Michael Hogan Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 (edited) Paul Thompson (He will be remembered much like Weisberg) and Peter Dale Scott will be in Palo Alto on October 27th to discuss this documentary. No I think he will be at best a footnote except in books, papers and articles about misguided kooks sort of like the people who thought fluoridation of water was a Communist plot and that Ike was a Communist agent. But I'm being too harsh his timeline is a valuable tool “Paul Thompson's Timeline has served as the definitive source for any researcher attempting to penetrate the mysteries of 9/11. This book [could] effect a major change in the course of U.S. history.” — PETER DALE SCOTT, author of Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Columbia, and Indochina “THE TERROR TIMELINE is a tremendous resource that will give readers a truly independent means of judging our government in its errant conduct of the war on terror.” — PETER LANCE, author of Cover Up and 1000 Years for Revenge “A spectacular resource that is an essential tool for anyone who is truly interested in understanding the events leading up to 9/11.” — CRAIG UNGER, author of the House of Bush, House of Saud “This is the basic book on 9/11. Paul Thompson's work tells what happened that day, tracing the events leading up to the attack, and what has transpired since. After years of self-serving reports by ineffectual politicians in Washington, there is at last an independent report, based entirely on publicly known facts, that is thorough and reliable. Read it and decide for yourself whether there was a cover-up. It is truly remarkable. Thank God there are people like Thompson.” —JAMES RIDGEWAY, author of The March to War “Paul Thompson’s exhaustive and richly detailed research has now provided the world with a veritable treasure trove of 9/11 information. If you want to know everything about 9/11, you must read this book. If you want to better understand 9/11, you must read this book. Our intelligence agencies should be recruiting people like Paul Thompson, because he’s brilliant.” —KRISTEN BREITWEISER, co-chair, September 11th Advocates; member, Family Steering Committee; and wife of Ronald M. Breitweiser, WTC Tower Two “Having lost loved ones on 9/11, we had the passion and drive to research and follow through with our quest for answers, but until we stumbled across Paul Thompson’s exquisitely detailed and well-sourced timeline on the Internet, much of the information that we found out about the events surrounding 9/11 were out of context or unverifiable. Paul’s timeline gave us a much-needed measure of clarity when our lives were filled with ambiguities.” —PATTY CASAZZA , co-chair, September 11th Advocates; member, Family Steering Committee; and wife of John Casazza, WTC Tower One “Paul Thompson’s timeline is an invaluable tool and a must read for anyone who really wants to understand the events of 9/11. One can only hope that the 9/11 Independent Commission’s report, with its unprecedented access to millions of documents, is as detailed and thorough as this citizen’s account is. If the many questions raised by this book are ever answered, it would go a long way toward making us all safer.” —MINDY KLEINBERG, co-chair, September 11th Advocates; member, Family Steering Committee; and wife of Alan Kleinberg, WTC Tower One “For all of us who lost our loved ones on 9/11, and for anyone who seeks the truth about what happened on that awful September day, Paul Thompson’s timeline is where all research into the subject should begin. I am eternally grateful for Paul’s meticulous work and have referred to Thompson’s timeline since the beginning of my quest for answers into my husband Ken’s death. Thank you, Paul.” —LORIE VAN AUKEN, co-founder, September 11th Advocates; member, Family Steering Committee; and wife of Kenneth Van Auken, WTC Tower One Len Colby's opinion or Peter Dale Scott's opinion....which do you favor? Edited October 26, 2006 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 (edited) Some questions for Mr. White: The 'blobopad' building and Jack's points of reference Hmmm – I blew up the section of the VDoT still where Jack claims the helipad building is and quite frankly I don't see anything other than a blob. And yes I see there is a tree at the north corner but that does NOT help determine whether he correctly identified the point of impact or not. As for his other points of reference, the signs on the highway, they don't prove much one way or the other. The VDoT still was taken from the west side of the road 60 feet off the ground and about 1000 feet away. The helicopter photo must have been taken from a few hundred feet over a point east of the road probably closer (horizontally) to the Pentagon. In the DoT photo the road is at a 50 angle to the bottom edge of the image in the helicopter photo the road is perpendicular, in other words the perspective is totally different. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Jackslatest-large.jpg Where are the windows? / The roofline Perhaps will be able to show us were these windows in the crop of Jack's photo of the firefighting effort appear in the DoT still. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/len.../windowrows.jpgThen he could explain to us why in the helicopter photo the collapse zone is in the middle of the section with the raised roof and why in DoT still why its at the edge of it? How far was the crash from the north corner? I suggest also that he look at the September 12, 2001 satellite photo and based on the known length of the wall (921 feet) that he tell us how far in feet he estimates the collapse zone / point of impact is from the north corner and then to look at the Google Maps satellite photo and estimate how far the helipad building is. I suggest he looks at his VDoT still and based on the building's known height (77.3 feet) he tells how far he estimates them to be from the north corner. A related oddity is that if one puts a ruler to their screen and measures the height of the wall in the VDoT photo is greater than that in the helicopter photo thus the messured distance from the corner to 'helipad building' and 'point of impact' should also be greater but low and behold, they're LESS. If you don't care to read the details jump to the next paragraph. I'm looking at the crop below right now. I'm looking specifically at the photo on the right (helicopter shot), exact measurement is difficult because of the shadow and low resolution but the wall is about 3.8 cm at the right edge and about 3 cm near the north corner, for an average of 3.4 cm, the helipad is 10.5 cm from the north corner and the point of impact is 20 cm. In photo on the left the wall is 6 cm "tall" at the right edge and 4 at the north corner for an average "height" of 5 cm 47% more that in the helicopter photo, thus we would expect the helipad and point of impact also to be roughly 47% "further" from the north corner or about 15.4 and 29.4 cm respectively, however they are only 7.5 cm and 16.5 cm away from the corner about half the expected distances [Obviously if you try this yourself the exact numbers will vary but the ratios should be the same]. Because of the low resolution of both images, difference in perspective and the shadow problem in the second image these comparisons are not very accurate but they are "good enough for government work". In my earlier post that Jack's "impact point" was about 1/3 the correct distance from the north corner. Based on more careful measurements I am revising that estimate. I said that his impact point's "distance from the corner is less than 3 times the height" because I only messured the right edge but it is actually 3.3 X the average height. The height of the Pentagon wall is known 77.3 feet (see footnote in previous post) thus Jack indicated a point about 255 feet (3.3 X 77.3) from the north corner and not 200 feet as previously estimated. Looking at the September 12 satellite photo and knowing that the wall was 921 it's clear the impact zone was about 600 feet from the north corner (see post for details) so the real impact point was about 2.3X further away from the north corner than the spot IDed by Jack . Jack I imagine might make much of the fact that the helicopter photo was taken from a more severe angle which would make the wall appear to be shorter than it really is but the difference in angle is not big enough to explain such large difference in the heigh to width ratio. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/len.../sidebyside.jpg Down for the count, how many windows are there in a Pentagon? Still not convinced? Let's try a very simple proof one that even my 7 year-old daughter can handle. Look again at Jack's VDoT photo and count the rows of windows to the right of that plus sign. Again due to low image quality exact numbers are difficult but we counted about 20 it gets sort of blurry near the tree which itself might be hiding a row or two so I'll be generous to Jack and say there are 24 - 25 window rows between the north corner and his point of impact. If I'm right there should have been about 55 rows between the collapse zone and the north corner (2.3 X 24). Now let's look at the photo below, we counted 42 rows of windows between the collapse zone and the left edge of the photo which is an unknown distance from the north corner. Link to original uncropped photo - http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/401-large.jpg Would there have been enough time for the VDoT cam to 'capture' the plane? I looked again at the satellite image and see that I misidentified the camera pole position and now believe it to be 1000 -1060 feet from the point of impact which means that the plane would have taken 1.3 - 1.4 seconds from the time it passed the pole till it crashed. This is little more than half the 2.5 second interval between frames than the camera now broadcasts at. If the plane was 15 feet off the ground like Jack tells us it would have taken another tenth of a second or so for the plane to fly into the camera's field of view sot it would probably have been 1.1 – 1.3 seconds. Even if Jack is write and I'm wrong about the point of impact in his VDoT still Jack needs to turn up some evidence that the interval between frames on 9/11 was 1.1 – 1.3 seconds or less. When was the camera knocked back? Even if Jack can turn up evidence that the interval was less than that he still has to deal with the fact that the evidence that the camera was "knocked back" and damaged and though the author of the article says this was a result of the explosion it is more likely to have happen just as or just after the plane passed. Does VDoT record traffic images? Jack will still have to answer another question, did the VDoT record the the images from it traffic cameras back in 2001? In response to his FOIA request they told Russell Pickering who I learned is a "truther" webmaster of the excellent Pentagon Research site the following, "We do not record the images as seen by the traffic cameras." [ http://www.pentagonresearch.com/117.html ] Jack could allege they are lying but this does not seem very realistic to me. If it were untrue many people would know this it would be much easier to produce a doctored tape than to get dozens of ordinary citizens to clam up. Come to think of it I have never seen or heard any accounts of the FBI seizing VDoT tapes. My predictions: I'm feeling like Karnack, I predict Jack will: a) feebly insist that he identified the correct point of impact and ignore the points in the last 3 paragraphs above. My request: Jack can you post un altered full resolution copies of the VDoT and helicopter images and tell us there provinence? Len Edited October 27, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 (edited) duplicate post Edited October 27, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 (edited) "Paul Thompson's Timeline has served as the definitive source for any researcher attempting to penetrate the mysteries of 9/11. This book [could] effect a major change in the course of U.S. history."— PETER DALE SCOTT, author of Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Columbia, and Indochina [...] "For all of us who lost our loved ones on 9/11, and for anyone who seeks the truth about what happened on that awful September day, Paul Thompson's timeline is where all research into the subject should begin. I am eternally grateful for Paul's meticulous work and have referred to Thompson's timeline since the beginning of my quest for answers into my husband Ken's death. Thank you, Paul." —LORIE VAN AUKEN, co-founder, September 11th Advocates; member, Family Steering Committee; and wife of Kenneth Van Auken, WTC Tower One Len Colby's opinion or Peter Dale Scott's opinion....which do you favor? Like I said his timeline is a valuable tool. He is rather rare among "truthers" in that he (mostly) stricks to established facts I disapreer with his interpretation of the evidence, Chicken Little correctly observed that something fell on his head. Correcting more Colby misinformation. The photo in Jack's last post does correctly identify the point of impact and flight path. This is NOT the spot he identified in the VDoT still (though he thought it was). I fail to see how it refutes any of my points. Edited October 27, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 27, 2006 Author Share Posted October 27, 2006 Go to: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 27, 2006 Author Share Posted October 27, 2006 More Proof 911 Inside Job - Witnesses To WTC Explosives GeorgeWashingtonblogspot.com 11-10-5 During the afternoon of 9/11, the Mayor of New York city and the Governor of New York state held a press conference. Reporters asked 2 interesting questions: "Is there anything to indicate that there could be MORE BOMBS, more planes out there?" "So, the only National Guard we'll see will be in lower Manhattan, in the BOMB site area?" Neither the Mayor nor the Governor corrected the reporters by stating that there weren't any bombs, and that -- instead -- the twin towers had collapsed due solely to airplane and fire damage. If you were a high-level official trying to calm down the public in a major crisis (which is part of the job description) and there weren't in fact bombs in t he world trade centers, wouldn't you have corrected the reporters in order to kill unfounded rumors and minimize panic? Doesn't this lack of a statement amount to an acknowledgment that the Mayor and Governor believed there were bombs in the twin towers? By way of analogy, imagine that 10 witnesses say they saw Mike shoot Joe. In a press conference, a reporter asks the police chief if police know why Mike shot Joe, and the chief answers without correcting the reporter. In other words, the police chief does not answer by saying something like "No no, Fred shot Joe" or "we don't know who shot Joe yet, we've just started investigating". Isn't that further circumstantial evidence that tends to show that Mike shot Joe? Doesn't the silence in the face of bomb-related questions help corroborate the numerous eyewitness statements of bombs in the trade centers, such as the following: A reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs i n the buildings brought the buildings down; The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings; A NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings; A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"; An MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device "and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion" and the police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"; A NYC firefighter stated "the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rag e because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade"; Assistant Fire Commissioner stated "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?" -- and a lieutenant firefighter the Commisioner spoke with independently verified the flashes; A firefighter said "[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions"; Another firefigther stated "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight"; A paramedic said "at first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they se t the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop -- thats exactly what because thought it was"; A police officer noted "People were saying, 'There's another one and another one.' I heard reports of secondary bomb explosions ..."; A firefighter stated "there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93" (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center; A firefighter stated "it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV"; Dan Rather said that collapse was "reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen [when] a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down" (CNN's Aaron Brown and a Fox News reporter also made similar comments); A British newspaper stated "some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion'"; One ABC reporter stated it looked like a controlled demolition; another ABC reporter stated "anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down"; A reporter for WNYC radio said "The reporters were trying to figure out what had happened. We were thinking bombs had brought the buildings down"; A Wall Street Journal reporter said "I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, "My God, they're going to bring the build ing down." And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions"; and A facilities manager in the north tower "was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons". You can view links to the source materials for all eyewitness quotes at www.911Proof.com . The 9/11 Commission Report did not even once mention the word "explosion" or "bomb". The mainstream media hasn't touched the evidence of bombs in the trade center. Democratic and republican politicans smear anyone who even raises the issue as a conspiracy nut. Isn't it time that we faced the elephant in the living room? Can our democracy survive if we don't? http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Go to:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html False advertising Jack, the anonymous author of that article only claimed that he (or she) " work(ed) in special effects." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 But this can't be so....because Len says it can't be so...and he is backed-up by Steve and Craig and Brendon and they are all honorable men.....who support their nation and their leaders and know they never lie and they have said it was only some bad bad guys hired by bin Laden who, despite their former CIA roles and friendships/realationships with those we work with [like ISI] and despite we never really went after him....he did it as a rogue terrorist [because he hates our GROWING freedoms] from a cave in the mountains [when he wasn't in a American military hospital]. How dare you say that the offical version of anything - let alone 911 - was not - god-given truth! Power always speaks the truth to those of us humble chattle who quake at their very presence. You need re-programming, Jack - your logic circuits are certainly in error.....why one Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin in Dallas and bin Laden the lone planner [with his merry men] of the events of 911. In fact, in both cases it was SO evident that collection and care of the evidence and witnesses - or even a real investigation were unnecessary!...and thus were not really carried out...it would have been a waste of time and money and cast a shadow of doubt upon the speakers of the Official Truth by certain mis-interpretations of conspiracy nuts out there.....they are everywhere, under every rock, behind all. I have seen the light and now join the morally and brain dead believers in all official versions of everything......shall I list them.....I used to doubt them too...but now see I was blind. It is all so simple when one doesn't have to question anything or think for ourselves. I feel a load off my shoulders already. Seeing conspiracy everywhere is not necessarily a sign of "thinking for oneself" or indeed thinking at all. In your case Peter it appears to take the form of a predictably Pavlovian response to external stimuli. Nice dog by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Peter's posts with the disinformation, straw men arguments and other logical fallacies edited out. I feel a load off my shoulders already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Seeing conspiracy everywhere is not necessarily a sign of "thinking for oneself" or indeed thinking at all. In your case Peter it appears to take the form of a predictably Pavlovian response to external stimuli. Nice dog by the way Despite their protestation to the contrary most "truthers" seem less able to think on their own than the average citizens they dismissively refer to as sheeple. Just as “Joe Six” pack blindly accepts what he sees on Fox News they blindly accept what they read on What Really Happened or Rense et. al. and often embellish it. Jack's initial post is a prime example. He read an article on a website whose anonymous author claimed to work in specially effects and ‘spoke’ briefly about the kinds of explosives used in movies (with out claiming to have worked with them him(?)self) and then about demolition charges. Jack cited him(?) as an explosives expert. Similarly several members of this forum have posted or provided links to “articles” by a “Finnish military expert”. And just what is his or her name? We don’t know because he (or she) “has chosen to remain anonymous.” This doesn’t stop them from blindly quoting him(?) as an “expert”. Numerous unsupported claims are repeated despite a lack of any real evidence “the CEO of Securacom is George Bush’s cousin”, “the Pentagon had anti-aircraft batteries” etc etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Seeing conspiracy everywhere is not necessarily a sign of "thinking for oneself" or indeed thinking at all. In your case Peter it appears to take the form of a predictably Pavlovian response to external stimuli. The converse: Seeing no conspiracy anywhere is not necessarily a sign of "thinking for oneself" or indeed thinking at all. In Andy Walker's case, it appears to take the form of a predictably Pavlovian response to external stimuli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 28, 2006 Author Share Posted October 28, 2006 (edited) Thanks to Colby for providing an updated VDoT frame which shows the error of my initial study. To his chagrin, the new WIDE ANGLE frame shows the alleged plane path much better in this much more accurate study. The traffic camera could not fail to show a 757 entering the field of view and impacting the building. This is known as the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Even a broken clock is right sometimes, briefly. Jack Edited October 28, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 (edited) Thanks to Colby for providing an updated VDoT frame whichshows the error of my initial study. To his chagrin, the new WIDE ANGLE frame shows the alleged plane path much better in this much more accurate study. The traffic camera could not fail to show a 757 entering the field of view and impacting the building. This is known as the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Even a broken clock is right sometimes, briefly. Jack I'm glad that Jack now admits he was totally wrong (with out really admitting it) about the impact location after saying that what I was saying was "a mass of meaningless crap in an attempt to becloud the issue. He has misidentified points within the photos." The truth is that Jack's previous study was "a mass of meaningless crap…He … misidentified points within the photos." His point of impact was off by several hindered feet and his flight path off by about 30 degrees. Jack shows that once again he is a totally incompetent photo-analyst, people like Dave, Evan Steve Ulman and me who make no claims of expertise in the field consistently show him to be wrong. His latest post is another "mass of meaningless crap". Obviously the older less wide-angle view would have "fail(ed) to show (the) 757…impacting the building." because it did so several hundred feet out of the camera's field of view (FOV). There are not two different views available, presumably Jack's still was captured sometime after 9/11, sometime after that the VDoT switched to the current wider view. The wider view is the only one now available*. The camera COULD have shown the plane "entering the field of view" but that was not very likely because the portion of the flight path that Jack now claims crossed the field of view was only about 200 feet long {see images below}, the plane itself was 155 feet long, the plane was flying at around 777 feet per second thus even if Jack is right this time the plane only would have passed through the FOV for less that half a second (155 + 200 = 355, 355/777 = 0.46). The traffic camera currently captures images at a rate of about one frame every 2.5 seconds*. So even if back in 2001 it had the same frame rate the odds of it capturing a frame when the plane was in its FOV were less that 1 in 5 (0.46/2.5). Even if it did, what would it have shown? - A blurred blob, even cars which are traveling at fraction of the speed of the plane, from further away (distance diminishes the effect of speed), aren't captured clearly. It might only nave captured the left wing. All of this is moot because the VDoT said they don't record traffic images and Jack has no evidence to the contrary. Source: http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wl&q= Jack is like an authentic Soviet military watch. They were (are?) collectors items, so Chinese companies started making knock offs. Apparently one way to tell the difference is that the imitations keep better time than the originals. A crappy watch is only accurate when someone corrects it. Len * http://trafficland.com/findacamera/findaca....php?city=VASUB or the VDoT link in my earlier posts. Edited October 28, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Before we lose sight of it, the question here is does this person have a right to the title "explosives expert" or not. And further have their views been examined by peers and validated. It is really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 (edited) Before we lose sight of it, the question here is does this person have a right to the title "explosives expert" or not. And further have their views been examined by peers and validated. It is really that simple. It is a title NEVER claimed by the unnamed author, that part was Jack embellishing. AFAIK no explosives experts have said the TOWERS were demo'd thought there is one who thinks 7 was his opinion seems to only be based on having seen video clips. Edited October 30, 2006 by Len Colby 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