Dean Hartwell Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 I have been reluctant. I am waiting for someone to politely ask me to make the book available here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Len, In debating the essay with you, I learned the following facts, which have been incorporated into the book: There is no source for Michael Ruppert's belief that blips were used during the events of 9/11. There are manifests available for Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93. I believe you have misunderstood other issues. For example, in the book: I say that SSDI itself only says that it is 83% accurate. My personal test of people I knew was about 50-60% accurate. Provide a citation for the underlined claim. The SSDI is generally only accurate for people who were receiving Social Security, the families of people who weren’t receiving it have no reason to contact the SSA. According to geneology side RootsWeb The SSDI does not include death records for everyone who has been issued a Social Security Number (card). Common reasons for exclusion include the following: • The death was not reported to the Social Security Administration (SSA). • The death occurred before the Death Master File was maintained in a computer database. About 98 percent of the deaths in this database occurred between 1962 and the present. • The person did not participate in the Social Security program. • Survivor death benefits were (are) being paid to dependents or spouse. • A recent death may not be indexed yet. • Human error. (Before you give up, read the section titled "Missing Entries in the SSDI.") If you do not find a listing in the SSDI, it does not mean the person is still living, or that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has no records on the deceased. http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/ssdi/index.html I mentioned Joey Ramone, Perry Como also died in 2001 so did “Papa John” Phillips and Ralph Dale Earnhardt, they all died in 2001 but aren’t the SSDI neither is Sam Phillips who died in 2003. Search the Americans on this list of “Famous Deaths for Year 2001”, most of those born after 1942 do not show up, Maybe there still alive. Riddle me this why would the forces of darkness execute this elaborate plot but be unwilling or able to make fraudulent entries on federal government lists like the SSDI or the BTS lists? http://www.historyorb.com/deaths/date/2001 http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi I do not find the number of passengers on the planes significant.I do not state that no Arab names are on the manifests. I state that several planes were used and that some of them were decoy planes. Perhaps you call something Flight 11 and I see it as a plane without passengers. I do not agree with you as to your assertions that certain sources are crackpots. In any case, I believe most sources are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Of course you “do not agree with [me] as to [my] assertions that certain sources are crackpots” they are telling what you want to hear. Unfortunately for you even with in the truth movement no planers are considered loons. P.S. Maybe I like self-publishing! People who can’t get their books published usually do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I have been reluctant. I am waiting for someone to politely ask me to make the book available here. I've already asked you twice, was I not polite enough? OK Pretty, please will you post it here? And could you kindly point out any significant differences between the book and essay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hartwell Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Len, The significant differences revolve around the planes and passengers and the detail I give as to where each went. Here is an outline of my ideas, with an asterisk for each different ideas: What happened to each of the planes? Flight 11 allegedly struck World Trade Center 1 (North Tower) *Flight 11 – There was no such flight *Flight 11 Decoy (“11D”) – Took off from Boston Logan airport and was identified as Flight 11 *Where did 11D go? – It flew toward the World Trade Center and got within one-half mile of it *What happened to 11D? – It landed safely What happened to WTC 1? – Another aircraft struck it Flight 175 allegedly struck World Trade Center 2 (South Tower) Flight 175 – It took off from Boston Logan Airport Where did 175 go? - It flew west, switching its flight # to 89 and doing a hijacking simulation What happened to 175? – It landed safely in Cleveland *Flight 175 Decoy (“175D”) – Took off from Boston Logan Airport and was identified as 175 *Where did 175D go? – It flew toward the World Trade Center and got within one-half mile of it *What happened to 175D? – It stayed in the air (unidentified) and then served as a decoy for 93 What happened to WTC 2? - Another aircraft struck it. Flight 77 allegedly struck the Pentagon Flight 77 – There was no such flight *Flight 77 Decoy (“77D”) – It flew west and was identified as 77 What happened to 77D? – I don’t know; I speculate it flew over the Pentagon Flight 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania Flight 93 – It took off from Newark Airport Flight 93 Decoy (“93D”) – No Where did 93 go? – It flew west What happened to 93? It went toward Cleveland, then flew back to Pennsylvania and landed safely. As for the SSDI, my point was that the percentage of people identified as dead on SSDI was far lower than what SSDI says it does and lower than my own test. It is a minor point and not worth much of our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hartwell Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Here is Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11 on a ZIP file for use by the Education Forum members only: PWPPDF.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) *Flight 11 – There was no such flight*Flight 11 Decoy (“11D”) – Took off from Boston Logan airport and was identified as Flight 11 A perfect example of how tortured your logic is, you assume there was no Flight 11 because it didn’t appear on the BTS page but believe “11D” took off from there despite it not being mentioned there. When I find the time I’ll take a look at your convoluted explanation. The same applies to your beliefs that i) two flights took off from Logan from the same flight number because this also does jibe with the BTS page and ii) one changed its flight # midflight because numerous flight controllers and fake passengers would have to be “in on it” and presumably United 1989 was on the BTS page. Note that you got the flight # hopefully you didn’t make the same blunder in your book. Edited January 20, 2011 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Here is Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11 on a ZIP file for use by the Education Forum members only: LOL I took a look at your "book" I like how you padded it out by using extra large type, what you published is really just an overpriced 30 (or so) page essay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hartwell Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Len, You take something for free and then call it "overpriced." Good one! If people don't like the price for the final version, they don't have to pay, either. No one had to pay for the several previous versions. I use the large font so my wife can read it. And as far as my "convoluted" explanation goes, you must be talking about the book. My post of the planes and passengers (#19) contained no explanation. You are prejudging my book, then. Your review will be totally worthless. You will not waste any more of my time. I will no longer reply to you. Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Thank you for allowing us to read it, Dean; I'll get to it when I have time and comment on the material within the book. Unfortunately I'm in hospital for a few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Yea, thanks Dean, After taking the time to read through your theory I am convinced your intention is to distract from the real issues of the day. It was a real waste of time. You have no idea what the real significant issues of Sept. 11 are and how to properly deal with them. And you distract new students from learning the truth by propagating bullxxxx. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Len, You take something for free and then call it "overpriced." Good one! Yes, you made it free “for use by the Education Forum members only” but for others it’s $10 plus shipping which is quite steep for a 35-page self-published book by an obscure author. By contrast 350 – 700 page commercially published books by Griffin, Tarpley and Ruppert (which I think are crappy too) go for $12 - $18. If people don't like the price for the final version, they don't have to pay, either. No one had to pay for the several previous versions.I use the large font so my wife can read it. I find that hard to believe, if normal size type were used it would about 1 / 4 as long and presumably increasing the page count about 4x increased your publishing costs by a similar proportion. You do know that you can easily change type size on the computer screen? I imagine the real reason was that you knew people would be unlikely to spend over $10 for a 30 – 40 page essay. The relevant question is how many of the people who buy it will know what they are getting. And as far as my "convoluted" explanation goes, you must be talking about the book. My post of the planes and passengers (#19) contained no explanation.You are prejudging my book, then. I already read most of your essay, debated you on this and the other thread and looked over your footnotes; it’s not as if I based my comment solely on the basis of your post. Your review will be totally worthless. I doubt you would complain that a review by a diehard no-planer “will be totally worthless” because they read your essay with pre-existing prejudices. FYI I read the applicable part of your essay and as I supposed you did not resolve the contradiction between supposing that flights 11 and 175 never took off because they did not appear on the BTS page and speculating that decoy versions of those flights took off despite not being on the page either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Len, The font size or publishing method has nothing to do with the premises or claims Dean makes. Other authors might be able to reduce publishing costs by volume, but again that has nothing to do with the claims. The only times publishing method is relevant is when things are claimed to be in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, when in fact they are simply 'pay-to-publish' magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Here is Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11 on a ZIP file for use by the Education Forum members only: Every time I've tried to download this, on multiple computers, it says it is invalid and empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Working here. Send me your e-mail and I'll send you a copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Len, The font size or publishing method has nothing to do with the premises or claims Dean makes. Other authors might be able to reduce publishing costs by volume, but again that has nothing to do with the claims. I disagree in your 1st post on this thread you said “Congratulations on getting your book published,” but it turns only it isn’t really a book and he didn’t get it published The font size is relevant because what is supposedly a 144 page book only has about 35 pages of content. If I’d paid over $ 10 I’d “get the feeling [i’d] been cheated”. Dean misrepresented his “book” The only times publishing method is relevant is when things are claimed to be in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, when in fact they are simply 'pay-to-publish' magazines. Really, why then did you congratulate Dean? I assume it was because getting a book is considered an accomplishment because an editor or publisher deemed the content worthy; that never happened with Dean’s essay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now