUTH, and feels no need to learn anything new. That's not conducive to finding the truth.

[Nozebro]

60. Claims that OBL or the mythical al Qaeda did it is a conspiracy theory

If you believe as the right-wing fundamentalists do, that a CIA asset and a group of young M.E. men were able to conspire and carry-out the defeat of the most powerful defense in the world, then I'd say it's high time you learned more of the facts about 9/11 and the use of False Flag operations.

BTW- how are YOU defining "conspiracy theorists"?

[Marie26]

62. Like talking to a brick wall.

So LIHOP people are Bush allies now? Talking to a fundamentalist is like talking to a brick wall. I think I'm done.

[Nozebro]

63. No such thing as "LIHOP". It's an impossibility re: 9/11. C U. Buh bye.

nt

[freedom fighter jh]

55. Thanks for your reply, Marie.

What you describe as the right process sounds to me like what people here are doing: Notice the holes, do research, come up with a hypothesis (or two or many), come to a conclusion.

But in my earlier post I left out one important factor: No one on this forum, to my knowledge, controls anyone else on this forum. There is no way to keep crazy stuff out of here. So when you see a hypothesis that any sane person would dismiss immediately, when doubters are attacked, keep in mind that that represents one person's thoughts.

In an electronic forum like this, I don't know if it's possible to know whether people are swallowing claims without questioning them. You see the responses that people have bothered to write, but you can't know what most of the readers are thinking.

[Marie26]

42. ....

[sagesnow]

50. Check out These Scientific Researchers' 9/11 Films

Here's my answer to the Rolling Stone Article:

Check out These Scientific Researchers' 9/11 Films:

9/11 Mysteries at Google Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+mysteries&hl=en-
This film editor states he was a Republican who got mad when he read of conspiracy theories and took at look at the evidence himself.

American Scholars Symposium:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4258946892514662399&q=9%2F11+panel&hl=en

In the film, scientist and researcher Professor Stephen Jones of Brigham Young University states he is a conservative who taught physics at Brigham Young University and believes he has evidence of professional type demolition devices used at the World Trade Center Towers and also used to demolish World Trade Center 7. Neither of these people are knee jerk Bush haters nor democrats and yet the evidence put forth in the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT)does not add up for them.

The evidence, in fact, does not add up for the many people who actually take the time to examine what is known about the attacks and compare it to the Official Conspiracy Theory. We are supposed to believe that 19 Islamic zealots hijacked 4 airplanes and,with only a few months flight training, were able to make amazing aeronautical maneuvers and three of them hit their targets. In the air for 40 or more minutes, there was no attempt by NORAD jets to intercept any of them. Tons of steel melted and most of the concrete in the Twin towers was pulverized and collapsed into their basements. Yet in the midst of all this destruction, one of the hijacker's billfold was miraculously found, with his passport in it, in the rubble. Before you dismiss people who do not accept the Official Conspiracy Theory, it would be good to do some homework first.

[Redstone]

56. I agree with him.

Redstone

[John Q. Citizen]

58. I have seen this repeated as the gospel truth:

"I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes."

Do you know of any data which supports this hypothesis?

Or is this just popular mythology?

Without any facts to support this belief I'm a bit skeptical. It reminds me of the "Dean is bad for the party" mantra so popular a few years back, or the charges that flew that claimed doubting the purity of the American election systems was somehow akin to helping the right wing.

I realize many can uncritically latch on to fad thinking, I'm just wondering if there is any "there" there other than wishful thinking?

Is this just an unfounded opinion on your part, or do you have any empirical data at all that leads you to agree with the author? Thanks.

Denny Crane