Evan Burton

Craig - could you explain what you mean - without the sarcasm? Especially the incidence / reflection bit?

Thank you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2658653.ece

Is this indicating a shift in US politics?

The US is openly going against a major trading partner - a very important partner - and honoring a person that they conside to be some type of radical.... and who cannot offer any significant advantage to the US.

Michael,

Any idea when this might be broadcast in Australia? We get a lot of FRONTLINE stuff on SBS. It's a little bit of an unfortunate name, because "Frontline" was the name of of an ABC comedy series about a "current affairs" programme of the same name. Very biting, very close to truth comedy. Of course, those who have seen any US FRONTLINE programmes would not be confused in any way.

As previously noted Peter tends to spam 9/11 threads with irrelevant posts when they start going bad for the "truther" POV. Perhaps he can explain the relevance of the opinions of CIA agent's re 9/11 in general has to do with Jack's photo that supposedly shows 6 WTC on fire and damaged with WTC 1 still standing behind it? He posts it not once but twice. His posts on this thread constitute trolling IMO as are his incessant insinuations that those who disagree with him have ulterior motives.

Len, please do not accuse someone of being a xxxxx. I know you said "IMO", but please keep the opinion to yourself. If you think it is becoming a problem, use the REPORT function and report the posts of concern. Thank you.

SHAME ON EVAN BURTON FOR MODERATING HIS OWN THREAD. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IF IT IS ALLOWED I FOR ONE WILL CONSIDER LEAVING THIS SINKING SHIP.

I'd also like to ask seaman Burton if his intention was a naive quesiton about JFK, as it seemed on the surface, or a way of showing the divisions in the JFK community, and in so doing, attempting to discredit?

Think what you want. Do what you want. Other moderators can reopen the thread if they like because I'm not going to bother with it. If some people are upset by a simple question, then so be it.

I was in Borders last week and there were a lot more anti-Bush than pro-Bush books.

I was in a Books-a-Million in Gainesville FL about a year ago, and was impressed by the number of anti-Bush books. What really impressed was the fact that they were all in the True Crime section.

I don't know if the store manager or clerks were having fun or were deadly serious. In any case, I had to applaud them.

That's why I always giggle about the "Apollo Hoax" books being in the Science sections!

Thanks to all who have replied. It has given me a lot to read about.

To be honest, I am not a 'civilian' in this thread. Only in rare cases should a moderator not carry out their duties. The fact I started this thread gives me a reasonable case to close it - and I will. I think that people who have strong disagreements with other peoples beliefs regarding JFK have had their say, and I'd like everyone to return to the serious study and research on the subject that you already do.

Once again, thanks for all the replies. If someone feels I am being seriously misled, and they strongly feel the need to warn me of this, then contact me via PM.

*sigh*

I just wanted to hear what people thought happened - whatever that may be. Asking it to be kept concise may have been a naive request.

It is to try and help me understand why some people think various films may have been faked, and what effect that has on various theories (most of you all agree that it was not a lone gunman). Why if someone was standing there and not over here is important. If a consensus believe it was carried out in a certain way, then why do people argue passionately over to what appears to me insignificant details.

To help me get a feeling for the whole thing.

I really didn't want people arguing over someone being right or wrong, something being flawed or not.

I really would prefer if people did not comment on other people's theories.

Mr. Burton, I hate to say this, but an old saying comes to mind:

Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know.

What you will get here are people's theories. No member of this Forum can know with certainty who did it.

That is exactly what I want Tim - to hear what people think. You may think they are wildly wrong - but it is their opinion and I'd like to hear all opinions.

I am particularly interested in the common aspects of theories that are sometimes quite different.

Also, please remember - I would ask people not to comment on any particular theory. This is not a thread to debate or argue in; it is simply one that I (and others) can hear what others think.

Ron,

Do you then think that calls for a new investigation are a moot point? That any investigation will be hopelessly compromised from the beginning?

If a new investigation was conducted, what would be some of the areas you would particularly want looked at?

Thanks Michael!

As a person who has no knowledge, opinion, etc of the JFK saga, could I ask people to put forward a concise explanation of the JFK events?

I would ask people NOT to refute other peoples versions of events - simply state what they believe to be the true account of events. If further explanation is necessary, then please do so.... to a point. A few paragraphs, at max. If you think what someone else has posted is wrong - then remain silent. This is primarily for me (and thus my starting of the thread) but I would like to her all aspects - from the Lone Gunman to the....?

Thanks!

P.S. Please treat this thread as what it is intended - a place to put forward various theories. NOT a place to dispute the various theories. ANY theory is valid.

I don't see how if he struggled with the terrorists or not substantially changes the "accepted" events unless such action / inaction contradicts recorded events.

I can see how he would have complied with the hijackers demands.

I can see how he would have fought the hijackers demands.

In neither case do I need to involve any conspiracy.

Could you expand on this?

Even though what you say makes sense and I support it Peter, I think we all have to try to make a change in our posting habits and use external host sites wherever possible.

If you have to upload using an attachment, try to minimise it's size. Where you really do need to use an attachment, it would be worthwhile to let Andy know so that it doesn't get culled.

Post passed via PM to Andy.

Some good thoughts Peter. I'll pass them to Andy.

Isn't this a subjective opinion? About what he would or would not do? A lot of these things depend on circumstances, upon the assessment by the individual at the time.

Could somebody explain to me (in simple terms, 'cause I'm a tad slow) what a "lame duck congress" is?

In this thread, Andy has made mention of Forum problems sometimes being caused by the amount of storage space we use, and how he has to clear out attachments that are not being utilised or which were posted some time ago.

In order for the Forum storage space to be maintained at a viable capacity, Andy is going to have to delete attachments on a regular basis.

Some of these attachments are, however, quite important to people. In order to minimise the disruption caused by this cleaning process, everyone should be aware of the need to replace important images (that have been attached - on site) with off site images (e.g. Photobucket).

Commencing 1 NOV 07, Andy will be deleting all attachments over 90 days old.

If the attachment is important to you, you should download a copy of it for your personal records. In most cases this will mean simply right-clicking the attachment and using the SAVE LINK AS / SAVE IMAGE command (or whatever your browser uses) to download a copy of it to your computer. Please always remember to virus scan any downloads onto your computer, even from a trusted site like this. Always ensure your virus detection files are up to date.

If anyone has problems doing this, please contact me via PM (or post on this thread) and I'll do my best to assist you.

If the attachment / image is important to the thread, then (preferably) the poster should save the image / attachment off-site at Photobucket, Imageshack, or whatever image / data hosting site they prefer to use. You should then replace the tags within the post (they look like "attachment ID=123456") with the external link (e.g. <img>http:/www.hostsite.com.au/myimages/image123456.jpg</img>; note that you have to replace the <> with [] to make it work).

This will insure that the original intent of the post is maintained whilst reducing the strain on the Forum site.

Once again:

- If people are uncertain on how to do this, please contact me (PM or via this thread) and I'll help you out.

- Commencing 1 NOV 07, all attachments over 90 days old will be deleted.

- If it is important to you, save a copy of the attachment onto your computer (Always beware of viruses!).

- If the attachment is important to the thread, replace the attachment tags with external link tags.

If you feel an attachment is important and should remain as such, and there are genuine reasons why the attachment cannot be hosted off-site, please contact John or Andy and they can determine if your attachment should be exempted from the deletion process.

Any questions, please post them here or contact one of the Mods / Admins via PM.

Ron - quite correct. If however the airfones were installed (they were) and mobile phones can be used from aircraft in some circumstances (they can), why do we need to look at voice morphing?

I've managed to get some data regarding this.

Firstly, that image of the stars. I believe it was done by an astronomer from the University of Alabama by the name of William Keel. The image can be found on his website here.

A similar image is AS16-123-19650.

There is also an article which discusses the photographs.

There are also False Colour UV images of the Earth taken from the lunar surface.

Here is a link for Patrick J. McNierney's experiences at the WTC

Early Days at the Disaster

So, the actual sequence of questions and replies was this:

Posted by Dammon on April 21, 2002 at 08:31:25:

How did the World Trade Center Tower 7 collapse when it was kind of far away from ground zero when other nearby buildings managed to survive?

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

Then

Posted by Patrick J. McNierney on May 12, 2002 at 19:23:03:

In Reply to: WTC 7 posted by Dammon on April 21, 2002 at 08:31:25:

Dammon,

Excellent question !!! Within 7 WTC, there were transfer trusses at the 4th and 11th floors. These trusses were supporting the columns up above ( to floor 48). Due to fire damage from debris falling on top of and adjacent to 7 WTC, these trusses gave way, thus resulting in a collapse of the upper floors.

Also, my article in the November 11 edition of Architecture discuss collateral damage to perimeter buildings and the condition of these buildings shortly after the disaster.

PMcN

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

Then came the reply which Jack has shown above, followed by (after a joke post of some type):

Posted by Kevin Matthews on February 15, 2003 at 11:44:55:

In Reply to: Re: WTC 7 posted by SID on February 14, 2003 at 15:50:03:

Certainly the official story is not always the most accurate, especially shortly after events which, however horrible, are still being exploited mercilessly for the gain of particular political factions.

But this particular set of questions amounts to much less than it might seem. Many of them are based on badly ill-informed speculations. Many of them have been addressed directly and definitively already in the press, including ArchitectureWeek. Some of the questions are still rather interesting, but mixed in as they are here with such a load of unanchored suspicion and ungrounded speculation, one can hardly begin to constructively address them.

(my bolding)

Here we go:

http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/25522.html

It would seem to have probably come from this forum somewhere:

http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/

or possibly here:

http://arch.designcommunity.com/