Denis Pointing
-
Posts
370 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Denis Pointing
-
-
Duncan, could you show me the right hand image without the color please.
Denis.
Sure Denis, Here's my source image.
Duncan
Thanks Duncan, yeah I can certainly see why your posting this. Am I right in assuming you've presented this before? If so I dont understand why its not more acclaimed. It seems just as relevant as Badge man. Denis.
-
Just sharing what I see as the Dal-Tex 2nd floor shooter in Altgens for anyone who has never seen it.
Duncan
Duncan, could you show me the right hand image without the color please. Denis.
-
Very interesting Duncan, but for the benefit of someone who knows next to nothing about photography, e.g. me, just how reliable is this process of adding colour to blank spaces to form an image? Sorry for the lack of technical jargon. I belive there was a lot of controversy in its reliability when the same was done with Badge man.
Denis.
No problem Denis. To be honest, I can't say how reliable it is. What I will say is that I seen the figures in black and white before I coloured it in. I didn't just invent the shapes. What I see could be jpeg artifacts, or they could be real figures. I think it's was worthwhile putting this forward as a maybe for anyone who had not seen it before on this forum.
Duncan
Thanks for your honest reply Duncan. And I agree, this was CERTAINLY worthwhile putting forward. Perhaps one of our forum photography experts could expand on this. Thanks. Denis
-
Just sharing what I see as the Dal-Tex 2nd floor shooter in Altgens for anyone who has never seen it.
Duncan
Very interesting Duncan, but for the benefit of someone who knows next to nothing about photography, e.g. me, just how reliable is this process of adding colour to blank spaces to form an image? Sorry for the lack of technical jargon. I belive there was a lot of controversy in its reliability when the same was done with Badge man. Denis.
-
Bigfoot! I should of known..... ROTFLMFAO!
you Bill's gopher these days, Kathy? Or is he at his maximum, if so why is the forum giving him a break.
No David, thats not a cast of Bigfoot, its a cast of YOUR foot.....you know, the one you always put in your own mouth. ROTFLMFAO!
-
I don't know where anybody else wants to go.
But under the Constitution of the United States evidence and witnesses to homicides are brought before a Grand Jury.
As suggested since the demise of the ARRB, the next step for the JFK assassination research is to generate NEW, SWORN testimony, under oath in a court of law or Congress.
Towards that end COPA and its members have been trying to get Congress to hold oversight hearings on the JFK Act and obtain the sworn testimony of those who have knowledge of records that have been destroyed, illegally with held and are missing.
Those hearings are not concerned with the evidence of conspiracy or crimes other than those crimes connected to government records.
All evidence of crimes related to the assassination should be and eventually must be presented to a grand jury to determine if there is enough evidence to indict individuals for crimes related to the assassination - including but not limited to perjury, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, falsefiying evidence, conspiracy and homicide.
Those who want to pursue this two agendas can join COPA.
We've been pursuing these two goals for years now, and if we don't get the oversight hearings in the next year, and an active grand jury in two years, it will never happen, and you can debate and argue and promote books and web sites all you want.
The legal channel for the proper investigation of homicide in the US is very clear, it goes before a grand jury.
Bill Kelly
For those interested in my research:
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/
For those interested in JFK Grand Jury:
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01...gal-action.html
For those interested in COPA:
Truly exelent post Bill, the most sincere and meaningful one I've read here for a LONG time. Thanks for your perspective. Denis.
-
Denis...look at these photos. Do they all show the same man?
Jack
Jack, These photos are not new to me, I've seen them a thousand times before and YES, IMO they do indeed show the same man. I could show you many photos of myself were I look totally differant in each, as I'm sure many here could. Besides, if one followed your take on the photo's, there wouldn't just be 2 LHO's but at least SIX, as ALL the photo's APPEAR differant. Denis.
-
Peters=Miller
So, according to Jack White, we have 2 Zapruder film's, 2 Lee Oswald's, 2 Margarita Oswald's and now...2 Bill Miller's. Oh well, could be worse, at least we dont have 2 Jack White's and 2 Healy's. God forbid!!!
LOLwasn't for the likes of researchers like Jack White, you and the rest of the "LHO did it all by his lonesome Lone Nut crowd" would have no place to ply your disinfo-mania.
So be grateful Pointing, we give you something to do with all that spare-time you have.... better than a real job, eh?
p.s. where is your profile btw?
You really do shoot yourself in the foot every time dont you Healy? It doesn't take great research skills to check out my personal information page. Had you have bothered, or should that be if you were capable, you would have found enough info about my job and personal life to satisfy even a person as nosy as you. Also, a quick look at my previous post's would clearly show I am no LNuter. What I am is somebody vehemently opposed to the lunatic fringe on this forum, who constantly present ludicrous theories combined with piss poor research, thereby causing nothing but embarrassment to real researchers. And to make sure there is no confusion here, THIS MEANS YOU!!!
PS Where is my profile?......mind your own damn business, I dont answer to YOU.
-
Peters=Miller
So, according to Jack White, we have 2 Zapruder film's, 2 Lee Oswald's, 2 Margarita Oswald's and now...2 Bill Miller's. Oh well, could be worse, at least we dont have 2 Jack White's and 2 Healy's. God forbid!!!
LOL -
An also curious fact apparently, is the right of circumcision that some Brit. royals have undergone. I am thinking here of Prince Charles who had the act performed by a Mohel when he was a young man (Charles, that is, not the Rabbi
).I had this referenced somewhere, but cannot find it now. For which apologies. But the following may serve the same purpose:
http://www.moheljoel.com/pdf/circ_decision.pdf
Which leads to the possible conclusion that the Brit royal line could be both Jewish and Arab...
Blimey.
David, The Royal Family may be descended from Mohammed, but they're really not British. They're Germans. They made up a name: Windsor. The only true British Royal was Princess Diana. On some geneology site regarding her, she was descended from the Stuarts, who were descendants of the Merovingian Kings, who were descended from the union of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdaline.
Kathy
Your referring to "Holy blood and Holy grail" of course, but do you really take the claims in that book seriously Kathy?
-
It's the usual alterationist ploy, make ridiculous claims, present shoddy research, then when their mistakes are brought to light they deflect their embarrassment by hurling insults at YOU. Just ignore them Bill, their pathetic. Denis.
I hear ya, Denis. The puzzling thing about Healy is that he has never pointed out to Jack that he (Jack) is making erroneous claims from poor quality images. After all, David has posted that he has seen no proof of alteration and yet he had seen all Jack's silly claims in the book David participated in. It's too bad that David didn't try to prevent Jack from going forward with his claims and maybe saved us all some embarrassment as CTs.
And that's the real shame, they dont just embarrass themselves, but ALL of us too. No wonder so many of the general public think were all a load of nuts. How can anyone take us seriously after reading Jacks posts on this thread, even our own members are laughing at him. That guy should do us all a favour and go back to the Apollo moon hoax board.
-
I could look this up myself, but I don't have a lot of time right now.
Could someone answer these three questions:
1) On what date did LHO supposedly order the mannlicher carcano?
2) To what P.O. Box did he ask it to be shipped? Was it P.O. Box 2915?
3) On what date did he open P.O. Box 2915?
For some reason, I got the idea last night that he didn't open that P.O. Box until after he ordered the rifle.
Steve Thomas
I got the help I was looking for. He rented the P.O. Box in October of 1962, and allegedly ordered the rifle in March of 1963; so that is that.
Steve Thomas
Steve, just how big are these P.O. boxes, do you know? Stupid question maybe, but presumably they are physically large enough to hold a rifle? Denis.
-
Nice of you to notice the "pitiful image" angle.... seems to me I had to remind YOU of that multiple times over the years (as well as *phantom* things that grow in DP bushes ands trees), eh? And NO, up-rezzing imagery does not make an image "higher" quality... You remember that one don't ya? Be careful who you correct...
But we'll excuse the same mistakes you've made over and over and OVER....
However, I withdraw the offer to recommend you to John Warnock for a job with Adobe (Photoshop) Software, San Jose. They need REAL image application pro's....
David, I have had autistic people try to say something and make more sense. I'm not sure what your remark had to do with Jack's error and why you addressed it to me.
It's the usual alterationist ploy, make ridiculous claims, present shoddy research, then when their mistakes are brought to light they deflect their embarrassment by hurling insults at YOU. Just ignore them Bill, their pathetic. Denis.
-
That is CONNALLY behind Jackie. What is seen is his hand. NOTE THE WHITE CUFF.
Jack
My arrow is pointing precisely at Kellerman's head, even more precisely, his left ear. The white cuff is just about to vanish in front of Jackie ( as we view the frame ) in the next couple of frames.
Duncan
If that is Kellerman THEN HE IS KISSING CONNALLY ON THE LIPS, as Connally's head
can be seen on the other side of Jackie's pink hat.
Jack
Yes Jack, but you must admit, Connally was quite an attractive man for his age. LOL
-
I really don't know what it is. In the later frames of that sequence, another object enters the field of view and is obviously someone's arm/shoulder. The textures between the two objects look similar to me (cloth), but I can't be certain that this is really the case.
<edit -- hit Post too soon>
It seems to be motionless during the frames where it appears. We first see it in frame 19, and it is off by frame 83 as Nix pans left. It re-appears as Nix pans back to the right to pick up LBJ's car.
It gets better. In one frame the person you mention standing close to Nix
becomes TRANSPARENT, and the trunk of the Queen Mary is seen through
the person!
Jack
And in that same frame, A LITTLE GIRL APPEARS AS IF BY MAGIC!
PS...I should not have said "LESS THAN ONE SECOND" because I did not
actually time it or count frames. It is the amount of time it took the QM
to move about 20 feet.
Jack
Jack, I'm not totally convinced that there actually is a little girl in the color photo. But IF there is, she may have been standing behind the policeman in the black/white photo, then simply stepped forward. Langley are not very impressed with this Jack.
-
I recommended this forum to two longtime JFK researchers.
Here is the email I got back:
Jack,
Thanks for these addresses.
Tried to log onto the Education Forum but it said they are no longer
accepting new members. Can you help?
What's the deal?
Jack
QUICK, give one of em Dragos place....before he wants to come back!!!!
-
Wim Dankbar denies that there were TWO MARGUERITES when the photo
evidence shows otherwise.
Jack
We all know the W.C. made many mistakes, some deliberately, some by accident. It seems more logical that's what we have here...a mistake, than the sensationalist claim of two Marguerite's. Denis.
-
Moved from other thread:
"... By mistake I called Jack a POS when I should have said his research on the Pentagon was a POS and it was not 'Pile of S..., it was a Piece of S..., this I will stand behind.
note: from an eye witness who was stopped near the Arlington Cemetery with backed up traffic. "I saw this Big airplane swoop down and I said OH! MY GOD! RUN RUN, we thought it was going to crash on us. And then it went over and shook the ground. It hit the Pentagon, over there", she pointed. Eve Brown, Falls Church, VA.
From Sam Bartel of Greenberg PA. "My wife and I were riding on 395 when we saw this AIRLINER flying low. At first I thought it was going to land at the airport, but I told my wife, Its to low and then OH Jesus!, I said. And then it hit..."
There are over a hundred of these type of reports. I guess these people as well as all the fireman and those inside with the smell of burning jet fuel, trying to save their friends from death, are all part of this massive "cover-up".
The 911 recorded calls, also show where many said "An Airliner just crashed into the Pentagon". The switchboard was jammed within five minutes with reports. I guess they too, work for the government and are part of a "cover up", and conspiracy.
Talk to the wives of the pilots killed in the crash...., talk to their children. Take a look at the passenger's list and go and talk to their families. Talk to the doctors at the hospitals. Talk to the doctors and asked what was told to them by their patients.
Then come back on this forum and tell us what you found out. Look these people in the eye and tell them their love ones are not dead, that they were not on an airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, because they did not exist. Tell the children of these families that their mothers and fathers did not die in a plane that crash into the pentagon. Tell the first responders that they are all liars and be sure and tell the families they are liars also. Look them in the eye and tell them that.
None of you have the GUTS to do that, because you are COWARDS and hide in your closets and spit out Venom, and call yourselves professional researchers.
You people make me sick. And I refuse to be associated with any of you. And too, I refuse to be a part of a Forum that would allow this type of SLOPPY Research and special interest to put this type of CRAP in this forum with nothing more to back up their research than their theories and opinions presented as facts. A new generation looks to us as examples. They only seek truth, because they care. They are only trying to establish the facts behind such a tragic event.
.
Pentagon Conspiracy my XXX . I have reviewed many threads these past few weeks and I have yet to see anything move forward on the JFK investigation except name calling, rock throwing, back bitting, and the likes.
And I will not let the door hit me in the XXX on my way out. TOSH
Edited for objectionable words.
You shouldn't direct this post at everyone Tosh. Most here are good solid researchers. If only the crazes would stop using this board to get publicity for their radio shows and D.V.D.'s etc this could be a really productive place. Denis.
-
This is part of a post I recently wrote on another thread, I think it equally apt here:
I belive Fetzer an Co to be members of what I regard to be the lunatic fringe of this case. I belive their paranoid ravings to be an embarrassment to serious researchers. I belive their sensationalist rantings do nothing but damage to our cause. Bluntly, these NUTTERS are the reason why so many of the general public laugh at us and more importantly refuse to even listen to our arguments or take us seriously. Oh yeah, I also dislike them because I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent. Just thought I'd add the last bit before they did. Denis.
-
The writing style the Tosh here now and the Tosh who was recently reported
killed in a plane crash differ significantly. I am not the only one who has noted
this.
Jack
LOL, This place gets more like the Twilight Zone every day. S'cuse me while I go an cancel my subscription to the SI -FI CHANNEL. Who needs it when I can come here for free. LOL
-
Tosh,
I don't get it! A fundamental principle of reasoning is that the actual must be possible (meaning that nothing that actually happens can violate the laws of logic or the laws of science, in this case, of physics, engineering, and of aerodynamics. Here are some examples of what I have in mind:
The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail!
The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible, but it was not
The image just above the gate mechanism in the single frame that shows what might be a plane is not only too small to be a Boeing 757 but is trailing white smoke, which is consistent with a missile but not jet engine exhaust.
The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at over 500 mph jusy barely above ground level--physically impossible, since the accumulated pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage would have made it impossible to have flown closer to the ground than 60 feet.
If a Boeing 757 had flown just barely above ground to impact on the first floor, then its engines would have plowed massive furrows in the lawn, which is perfectly green, smooth, and uncluttered by any debris in photos taken shortly after impact.
If a Boeing 757 had flown just barely above ground to impact on the first floor, then wing/wind/wake turbulance would have massively disrupted the law, which is perfectly green, smooth, and uncluttered by any debris in photos taken shortly after impact.
If a Boeing 757 had come it at an angle instead, it's right wing would have hit the building first, spinning the plane clockwise and snapping off the tail or creating a massive crater; but there is no crater and the tail is not sitting on the lawn.
A piece of wreckage that was later photographed from more than one location has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1998, and, like the other debris that subsequently appears on the lawn, appears to have been planted.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth have analyzed black box data allegedly from the Pentagon plane and discovered that it contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude: it was 300 feet too high to have taken out the lampposts and 100 feet too high to have hit the building itself.
Jack's photo studies of the Pentagon illustrate many of the points I have made here. Indeed, the massive black smoke that intimidated the members of Congress when they looked across the Patomic is coming from a series of enormous dumpsters, not from the building itself.
You should not be faulting Jack. He has done his homework. The question is how you could be making reports about the Pentagon that cannot be true, because no Boeing 757 hit the building, although one may have passed over it. You are violating laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics.
Okay Jack. Let's take just one of the things that you claim to "know" and that I too know a bit about. You write:"I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this. I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided."
It is true that modern Class A steel frame buildings do not usually collapse. But WTC7 was not your usual Class A steel frame building and 9/11 was not a normal day.
The envisaged footprint of WTC7 was expanded by a third when it was built in the mid-eighties to squeeze out the last square inch of floor space. Since original pilings were already drilled to bedrock though the then existing ConEd substation, the expanded floor size could only be accomplished through the construction of three huge cantilever trusses which carried the expanded load back into the central structure. There was no redundancy in this design. If a major structural member failed, the building would come down. Secondly, there were 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel either in or under the building. Thirdly, "modern" construction techniques meant that wider spans of floors were supported by fewer columns. All this came together in a building that was much more delicate and subject to collapse than your ordinary steel building.
Secondly, you say WTC7 was "undamaged". You're wrong. Photos make clear that WTC7 was damaged by debris (flaming I-beams, facade members, aviation fuel) that hit it after the collapse of the South Tower and a second blow one-half hour later after the collapse of the North Tower. This building was hit substantially and fires started on numerous floors.
Finally, the severing of a twenty-inch water main on Vesey Street by the collapse of the North Tower meant there was no water to fight a high-rise fire in the building. After sending a reconnaissance team into the building to determine whether to try to fight fires in it, Chief Daniel Nigro made the command decision to let fires burn in the building unabated. Fires started in the building at around 10:30 AM and continued unabated until the building collapsed at 5:21 PM. These fires were fed by the 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the building. Video of the collapse shows that it started on a lower floor at the approximate location of Column 79. This is the unanimous opinion of the structural engineers who have studied the collapse. Column 79 lies in a direct line over the most northeast of the three trusses mentioned above.
I'll bet when you decided that you "knew" the building was brought down by "controlled demolitions" you knew nothing of the above. If you choose to know nothing, you can hold any belief you want to hold and call it "knowledge." Then (as with the Fetzer-White-Costella claim concerning Officer Chaney) you can continue to believe it forever, never admitting you made a mistake.
What we are talking about here are the costs of never admitting you're wrong. I'll bet you'll continue never admitting you were wrong about Chaney and never admitting you are wrong about WTC7. Am i right?
quote name='Jack White' date='Feb 24 2008, 01:07 AM' post='138519']
Some people "do not admit their mistakes" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MISTAKEN.
For instance, I KNOW that a Boeing jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, because there
is no genuine evidence of aircraft wreckage on the outside of the building, and
the small hole in the wall is too small for the entire plane to go inside the building.
I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.
I KNOW that no cellphone calls were made from "hijacked" airliners on 911, because
many experts have said that was impossible. It is possible to provide indisputable
evidence of any calls made. That has never been done. I will not admit I am wrong unless
indisputable proof is provided.
I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an
undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this.
I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.
I KNOW that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There are multitudinous proofs of this.
I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.
I could go on and on. Nobody should be bullied into accepting lies.
Jack
Jack I have to disagree. My wife works at the Pentagon for the Joint Chif of Staff J-2. I was there shortly after the crash and I saw the tail and the numbers in all the smoke and confussion AND DEATH. I watched as parts of the airliner was removed and firefighters fought the blaze while many were removing bodies. To tell me I did not see an airliner is a disservice to those who were killed. They were NOT killed my our goverment. I think some want to believe we would do something like that are real sick people. I think their motive is to sell stories and write books and add height to their lack of stature. At a time when we should rally together and stand firm as a solid nation, we have some who like to walk with lies and untruths to perhaps drawn attention to themselves and stroke their own egos.
I had respect for you as a researcher and as an American... that is now gone. I'm sure you do not give a crap what I think... But I am an American and I am damn proud of it. And in my own way I have fought hard for her and her flag. We are not perfect, but we are getting closer and you Sir are a real POS in my opinion.
James;
With respect. I will not be drawn into a debat on this. All I know is what I saw and too, what I saw on the "certified, time logged" radar tapes from Air Traffic Control. I talked to three people who escaped with their lives and spend days in a burn ward. I know what they told me. I talked to a Sargent who pulled people from burning Jet fuel and others who were still in shock days after.., and I know what they told me they saw and did after the impact. And I know what I saw.
Now if you want to call me a xxxx, then that is O.K. by me. I have been there before. I do not care to become involved in a "special interest conspiercy", regardless of the motives.
I do believe in little green men bouncing around in space; laughing their ARSE off at us. Its no wonder they do not want anything to do with earthlings after reading somethings we put in print.
You have a good day and leave me out of this. I did apoliges to Jack for the POS comment. Now I go in peace and I wish you the same. Just log me down as "disinformation" agent and be done with it.
Well how about it Jack and Jill...oops, sorry I meant Jack and Jim, are you ready to admit your mistaken, that after all is what this thread is about, admitting mistakes, or are you saying Tosh Plumlee is a xxxx? No real room for middle ground here...its gotta be one or the other.
-
Paul with respect...
Denis, with respect, you intend none, so why employ the formulation?
...are you sure your not letting your animosity with Josiah Thompson and Gary Mack cloud your better judgement here?No, I'm just tired of reading a lot of inaccurate, unsourced nonsense masquerading as received wisdom. But I do wonder at the extent of your personal commitment to Thompson, and the concomitant hostility to Fetzer, Costella et al. Like, what gives?
It is a measure of the blindness induced in you by this hostility to the anti-alterationists that you fail to comment on Thompson's proven "errors" regarding how and when the FBI learned of the Muchmore film; his reliance on a Mack newspaper clipping that almost certainly doesn't exist; and his mislocation of the Franzens in Six Seconds.
Your "one-eyedness" is shocking. Are you a flat-earther?
There are literally hundreds of references and citations for the Muchmore film first being shown on WNEW TV on 26/Nov/63. To any reasonably minded person that amount of reference would stand as proof.List them. There aren't. And any reasonably minded person content to settle for "Thompson said Mack says" as proof of anything is a fool or a charlatan.
If there are hundreds of ref/citations for the Muchmore film, there are literally THOUSANDS for the Zapruder film first being shown on TV March 1975. Your suggestion that ALL these references are wrong and that it was the Zapruder film shown on WNEW is totally unreasonably. As is your demand that Gary Mack drop everything and search for a 45 year old newspaper clipping. This is starting to resemble a debate with a member of the Flat Earth Society! Your better than that Paul, give it up. Denis.That's a very compelling argument, Denis: The agreed lie must be true. It ain't.
Paul
Paul, you wonder at the hostility I feel towards Fetzer, Costella et al? O.K. let me explain it. I belive Fetzer an Co to be members of what I regard to be the lunatic fringe of this case. I belive their paranoid ravings to be an embarrassment to serious researchers. I belive their sensationalist rantings do nothing but damage to our cause. Bluntly, these NUTTERS are the reason why so many of the general public laugh at us and more importantly refuse to even listen to our arguments or take us seriously. Oh yeah, I also dislike them because I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent. Is that what you really want to hear Paul? If you want to see the references/citations I mentioned, just use "Google". Oh sorry, I forgot, you belive Google to be a tool of the C.I.A. dont you Paul. LOL
I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent.
If true, then they have again lied, as they told me that I was the only one here!
P.S. I thought that was you that I saw going into our phonebooth entrance.
P.P.S. My compliments for the well written response. I tried it once but for some reason could not cease to continuously write "Garbage" and "BS" throughout it's body.
That's because your from southern America Tom, we express our selves a lot much more beter in southern England. LOL
-
Okay Jack. Let's take just one of the things that you claim to "know" and that I too know a bit about. You write:
"I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this. I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided."
It is true that modern Class A steel frame buildings do not usually collapse. But WTC7 was not your usual Class A steel frame building and 9/11 was not a normal day.
The envisaged footprint of WTC7 was expanded by a third when it was built in the mid-eighties to squeeze out the last square inch of floor space. Since original pilings were already drilled to bedrock though the then existing ConEd substation, the expanded floor size could only be accomplished through the construction of three huge cantilever trusses which carried the expanded load back into the central structure. There was no redundancy in this design. If a major structural member failed, the building would come down. Secondly, there were 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel either in or under the building. Thirdly, "modern" construction techniques meant that wider spans of floors were supported by fewer columns. All this came together in a building that was much more delicate and subject to collapse than your ordinary steel building.
Secondly, you say WTC7 was "undamaged". You're wrong. Photos make clear that WTC7 was damaged by debris (flaming I-beams, facade members, aviation fuel) that hit it after the collapse of the South Tower and a second blow one-half hour later after the collapse of the North Tower. This building was hit substantially and fires started on numerous floors.
Finally, the severing of a twenty-inch water main on Vesey Street by the collapse of the North Tower meant there was no water to fight a high-rise fire in the building. After sending a reconnaissance team into the building to determine whether to try to fight fires in it, Chief Daniel Nigro made the command decision to let fires burn in the building unabated. Fires started in the building at around 10:30 AM and continued unabated until the building collapsed at 5:21 PM. These fires were fed by the 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the building. Video of the collapse shows that it started on a lower floor at the approximate location of Column 79. This is the unanimous opinion of the structural engineers who have studied the collapse. Column 79 lies in a direct line over the most northeast of the three trusses mentioned above.
I'll bet when you decided that you "knew" the building was brought down by "controlled demolitions" you knew nothing of the above. If you choose to know nothing, you can hold any belief you want to hold and call it "knowledge." Then (as with the Fetzer-White-Costella claim concerning Officer Chaney) you can continue to believe it forever, never admitting you made a mistake.
What we are talking about here are the costs of never admitting you're wrong. I'll bet you'll continue never admitting you were wrong about Chaney and never admitting you are wrong about WTC7. Am i right?
quote name='Jack White' date='Feb 24 2008, 01:07 AM' post='138519']
Some people "do not admit their mistakes" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MISTAKEN.
For instance, I KNOW that a Boeing jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, because there
is no genuine evidence of aircraft wreckage on the outside of the building, and
the small hole in the wall is too small for the entire plane to go inside the building.
I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.
I KNOW that no cellphone calls were made from "hijacked" airliners on 911, because
many experts have said that was impossible. It is possible to provide indisputable
evidence of any calls made. That has never been done. I will not admit I am wrong unless
indisputable proof is provided.
I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an
undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this.
I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.
I KNOW that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There are multitudinous proofs of this.
I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.
I could go on and on. Nobody should be bullied into accepting lies.
Jack
Jack I have to disagree. My wife works at the Pentagon for the Joint Chif of Staff J-2. I was there shortly after the crash and I saw the tail and the numbers in all the smoke and confussion AND DEATH. I watched as parts of the airliner was removed and firefighters fought the blaze while many were removing bodies. To tell me I did not see an airliner is a disservice to those who were killed. They were NOT killed my our goverment. I think some want to believe we would do something like that are real sick people. I think their motive is to sell stories and write books and add height to their lack of stature. At a time when we should rally together and stand firm as a solid nation, we have some who like to walk with lies and untruths to perhaps drawn attention to themselves and stroke their own egos.
I had respect for you as a researcher and as an American... that is now gone. I'm sure you do not give a crap what I think... But I am an American and I am damn proud of it. And in my own way I have fought hard for her and her flag. We are not perfect, but we are getting closer and you Sir are a real POS in my opinion.
Well said Tosh, but I suspect your wasting your breath, Jack will probably start insinuating you are a disinformation agent now. Oops, sorry, too late, I just read the post where he did. LOL. Seriously Tosh, well done sir. Denis.
-
Paul with respect...
Denis, with respect, you intend none, so why employ the formulation?
...are you sure your not letting your animosity with Josiah Thompson and Gary Mack cloud your better judgement here?No, I'm just tired of reading a lot of inaccurate, unsourced nonsense masquerading as received wisdom. But I do wonder at the extent of your personal commitment to Thompson, and the concomitant hostility to Fetzer, Costella et al. Like, what gives?
It is a measure of the blindness induced in you by this hostility to the anti-alterationists that you fail to comment on Thompson's proven "errors" regarding how and when the FBI learned of the Muchmore film; his reliance on a Mack newspaper clipping that almost certainly doesn't exist; and his mislocation of the Franzens in Six Seconds.
Your "one-eyedness" is shocking. Are you a flat-earther?
There are literally hundreds of references and citations for the Muchmore film first being shown on WNEW TV on 26/Nov/63. To any reasonably minded person that amount of reference would stand as proof.List them. There aren't. And any reasonably minded person content to settle for "Thompson said Mack says" as proof of anything is a fool or a charlatan.
If there are hundreds of ref/citations for the Muchmore film, there are literally THOUSANDS for the Zapruder film first being shown on TV March 1975. Your suggestion that ALL these references are wrong and that it was the Zapruder film shown on WNEW is totally unreasonably. As is your demand that Gary Mack drop everything and search for a 45 year old newspaper clipping. This is starting to resemble a debate with a member of the Flat Earth Society! Your better than that Paul, give it up. Denis.That's a very compelling argument, Denis: The agreed lie must be true. It ain't.
Paul
Paul, you wonder at the hostility I feel towards Fetzer, Costella et al? O.K. let me explain it. I belive Fetzer an Co to be members of what I regard to be the lunatic fringe of this case. I belive their paranoid ravings to be an embarrassment to serious researchers. I belive their sensationalist rantings do nothing but damage to our cause. Bluntly, these NUTTERS are the reason why so many of the general public laugh at us and more importantly refuse to even listen to our arguments or take us seriously. Oh yeah, I also dislike them because I'm secretly a top level operative for the C.I.A. planted here as a disinformation agent. Is that what you really want to hear Paul? If you want to see the references/citations I mentioned, just use "Google". Oh sorry, I forgot, you belive Google to be a tool of the C.I.A. dont you Paul. LOL
LOL
).
Interesting photo oddity
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Jack, Am I understanding you correctly? Are you seriously suggesting that in the 9 photo composite you showed of LHO, at least SIX of them are alternate Oswald's!! Surly you cant be saying that. Denis.