Evan Burton

I notice Jack likes showing off his new Joker image - just like a kid with a new toy.

To me, it essentially boils down to this: If the 9/11 report is so wrong, where are all the crowds of structural engineers & their professional organisations saying a building could not collapse like that? Where are all the waves of professional airline pilots and their organisations crying out that a poorly-trained terrorist could not have flown the aircraft used in such a fashion? Where are all the aeronautical engineers and their professional organisations protesting that an aircraft could not withstand being flown in such a way? Where are all the crash investigators pointing out that wreckage found is not consistant with the claimed incidents? Where are all the demolitions experts saying that the incidents look exactly what a controlled demolition would look like? Now, I know Jack will probably raise his mis-named Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Generally, they are people talking outside their field, and have a strong aversion to having their work peer-reviewed by people that can evaluate the validity of their claims. Dr Jones is a particle physicist with expertise in cold fusion. His infamous paper was reviewed by sociologists, not engineers. Their pet engineer is an expert in dental materials. When I see a paper raised by an expert in that field, I pay attention. When I see a paper raised by an expert in that field and peer-reviewed by other experts in that field, I pay very close attention. If I see a group of experts, talking about matters in which they are experts, supported by other experts, and they claim 9/11 was an "inside job" or a "hoax" or other such claim.... then I will quite prepared to revise my stance on the matter.

A typical Jack White claim. "I don't say an aircraft didn't hit the building, only that the images are faked". "I don't say Apollo never went to the moon, only that the images were faked." "I don't say that (insert your claim of choice here), only that the images were faked." Now, I don't say Jack White isn't a real person, only that claims of his expertise are faked.

hehehehe, Jack. Live by the sword, die by the sword. How's that petard going there buddy?

Sorry John! I don't really know enough about it to speak with any authority. I did, however, remember the "It's Time!" commercials (even though I was 10) and still remember his sacking. It was a significant event in Australian history, and one that will not be forgotten for some time (even 30 years after the event). It is often brought up as a reason why Australia should become a republic. I liked Gough; he had tremendous flair, a feel for the common person, and a rapier-like wit. One of my favourite books is THE WIT OF WHITLAM (I'll quote some of my favourite quips if anyone would care to see them). Sir John Kerr generally incurred the wrath of the Australian people after the events of Remeberence Day 1975 - he was cast out and never to be forgiven, right or wrong. Of course, the Whitlam government had its share of controversy - the Maroni affair with Jim Cairns, and Rex O'Conner & the Loans Affair. Then the hostile Senate blocked Supply. Gough had a solution, but Kerr chose The Dismissal rather than a half-Senate election. In the next Federal election, the Fraser government took office & Gough entered the political wilderness. Mind you, he appears in TV ads now - and he is the only Australian PM to appear in a feature film whilst in office. Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, IIRC. He greeted Edna Everage on arrival in Australia. He was meant to say something like "Welcome home, Mrs Everage" but instead said "Rise Dame Edna"; that's how "she" got the title. Okay, more serious stuff. Do I think Kerr was a CIA plant or such? No. IMO he was certainly influenced by US wishes, wanted to see a strong alliance with the US, and may have thought that Whitlam threatened that alliance. I think CIA remarks about Kerr being "our man" were more related to persuasion rather than actual imperative. Overall, I would have liked to see how Gough would have gone if given further chance. Hindsight discounted, Fraser was not a popular PM despite the Liberal party win. To conclude, just one quote from The Great Man himself (sorry - I can't resist): Later that day he said "It is the first time the burglar has been appointed as caretaker!"

From the aircraft? It goes into a holding tank, and then is pumped out by the "xxxx Truck" on the ground. Where they get rid of it, I am not sure.

I thought Jack might be interested in this: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=231220 It's a thread from the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, a forum for aviation professionals around the world. Somebody brought up chemtrails there... amongst a bunch of pilots and engineers. Their opinion? Wot a load of old cobblers. This is from the people who fly the aircraft each day, service the aircraft, build the aircraft, etc. But then again, they are all probably in on it, right?

Oh well. Thanks anyway - I'll just soldier on through the posts if they turn out wonky. Cheers,

Welcome Stephen! I don't normally get involved with the JFK stuff here, but nice to see someone with some strong aeronautical engineering background here. My advice to you is: enjoy! Cheers, Evan Oh - I do have to ask... what's a "bedroom community"?

Len, You know I have absolutely nothing against you, so please accept this as a genuine suggestion - could you please just use standard font & size, with bolding where required? I often wish to read your posts but find the differing fonts, sizes, and incomplete HTML tags very distracting to try and read. Sorry, but there is so much to digest and the chaotic formatting really puts me off. Cheers,

I agree. The real question is did the Bush administration make use of 9/11 to fulfil its own political agenda. I believe that is what happened. The next question is then, did they have advance warning of the terrorist action. There is some evidence that this was the case. The next, and most important question of all, is, did they fail to take preventative action because of incompetence or because it suited them for the attack to take place. I have never believed the idea that the CIA is an incompetent organization (JFK assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra, WMD in Iraq, etc.). I therefore suspect that the terrorist attack was allowed to take place. However, I accept, they never thought for one moment that it was going to be so successful. Did they have advance warning? Yes - though they thought it would be a chemical / biological attack, according to a source. Did they fail to take preventative action? Without pretty specific details, you'd have to take some pretty wide ranging measures which would have been considered unacceptable pre-9/11. Were they incompetent? Not really; all of the intelligence agencies worldwide normally have a fault - overclassifing sources, being vunerable to "mirror image", not sticking to intelligence requirement and collection plans (i.e. "picking") - I think they just really got caught badly.

I've looked at a lot of information and think that the "official" version of events is the most credible. That is, aircraft flown into Pentagon, WTC, WTC collapse due structural failure, etc. WHY this happened is another matter. A possible scenario is that a group set up a "front organisation", purporting to be Islamic militants, which subsequently recruited and funded the people - who were genuine "believers" - that committed the attacks. It would be arguable that an element of the US government did this but I don't believe that myself.

I have questions about this situation. Now, I should say that I have little real understanding of political intrigue so I'd ask if people disagree with what I have to say, please try and explain why you believe my assumptions / conclusions to be wrong rather than a straight out attack. The first that comes to mind is talk of a U-2 being "...in the colours of the UN in the hopes of drawing fire". To my knowledge, the U-2s - or other surveillance assets - never "fly a UN flag". Fighters, for example, patrolling over the "no fly" zone wore national colours, not UN markings. Even when more mundane aircraft are involved in UN tasks, they don't normally have UN painted on them. The exceptions are cargo or passenger aircraft which do sometimes fly the UN colours. To me, this immediately casts doubt on the authenticity of the document - though I do note that other intelligence sources confirm it as being genuine. The remainder of the document/s seems to be believable. There was a "defector" who said that Iraq had a WMD programme, and there well may have been assasination attempts. I also have no doubts that they wanted a military confrontation with Iraq. I suppose my big questions has to be - why didn't they fake WMDs? After the initial military action, it would have been a simple matter to "plant" evidence of WMD construction at locations. Chemical weapons, bio-weapons, even evidence of nuclear weapons research could be manufactured. This would have provided justification for the military action - but they had to admit that no evidence was found, or at least that evidence was subject to interpretation. If you painted a U-2 in UN colours in the hope of drawing fire, well, even a U-2 not painted in UN colours would achieve the same effect. The UN itself would know if a mission had been authorised, so they would be able to confirm if a flight took place (remembering my previous statements about surveillance aircraft in UN colours). If the Iraqies fired upon it, then it WOULD be a genuine aggressive act - not a setup per se.

Andy, You raise a good point - and I think you have raised another when you have said good conspiracy theory. If I believe that Queen Elizabeth II is actually a reptile from the planet Zammat in disguise but offer no proof to that effect, then even though it is a theory it hardly is worth discussing. On the other hand, there are a number of aspects about the JFK assassination that make it worthy of a good conspiracy theory (CT). There are aspects which can be debated or remain unexplained. I place the 9/11 CT in the middle ground. The events as recorded withstand scientific scrutiny, and so I accept them. Why they happened is another matter (i.e. did the US government conspire to orchestrate the events of 9/11? Did they arrange for a religious extremist group to hijack the aircraft?). The 'Apollo hoax' is one that falls into the 'bad' CT arena. See my posts within this board on that matter. Some people speculate that some people need a CT to replace the beliefs that have been disproven. We know that earthquakes are not the sign of an angry god; we know that a solar eclipse is not some supernatural event. People can therefore transfer their feelings of guilt / inadequacey / awe / wonder / fear onto something else, upon which they can assign "blame". We have seen this with racisism ("it is all because of the blacks / asians / muslims / etc"). Belief in a CT can also help bolster ones own ego, because you are "too smart to be fooled" or "are in the know about the REAL events". Jack has kindly demonstrated this with his reply to your opening post: He implies that he is "smarter" than you because he is not "fooled". You can also shift responsibility with it in the right circumstances. A serial killer might claim that they have been the victim of a "mind control experiment" in order to not admit (mainly to themselves) that they knowingly committed the acts. I think there will always be abundent 'conspiracy theories'; the sad thing is that because there are so many 'crackpot' theories when a true CT comes around, people will tend to dismiss it. You can only ever look at both sides of the equation, examine the evidence on both sides, seek expert advice when the evidence is beyond your ability to rationally judge, and then make up your own mind. And once having taken a position, be prepared to defend it and be prepared to change your position if new evidence comes to light.

(post deleted - double post for some reason)

Terry, By all means ask questions, and keep asking them until you are satisfied with the answer given. As people have pointed out, I did a big rebuttal of Jack's works on Aulis in this section. You should note that although they don't say it, the Aulis website is run by the very same Bennett and Percy. If you have questions about what they say (e.g. how can you refute what Bennett / Percy / White say here....) I'll be more than happy to answer.

Yes. They do a 'self-check' as part of the pre-take off checks, and if the CVR / FDR malfunctions they get a caution light. This also happens when the CVR / FDR 'rewinds'; they generally only record 30 mins of data. When they 'rewind' a warning is displayed.

Damn! Caught out again. Hang on a minute....... Provocatuer! Disinfo agent! Ningcompoop! That's the ticket!

That site does not prove anything, except that if you selectively quote and use bad science you can prove anything. Let's examine some of what was said on the site: If you read the link, you'll find: "We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University. "By placing the radiation detectors in CRaTER behind various thicknesses of a special plastic that has similar density and composition to human tissue, Spence and his colleagues will provide much-needed data: Except for quick trips to the Moon during the Apollo program, most human spaceflight has occurred near Earth where our planet's magnetic field provides a natural shield. In low-Earth orbit, the most dangerous forms of space radiation are relatively rare. That's good for astronauts, but it leaves researchers with many unanswered questions about what radiation does to human tissue. CRaTER will help fill in the gaps." When the Apollo programme made manned lunar landings, they were planned to occur during the lowest times of solar flare to minimise any risk of solar radiation. The total exposure of the astronauts was very low, so they don't have the necessary biomedical data to be sure what happens to a human with longer term exposure - the type that will be experienced during extended stay missions on the moon and that will be experienced during a Mars mission. They aren't: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s1ch1.htm http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch1.htm http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch3.htm http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s4ch1.htm http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s4ch4.htm http://hdl.handle.net/2002/15909&oaiID=oai..._jsp:2002_15909 http://hdl.handle.net/2002/13298&oaiID=oai..._jsp:2002_13298 http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20040031719&oai...gov:20040031719 and so on. It's there if you bother to look. Wrong again: http://www.myspacemuseum.com/CRD.htm Of course, a lot of measurement was done BEFORE they went: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/orbiter2.htm http://www.solarviews.com/eng/orbiter5.htm Total bullxxxx. For a start, there were 29 astronauts who flew Apollo missions (not including Skylab or ASTP). Of those, 24 orbited the moon. Of those, 12 walked on the lunar surface. After the lunar missions, they went on publicity tours. All have given interviews to varying degrees. Once again, disinformation and a failure to do basic research. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19871 http://www.astrodigital.org/space/intbean.html http://www.engology.com/engintaldrin.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...8&dopt=Abstract http://www.jamesoberg.com/01012001dukeinterview_mar.html http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/features/jimlovell/ to name but a few See above. Apart from the author not having the necessary expertise to make such a claim, he can be proved wrong: How to build your very own Apollo computer: http://agcreplica.outel.org/ http://www.clavius.org/technasa.html and so on. I'm not going to waste my time showing every little - and BIG - error he has made. That website is full of it, it should be placed on gardens to promote plant growth.

OMG! He's right! Look at the picture! THERE ARE NO STARS!

Peter, Sorry to have to say this again but we are kinda moving off track. HOW it happened, WHY it happened.. is up for debate. If you believe the US government planned the events of 9/11, then okay, we could talk about that - later. The FACTS of 9/11 are simply irrefutable. - Witnesses to the airliner flying into the Pentagon - Parts of the aircraft being found - DNA evidence of the people killed (bar one) - The calls from the aircraft saying they were hijacked Lots of stuff! Did the government arrange for people to hijack the aircraft? I don't know. You'll have to say which parts are flawed so I can address them. If you are talking about the WHY (CCTV footage of the people going through airport security, links to organisations, etc) then that is a different matter. You'll have to tell me why you do not believe a 757 hit the Pentagon (and similar for flaws in the WTC attack). Many people believe the Earth is flat - so what? Belief that something is wrong does not make it so. So you are saying the Purdue study is flawed? How? I think the number was actually about 86 or so (IIRC - that might be wrong). There is a FOIA inquiry which was answered; I'll see if I can find the website again. It was on behalf of the victims families. They were told that of the 86(?) tapes confiscated, only two showed the actual impact. All the others had no information of the impact, they only showed post-crash activity. They were being withheld because they could be evidence in legal action. That may have changed now. Even so, the government has no right to release tapes which it does not own. The owners who they were confiscated from must give permission. Again, why? Do you believe that aircraft were not flown into the buildings? Could you give me specifics? Again, why? The overwhelming majority of structural engineers have no problems with it. Just saying it is suspect is not enough; you have to say WHY it is suspect and give an alternative scenario that accounts for the observations. Sorry for cutting out so much, but your distrust of the government is not a reason to refute WHAT happened - only WHY it happened. A previous post also mentioned a pilot who said the hijackers could not have flown into the Pentagon / WTC with the training they had. Here is my counterpoint: http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/new...ost2301896.shtm Bill is a friend of mine, and a 747 pilot with many years of experience. Here is his website so you can read about him: http://www.billzilla.org/ One says NAY, another says AYE. If you want to add up all those with the experience to judge and tally them off against each other, you'll find that the large majority tell you it was easy.

Peter, We may not be too far in disagreement as it might first seem, but I fear I am not making my points entirely clear for you. This is where I feel there is some confusion. The explanation for the events can be debated. The events themselves, however, are pretty cut & dried. I agree - almost. Were the events government orchestrated? Did the government simply take advantage of the events? Was it a terrorist attack which the government failed to take seriously? Were government departments remiss in their responsibilities in response to a credible threat? I don't know. Personally, I would find it hard to accept that this was a government operation - or even 'rogue' government operation - but it could be a defendable arguement that this was the case. People can point to the Northwoods documents and say it could be a credible scenario. The motives, in this case, are distinct from the actual events. This is where we differ. The events have been well documented. Let's go back to the Pentagon. Forget the security video; you have a massive amount of eyewitness reports. To deny them is to say that they were all "in on it". Remember the old saying? If more than one person knows a secret, it's not a secret. You could NOT keep a conspiracy of this magnitude a success with that many people involved. The "Scholars for 9/11 truth" website, which Jack quoted (and is an associate of), uses BAD science. Much of what they have said is plain WRONG. If you find one qualified medical Doctor that says human reproduction by mating is impossible, would you believe them? Science tends to be pretty picky about the facts. If you tell porkys, a lot of qualified people say you are not supportable. This leads me to the question of the quoted articles author. If I tell you I am an MD, and that it is impossible for IVF to work, wouldn't you want to check my qualifications before accepting what I say? Maybe all the IVF people were paid off to promote that it works. Just because I say I am an MD, it doesn't make it true. Just because I am an MD, it doen't mean I am an expert in IVF. If the author of the quoted letter is so adament about the validity of what they say, why wouldn't they allow their qualification to be known and verified? I am NOT saying they are NOT a mechanical engineer - but I have nothing to say that they are. I have nothing to say that they have worked in the aerospace industry, or with warhead design, or can talk knowledgebly about explosives. Science is about proof and peer review. If the author is correct, let's subject their claims to the same standard that any other scientific claim would have to undergo. Once again, the MOTIVE for the events is debatable; the events are not. How many people who involve themselves in the JFK debate say that he was NOT shot and killed? Do people maintain it was faked, and that he lives to this say in seculsion? That it was faked and he was later disposed of for whatever reasons? Not many - if any. You debate the WHY, not the what. This is where I point to some facts again - the witnesses, the recovered parts. I also would ask you to accept - for the moment - my 20-odd years in aviation as a pilot, a navigator, and air traffic controller. A pilot with minimal training could have flown those aircraft. It would not have taken "fighter-pilots"; in fact, exactly the opposite. Fighter pilots are used to nimble, responsive aircraft. You would want people (in your scenario) like bomber or transport pilots; people who are used to an aircraft of that size. The damage to the Pentagon is simply not consistint with a missile, either cruise, or air-to-ground. If you like, we can debate why in later posts. A remote controlled aircraft introduces some problems for perpetrators of such an event. Despite Boeings statement, it would be possible to modify a 757 to operate under remote control. It would be difficult to fly it into targets - but possible, given the right circumstances. The problem then becomes the reports from the aircraft that it was being hijacked, the DNA evidence identifying all but one person on the aircraft. Why introduce such risks into the equation? Why not simply get a fanatic to hijack an airliner and fly it into the target?

Peter, We may not be too far in disagreement as it might first seem, but I fear I am not making my points entirely clear for you. This is where I feel there is some confusion. The explanation for the events can be debated. The events themselves, however, are pretty cut & dried. I agree - almost. Were the events government orchestrated? Did the government simply take advantage of the events? Was it a terrorist attack which the government failed to take seriously? Were government departments remiss in their responsibilities in response to a credible threat? I don't know. Personally, I would find it hard to accept that this was a government operation - or even 'rogue' government operation - but it could be a defendable arguement that this was the case. People can point to the Northwoods documents and say it could be a credible scenario. The motives, in this case, are distinct from the actual events. This is where we differ. The events have been well documented. Let's go back to the Pentagon. Forget the security video; you have a massive amount of eyewitness reports. To deny them is to say that they were all "in on it". Remember the old saying? If more than one person knows a secret, it's not a secret. You could NOT keep a conspiracy of this magnitude a success with that many people involved. The "Scholars for 9/11 truth" website, which Jack quoted (and is an associate of), uses BAD science. Much of what they have said is plain WRONG. If you find one qualified medical Doctor that says human reproduction by mating is impossible, would you believe them? Science tends to be pretty picky about the facts. If you tell porkys, a lot of qualified people say you are not supportable. This leads me to the question of the quoted articles author. If I tell you I am an MD, and that it is impossible for IVF to work, wouldn't you want to check my qualifications before accepting what I say? Maybe all the IVF people were paid off to promote that it works. Just because I say I am an MD, it doesn't make it true. Just because I am an MD, it doen't mean I am an expert in IVF. If the author of the quoted letter is so adament about the validity of what they say, why wouldn't they allow their qualification to be known and verified? I am NOT saying they are NOT a mechanical engineer - but I have nothing to say that they are. I have nothing to say that they have worked in the aerospace industry, or with warhead design, or can talk knowledgebly about explosives. Science is about proof and peer review. If the author is correct, let's subject their claims to the same standard that any other scientific claim would have to undergo. Once again, the MOTIVE for the events is debatable; the events are not. How many people who involve themselves in the JFK debate say that he was NOT shot and killed? Do people maintain it was faked, and that he lives to this say in seculsion? That it was faked and he was later disposed of for whatever reasons? Not many - if any. You debate the WHY, not the what. This is where I point to some facts again - the witnesses, the recovered parts. I also would ask you to accept - for the moment - my 20-odd years in aviation as a pilot, a navigator, and air traffic controller. A pilot with minimal training could have flown those aircraft. It would not have taken "fighter-pilots"; in fact, exactly the opposite. Fighter pilots are used to nimble, responsive aircraft. You would want people (in your scenario) like bomber or transport pilots; people who are used to an aircraft of that size. The damage to the Pentagon is simply not consistint with a missile, either cruise, or air-to-ground. If you like, we can debate why in later posts. A remote controlled aircraft introduces some problems for perpetrators of such an event. Despite Boeings statement, it would be possible to modify a 757 to operate under remote control. It would be difficult to fly it into targets - but possible, given the right circumstances. The problem then becomes the reports from the aircraft that it was being hijacked, the DNA evidence identifying all but one person on the aircraft. Why introduce such risks into the equation? Why not simply get a fanatic to hijack an airliner and fly it into the target?

Jack White’s photo analysis of LHO and the JFK Assassination has throughout the many long years been outstanding and ground-breaking. I have never found him to be anything but a gentleman and open to considering other points of view too – even that he might have erred. Sadly, all of the critics of the ‘official version’ of 11/22/63 automatically question and hold suspect (until proven otherwise) much of what the government says – with (I believe) very good reason. I think that most of us who feel this way would really rather not. We would really like to be wrong and to be living in a country who told the truth and didn’t act deceptively, covertly, and constantly undermining freedom, democracy and the truth. Assassinations foreign and domestic, government overthrows, media manipulations and lies, wars that are only for power and profit, deceptions, cover-ups, dirty-tricks and endless illegal/immoral covert operations, little to nothing for the average citizen of this earth and almost all for the the oligarchs. Why, you should be asking yourself are they not releasing all the video footage [not to mention most all other evidence on 911]?! Jack-White-bashing only makes me think you may well have another agenda that pursuit of the actual facts. I don’t know if I agree with Jack on the moon landings and haven’t myself researched that, but on JFK, and now on 911, I would put my bet down with Jack White and not the current group of militaristic neo-fascists to whom we have all but lost our nation and any hope of democracy and decentcy – let alone truth. They care not one wit about truth – only money and power, by whatever means. Peter, As far as the JFK stuff goes, that is not my baliwick and I have no firm opinion on it - though I do readily admit that Jack does have many people who, like you, hold his work in that area in high regard. On 9/11 I have always said that the motives behind the attacks could be anything. It could have been a simple terrorist attack, it could have been a government operation, it could have been a lot of things. What is NOT in doubt though is that an airliner flew into the Pentagon, two airliners hit WTC 1 & 2, and that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed because of the damage sustained during those attacks. The evidence in favour of this is simply overwhelming. Why those attacks occured is another matter entirely. As far as the Apollo stuff is concerned, you can imagine my frustration at trying to correct errors when Jack will not discuss his work with people who are trying to show him why he is wrong! That is my agenda - to ensure that erroneous statements are counterpointed with correct data. This is often not a matter of interpretation; it is often a simple matter of fact versus fiction; correct versus incorrect. Misidentifying various sides of the LM. Claiming impossible techniques to explain effects in images when the camera experts (Hasselblad) explain why an effect is seen. Claiming effects are impossible when anyone with a camera can reproduce them. Making simple errors in photographic theory when, based on his experience, he should know better. Not doing the research to discover why something may be so. When Jack won't recognise his errors, won't discuss them, and won't correct them... well, he gets what he deserves. Scorn.

Why don'tpeople use science to evaluate these things properly? You have a known length of the aircraft and an approximate speed. The previously posted link shows that it cannot be an object less than 77-odd feet in length. Do the science people - don't accept what people tell you.