Evan Burton

Correct. As far as I am aware, I do not hold the authority to remove / censor a remark because it is wrong (unless it is a remark to do with another Forum member). I simply asked Jack - my being a participant in the discussion and in a polite manner - if he would correct his remark regarding the bootprints. I gave no suggestion of any adverse consequence if Jack chose not to do so. So far, as a moderator, I have deleted a couple of duplicate posts and moved one thread to a more applicable sub-forum. I have done no editing, censoring, or deleting of unique posts. I have warned people - in text only, no action on the warning level - to be more civil or watch their remarks lest the debate become too heated.

Moderators are allowed to be just as passionate or polarised in their opinions as any other Forum member; they must however ensure that their standard of decorum and fairness is beyond reproach. I have tried to do this since being appointed. I cannot guarantee that I will not stumble or err in carrying out this function, and if I should I would fully expect another moderator to pull me up on it - the same as any other Forum member.

Now, to vent a little anger from my side: this is the second or possibly third time that Jack has publicly stated his dissatisfaction with my choice as a moderator or the way I carry out those functions. IMO, I have done nothing to deserve any such rebuke. My position on the Apollo debate is well known, but at no time have I ever used the position of moderator to 'promote' my opinion as Jack claims in post #4 of this thread.

I would ask people reading this to review the thread in question and, if they feel I have done as Jack has claimed, make a complaint to the other moderators, John S, or Andy. That, IMO, is the correct way to redress any grievances with regard to moderation.

That's quite interesting; I hope further research goes into discovering the cause. I generally support GM agriculture, but we have to make sure that we have not unintentionally tampered with a delicate process.

I'd be grateful if you keep us up to date on this Doug, and I'll repost it at a science forum I belong to.

Kevin - please.

Jack - Kevin has clearly shown you were mistaken about the bootprints; will you correct yourself?

No. He has done no such thing. The bootprints are in the wrong location and pointing

the wrong way, and the mystery object is NOT a toeprint.

Jack

Jack,

Kevin and Dave clearly DID show you were wrong about bootprints being not being in the picture. Let me remind you about what you said:

The photo which has the anomalous rectangular object HAS NO BOOTPRINTS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED during the three earlier photos, as claimed. NONE. REPEAT NONE. Not a one. NONE. They say there are bootprints, but there ARE NONE.

There are - without any doubt whatsoever - bootprints in the full version of the image.

Dave has clearly shown there was activity around the area which - without doubt - accounts for the bootprints in the image/s.

That is NOT to say the section in question is a partial bootprint (though IMO it is) but there is nothing anomalous about other bootprints in the general vicinity, and members should not be insulted if they draw a different conclusion about what the item in the image is.

That is why I asked you about correcting yourself with regard to other bootprints in the area; it was not a request to say you were wrong in your opinion about what the section in question is or is not.

Kevin - please.

Jack - Kevin has clearly shown you were mistaken about the bootprints; will you correct yourself?

Sid,

Thank you!

I agree that sometimes a bare-knuckle fight is quite apt amongst these forums... but (apparently reversing myself) I think you can go full throttle on the points raised rather than taking the easy (but oh so satisfying) retort of the person making the comments.

When we are well aware of each others stance regarding various matters, I think it is worthwhile to consider a debate between opposing political candidates: we know we are not going to convince the opponent to vote for us; our job is to convince everyone else we are worthy of their vote rather than our opponent.

Then again, considering some of the speeches that have been made under Parliamentary Privilege, perhaps that is not the best example....

Just to back up what Stephen has said - if there are requests for non-compliance they will be taken up on a case-by-case basis. Also, please take time to think about your posts and decide whether comments may be offensive to another forum member.

If you think someone has said something "wrong", then report it to a Mod rather than allowing yourself to become heated and respond in kind.

Thanks all!

Gentlemen: Please! I know we are all passionate about our viewpoints and conclusions, but we are sailing perilously close to the edge of unacceptable insults.

Sid - if a person decides to spend time debating a subject, it is not up to you to decide what their motives are. Unless you have conclusive evidence about any motivations, please, address the points raised without opining why they do it.

Len - Please avoid use of the term 'hoodwinking' when in reference to another forum member, and please don't accuse anyone of apologising for terrorism or Hitler without clear proof of such.

I am well aware that both of you can skillfully argue your viewpoints without resorting to cheap shots or reacting to provocation. Use those skills to convince those who simply read this board (rather than post) of your position.

Jack,

I can hardly warn people for attacking you when you accuse them of being dishonest / blind / lying. Civility is a two-way street.

To ALL parties - I suggest you take note of how Dave has phrased his replies. He states his case, and when a consensus cannot be reached, he 'agrees to disagree'... without accusations and name calling.

I'm far from innocent in previously being loose with the insults, but as a Mod I have had to clean up my act. That means that like a reformed smoker, I'll be intolerant of further infractions. Take note, because I have been wondering how to use these Mod functions on the Board.

I think Dave has done an excellent job of supporting his viewpoint, and I am convinced that he is correct. Jack can post further evidence as to why he believes Dave is wrong, and people can make up their own minds. Let each person's evidence stand or fall on its own merits.

Please - keep it civil, gentlemen. Jack simply asked a question; his comment about "not a lunar object" I believe was based on the belief that the subject is an actual object. IMO, that is a fair call.

I think Dave is on the right track. It certainly could be a partial bootprint. It is roughly about the same size and shape as others in the full image.

Dave - you think 22158 shows the imprint being made? Could you show identifiable rocks, etc, in each of the images so we can confirm it is in the same location?

I'm not sure what it is; it could be a throwoff from one of the lunar experiments, etc.

The image number would help to identify what was going on at that location and therefore the context.

Actually, I thought he looked more like John Belushi:

Come to think of it, Belushi also played Cocker on SNL:

Hmmm - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Joe Cocker - John Belushi. And Belushi is dead... or supposed to be.

This might be another mystery to unravel!

The Pilots For 911 Truth site - escpecially the forum - seems logically organized, well attended and quite busy from a brief encounter. An impressive achievement for a 'nut-job'. But I'm not a member.

The guy involved was known at LCF for banning any dissenting view with extreme predjudice - so much so he did a wide IP ban and shut off all of Australia / NZ, a significant portion of Europe, all of Canada, and a big part of the US. After that flip-out, the site owners took his mod status off of him. He left in disgust and started his own forum.

If you take a close look, how many people posting are airline professionals and how many are simply members?

Have you had direct experience of that forum?

Yes indeed. I was banned after two posts - none of which contained anything offensive, etc. I simply asked questions. I was told it was "spin" (his favourite term) and banished. The same happened to a 747 captain I brought along to refute some of his claims.

Incidentally, one of the first people I corresponded with after 9-11 about the events of that day. who believed the official story was a crock from very easly days, was an ex-airline pilot.

Different for me; all the aviation professionals I know consider the 'truth movement' to be a laugh. BTW, the majority of those very same aviation professional are very anti-Bush and believe we should never have been in Iraq.

Incidentally, many pages earlier in this thread, when the story about the BBC's premature report of the collapse of WTC-7 first broke, you volunteered to see if you could find parallel cases in history. For instance, have there been other reports that towerblocks have collapsed, shortly before the event actually took place? Or is this yet another unique feature of the WTC-7 saga?

How are you getting along with that, Evan? Anything to report back?

I'm afraid I have been very lax and haven't done anything at all. Maybe in the next few weeks - keep bugging me about it so I don't forget to get off my butt and actually do something.

Q: If 9-11 was a false-flag operation, why aren't more pilots talking about it?

A: They are!

Here's the homepage of Pilots for 911 Truth

Sid,

That site was started off by a nutjob from the Loose Change forum. He is now marketing a DVD which purports to show why the DFDR data from the Pentagon aircraft is wrong. Despite being shown why he is wrong by a couple of people who field of expertise is DFDR analysis (1 x Canadian, 1 x UK), he ignores this and continues with his beliefs.

That site is also renown for banning anyone who holds a dissenting view.

You might be better off looking at a site like the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, probably the most well-known website for professional pilots around the world.

For my part, none of the 30+ pilots I have worked with have any doubt about the aviation aspects of 9/11. I'm not saying you will not find a professional pilot who has problems with the "official" version, but they are in the extremely small minority - small enough to be statistically insignificant.

In Arpil 2002, one of my garden sheds fell over on a windy evening. Fortunately, no-one was hurt. Naturally, I suspected Al Qaida.

Nah, that was me. Sorry.

Well, Evan. I never guessed Al Qaida has infilitrated the moderating team! Just goes to show... one can't be too paranoid, eh?

I don't mind admitting my suspicions were first aroused when I heard an announcement that my shed had collapsed on local TV news, half an hour before it happened!

Fortunately, all worked out well in the end.

The insurers paid up handsomely and I've replaced the rusty old humpy with a 47-storey pagoda.

Please PM me if you intend to 'pull it' too, Evan.

I need a few days notice to up the premium.

I'm sure we can work something out!

In Arpil 2002, one of my garden sheds fell over on a windy evening. Fortunately, no-one was hurt. Naturally, I suspected Al Qaida.

Nah, that was me. Sorry.

I'm mostly with Len on this one.

Although it does support what I believe to be the truth, I have doubts about the US methods of questioning. I simply think that this confession cannot be relied upon. It may be 100% correct, but I'd like to see other sources corroberate it.

I might have to see what he says on TWA 800, though it would have to be very convincing. The circumstances are very logical (heated fuel vapour in the centre tank, caused by the AC pack), matched known behaviour of a fuel vapour explosion, etc.

It shows the problems associated with using "tainted" people after a regime change. Many of these people were allowed to continue because it was considered that they were 'essential' to the running of a viable government.

This is a lesson which should be closely observed by the US in Iraq.

*bump*

For some reason, sometimes new posts don't "bump" the thread (even though they appear).

Anyone know of any comparable 'errors' in the history of the BBC... when a reporter reported an unprecedented catastrophic event before it actually took place?

That's a very good question. Though I am still very much in the 'official theory' camp, I'd like to see if something similar has happened before.

I agree that news agencies will prepare scripts for expected events, and that they do (often?) make incorrect calls 'in advance' of events.

That being said however, it appears that this is a piece of evidence for those who claim that the events of 9/11 were engineered. The down side of this evidence is that it makes the group of those "in the know" much bigger than some would care to grant.

...They have wasted many years and many billions of dollars accomplishing nothing of importance ....

Probably not.

(best Monty Python voice) What has NASA ever done for us?

- Development of improved anti-icing fluid for airliners

- Hurricane tracking & analysis systems via NASA satellites & technology

- Ingestible 'thermometer pill' developed for astronauts used to track heat stress in athletes, divers, firefighters, etc

- Ambulated 'walker' that aids people with spinal cord or brain trauma injuries

- Treatment system for contaminated ground water

- NASA imaging technology being used in diabetes research

- Metallurgy analysis techniques reducing fatigue-related failures in aircraft

- NASA infrared and multi-spectral imaging allowing examination of historic / ancient documents and artifacts

- Vision devices for the vision-impaired

- Liquidmetal for new high strength / low weight material used in things like baseball bats, tennis rackets, golf clubs, thumb drives, etc

- Robotic techniques for uses such as remote medical procedures, bomb disposal, undersea exploration, etc

- Improved contact lenses

- Insect / pest sensing technology for the wine industry

- Temperature-controlled ergonomic material for treatment of sports injuries (developed from Apollo space suits)

- Development of Zipnuts (replacing ordinary threaded nuts & bolts with a single-motion securing system)

- Lightning detection and tracking technologies

- Synthetic soil for growing plants, originally developed for the ISS

- Air breathing / body cooling systems for firefighters (developed from the Apollo PLSS backpacks)

- Heart pump technology (developed from rocket engine fuel pump technology)

- Reducing sonic booms for high-speed flight

- Air traffic management computer technology developed by NASA

- Turbulence radar to reduce incidence of Clear Air Turbulence

- Thousands of new airliner design spinoffs from aerodynamic research

- "Virtual cockpit" technology for zero-visibility flight and landings

- Noise reduction for passenger cabins in airliners

- Discovery of 32,000 year old bacteriological life in polar regions

- Research into reducing blood cell degradation in high radiation environments (such as artificial red blood cells)

- Earth resources monitoring technology, such as for the Great Barrier Reef

- Nanotechnology for cell repair (cancer research)

- Development of artificial muscle fibres

- Climate study resources

- Pollution level sensing

- Tracking of volcanic ash / eruptions

etc

etc

(best Monty Python voice) Yeah, but apart from that, what have they done for us? Nothin!

Oh! I didn't realise about BST. It's the reverse of what we have here. Sorry.

Oh, hrm, just noticed...

21:54 GMT would be 4:54 EST... but September is during daylight savings time, making that news report 5:54 EDT, 34 minutes after the collapse.

That's correct. NY is GMT - 4 hours during September, making the time of the report (2154 - 4 hours) 1754 or 5.54pm.... some 34 minutes after the collapse.

Doesn't that negate the whole premise?

That post does tend to favour Craig's arguments. No-one is arguing that NASA did not alter the images. The contentious point is WHY, and there is a lot of technical material that explains why they did it.

Another contentious issue is if they have correctly colour-adjusted the images; Duane's post from another board suggests that there is far from agreement about this. Even so, none of the quoted posts support a conspiracy. One poster raised it as a possibility; Barry Kearns doesn't seem to suggest it; he just argues that the calibration is wrong and doesn't see a valid reason for it being that way.