Evan Burton

Len is correct. Some of his posts were set invisible (notice invisible, not deleted. Moderators can see what has been set invisible, and if it is decided so, they can be made visible again).

I tried to avoid - successfully, I think - any post that actually had something relevant to the thread. The only posts that were made invisible were the to and froing between you and Len. A little bit of heated exchange is understandable, but a certain point I'll switch it off. I didn't berate anyone; I simply made the posts invisible, hoping that the point would be understood. It seemed to have worked.

It's easy to assign such negative traits to him - he surely has not done anything positive to dissuede people of that opinion - but to be fair to him, his comments make sense. People DO become complacent... and terrorists will look for such an opportunity that complacency supplies. You can see it even down to low levels such as a house buglary. Someone gets robbed, and they are very cautious about locking up, alarm systems, etc. Six months later without incident, they get lax... and the theives have the opportunity to strike again.

There is nothing 'sinister' or suspicious about his comments.

Are you serious?

Mark,

Yes, quite. He is not saying he wants it to happen, but he is saying that it takes something like that to wake people up again to the threat.

He basically says that in the quote Peter posted:

"The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another period"

Take it to John if you are unhappy. I informed him of what I did at about the time I made them invisible.

You are avoiding the question, Jack.

Could you please confirm that you contacted the photographers of each image and confirmed the times they were taken? This would obviously support your hypothesis that "...the FBI had already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it...".

Still waiting - did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

I should remind the moderator that bullying is not allowed on the forum.

Repeated taunts and insistence on answering questions is bullying.

Jack

And I'll remind you of a Forum rule:

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

I asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question, reference your comments: did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

Evan is one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum and one of its biggest bullies. How often does he cite references - not all that often - I'd like to point to his 'Bollocks' and similar taunts at me, as examples. Shameless bullying - not different than those sustained by those of us who worked on the JFK Assassination or the Civil Rights Movement, the Peace Movement or Anti-this or that War Movements - those who feel they represent the 'official' or 'conservative' views feel they can taunt; they can bash; and they even feel fighteous about it. How wonderful a moderator+provacateur and bully.

When one of those who support Evans views posts they don't get harrassed. You Evan are un-unfair, non-evenhanded bully! Jack has made carefull, thoughtful and reasonable conclusions about the general time the photos were taken. If you don't like it prove otherwise yourself and stop being a provacateur. They are obviously taken before the buildings fell [and all the dust - due to the controlled demolition - pulvarized them to dust].

Blah, blah, blah - yes Peter.

Quick question Jack - is it your belief that B767s did NOT hit WTC 1 and WTC 2?

I'd like to be clear what you are arguing for / against.

You are avoiding the question, Jack.

Could you please confirm that you contacted the photographers of each image and confirmed the times they were taken? This would obviously support your hypothesis that "...the FBI had already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it...".

Still waiting - did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

I should remind the moderator that bullying is not allowed on the forum.

Repeated taunts and insistence on answering questions is bullying.

Jack

And I'll remind you of a Forum rule:

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

I asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question, reference your comments: did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

It's pretty obvious that they are talking about complacency with regard to security. People are getting lazy, notcarrying out checks like they used to, not being as alert. If another terrorist incident happened in the US, people would be reminded of the need to be vigilant. Things like this are discussed all the time:

Now that the threat level is being lowered again and no attacks have occurred, some experts worry that the public — and even state and local officials — will grow complacent. The terrorists responsible for Sept. 11, for example, plotted the attacks for years.

"Complacency is really one of our big threats because we're action-oriented people," said Jerry Humble, director of homeland security in Tennessee. "But with some of the terrorist organizations, patience is their virtue. So we're not out of the woods with respect to terrorism."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ror-alert_x.htm

So how did we end up here, yet again? Why are we still asking how a calamity like the deaths at Virginia Tech could happen?

The most obvious reason, and one that’s been widely discussed in the days since the shootings, is complacency. Well, we can wring our hands all we want, but to some extent complacency is unavoidable: it’s what sneaks in after all the blame has been handed out, the news media have disappeared, the critics have taken their shots and the political knees have stopped jerking.

There’s also a psychological reason for letting our guard down: we all want to return to day-to-day business and focus on things that are most likely to affect us. Deeper down, there is a natural instinct in all of us to block out the idea that anything so unthinkable could happen to us. To stay alert means to acknowledge that horror is just around the corner, and that runs against human nature.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/opinion/20whitcomb.html

There is nothing 'sinister' or suspicious about his comments.

And you stated it was knocked there by persons fleeing the scene. From 16 feet in the air?

Jack

Incorrect yet again, Jack. I asked why - working under the premise you are wrong - why it could not have been possible for that to happen. I did not state it as fact. I simply asked you why that could not be an explanation.

Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please.

I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed).

Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene?

If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please.

Please do not put words into my mouth.

Can you prove that it was knocked there by the engine? If not, can you positively discount that it was not knocked there by people fleeing the scene?

Still waiting - Can you prove that it was knocked there by the engine? If not, can you positively discount that it was not knocked there by people fleeing the scene?

You are avoiding the question, Jack.

Could you please confirm that you contacted the photographers of each image and confirmed the times they were taken? This would obviously support your hypothesis that "...the FBI had already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it...".

Still waiting - did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

You are avoiding the question, Jack.

Could you please confirm that you contacted the photographers of each image and confirmed the times they were taken? This would obviously support your hypothesis that "...the FBI had already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it...".

The poll is not rigged by Len. This has been explained.

I will consider any further accusations of "rigging" as being a personal attack on Len, prohibited under the rules, okay?

If you think the poll and / or the results are a crock, then that's fine. Say so, if you like. Do NOT accuse Len or anyone else of rigging the poll.

Len admits HE WROTE THE POLL QUESTIONS. I accuse Len of "writing the poll questions". Is that prohibited?

He admits he did not offer choices for persons who found ALL REPLIES unacceptable. All right?

If anyone wanted to vote, they were forced to choose unacceptable answers by Len's choice of questions. True?

What would you call that? I know what I call it.

Jack

If you are unhappy with the choices, that's fine. No problem. Just don't accuse Len of rigging the poll.

"If anyone wanted to vote, they were forced to choose unacceptable answers by Len's choice of questions. True?" No, not true. You'd not choose answer. The fact that the forum software would appear (and I am not sure of this - John, can you confirm?) to have a problem with answering some questions and not others is a forum problem. Len has nothing to do with it.

Len admits WRITING the poll. The forum software did not write the poll with inadequate choices. Len did.

Jack

"Inadequate" is NOT rigging. If none of the choices were sufficient for you, then don't answer. It's your choice. If you made a wrong choice, then tough luck. If you think the poll is a crock, then say so (as I think we can take your vitriol as expressing). A reminder - do not accuse Len of rigging the poll, as he has done no such thing.

Before the first WTC building collapsed, spreading dust everywhere, the FBI had

already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it. Minutes

later, the area was covered in dust, and the wheel is in a different place. With

chaos in the entire areas, it is remarkable that the FBI had photo teams all over

the area shooting photos of "evidence" within the first hour.

Jack

jack,

Could you please confirm that you contacted the photographers of each image and confirmed the times they were taken? This would obviously support your hypothesis that "...the FBI had already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it...".

If you have other evidence to support your hypothesis, could you present it?

And you stated it was knocked there by persons fleeing the scene. From 16 feet in the air?

Jack

Incorrect yet again, Jack. I asked why - working under the premise you are wrong - why it could not have been possible for that to happen. I did not state it as fact. I simply asked you why that could not be an explanation.

Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please.

I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed).

Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene?

If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please.

Please do not put words into my mouth.

Can you prove that it was knocked there by the engine? If not, can you positively discount that it was not knocked there by people fleeing the scene?

Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please.

I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed).

Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene?

If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please.

The sign was about 16 feet in the air. You tell us how it got there. Facts please.

Jack

No, sorry Jack, but you are the one who is claiming there is something wrong.

It is up to you to demonstrate why it is wrong. You have to show where it is stated that the sign was hit by the engine, why it could not of been hit by debris, etc.

You have the burden of proof.

The poll is not rigged by Len. This has been explained.

I will consider any further accusations of "rigging" as being a personal attack on Len, prohibited under the rules, okay?

If you think the poll and / or the results are a crock, then that's fine. Say so, if you like. Do NOT accuse Len or anyone else of rigging the poll.

Len admits HE WROTE THE POLL QUESTIONS. I accuse Len of "writing the poll questions". Is that prohibited?

He admits he did not offer choices for persons who found ALL REPLIES unacceptable. All right?

If anyone wanted to vote, they were forced to choose unacceptable answers by Len's choice of questions. True?

What would you call that? I know what I call it.

Jack

If you are unhappy with the choices, that's fine. No problem. Just don't accuse Len of rigging the poll.

"If anyone wanted to vote, they were forced to choose unacceptable answers by Len's choice of questions. True?" No, not true. You'd not choose answer. The fact that the forum software would appear (and I am not sure of this - John, can you confirm?) to have a problem with answering some questions and not others is a forum problem. Len has nothing to do with it.

Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please.

I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed).

Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene?

If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please.

The poll is not rigged by Len. This has been explained.

I will consider any further accusations of "rigging" as being a personal attack on Len, prohibited under the rules, okay?

If you think the poll and / or the results are a crock, then that's fine. Say so, if you like. Do NOT accuse Len or anyone else of rigging the poll.

When I posted my poll selections I got the following response from the forum remote viewing software

"Your vote for Jeb Bush is being processed"

I demand a recount.

Best. Post. Ever!

There is no way Len - or even the mods - can rig this. I highly doubt it would even be possible for John or Andy to do so.

Try voting again. If you can't, then you vote was either recorded, you hit 'submit vote' without making any selections, or there is something wrong with your browser.

So how do I address them Peter? There are the 'no-planers', who believe that no aircraft hit the WTC and Pentagon, that it was hologrammes, laser beams, and cruise missiles. There are those who say the aircraft were intercepted in mid-flight, to be replaced by empty aircraft flown by remote control. MIHOP, LIHOP, no-planers, pod people... there are so many variations!

Isn't 911CT fair and reasonable? It does seem to describe their beliefs.

Perhaps the RO911E term is more accurate?

I think 911CT is workable. I'll start using that.

I can understand where you are coming from, but they do call themselves the 'Truth Movement', and often refer to themselves as Truthers. I find it amusing because many of them seek not the truth but what supports their own beliefs (whatever that may be).

What would an alternative name? 911CTs (911 Conspiracy Theorists)? RO911Es (Rejects Official 911 Explanations)?

There is more than one truther out there that conduct themselves pporly; Peter's sometimes quoted Killclown is a good example:

Mrs. McClatchey was taken aback by the personal criticism by those who, she said, "hide behind their aliases."

"This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

**************

About Mrs. McClatchey's "End of Serenity," Killtown concludes that either the smoke plume in the photo came from a bomb blast closer to her house, or that the picture was faked by Mrs. McClatchey or the FBI. Killtown writes: "If the first is true, then Val may be off the hook. If any of the latter two are the case, then Val, you got some splainin' to do!" He then proceeds to post her home address, phone number and personal e-mail information.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

Perhaps Killclown would like his details posted?

Bill,

Why don't you find the writer/reporter and find out if they viewed the film.

Seems like a fair challenge.