Evan Burton

It was in part due to posts of Jan and David being made invisible-unfairly so, where as Len gets preferential treatment for his blather and anti- conspiracy nonsense.

Dawn - Rubbish. Jan was offered a reasonable compromise - one which made the intention of his post clear - but chose to take offense and leave. His choice.

Jack refused make a simple effort to comply with the Forum rules - rules which applied to everyone. Instead he acted like a petulant child. His choice.

Thus far I have refrained from comment, but I do have something to say.

Does it really matter what or whom any of us are?

In the military its a matter of respect the rank, not the person. Something similar could be said here.

If Len is Len, and entity, a conglomerate, whatever, should it not be the information he posts that concerns us?

I mean after all is this not a forum for debate, and exchange and examination of ideas? Who really cares what Len is, what should matter is the information he supplies. If its good, great, if its bad, debate him.....sounds simple enough to me.

Is the real issue here that some disagree with him, but can not refute his information, and such leads them to look for alternative ways to discredit him?

Or is it possible that since some can not refute him, they simply want him silenced?

People are leaving, being put on moderation etc etc....and that does NOTHING constructive for the debate and exchange......its just a shame.

Mike

Mike - I agree. I would ask, however, no more discussion regarding Len. Please see my previous post.

Thank you.

Just in case people have not seen my post on the Complaints thread:

The reason for the Colby thread was plainly stated in the opening post.

For sometime now people have been sending me emails and PMs calling for Len Colby to be banned from the Forum. His critics claim that he is some sort of disinformation agent. I refuse to do this because in my judgment this is not true. Len seems to disagree with every conspiracy theory posted on this forum. This includes several threads started by myself. However, that does not make him into a disinformation agent. Nor do I understand why his membership of this forum upsets so many people. True, he asks a lot of questions. He did that on my thread on Winston Churchill. You can either try to answer the questions he poses or ignore them. It is then up to the viewer to judge whether his questions were valid or not.

In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len. This has resulted in the moderators rightly making these comments invisible to viewers. Then this group decided to break other rules by removing the link to their biographies and removing their avatars or replacing them with something that is clearly not a photograph of them. These members have been placed on moderation and their posts made invisible until they abide by forum rules.

This group of Len’s critics has warned me that they intend to set up their own rival forum. That seems like a good idea to me. You can then create your own rules that pleases your own membership. Most forums that deal with conspiracy issues prefer to have members who hold similar views. The intention of this forum was to create something where members debated these issues. It seems to me that if your theories are correct, then they can withstand questioning by others.

The strength of this particular forum is that it gets a lot of page views. This is because of the way the search-engines work and the popularity of my own particular website. Therefore, it is always a good idea to publicize your views on this forum. This you are free to do as long as you abide by the rules.

CLEARLY the purpose of the thread was to INFORM people of what was going on.

It stated you could discuss matters WITHIN the rules. This does NOT include questioning the motives or identity of a poster.

Address what is said, not who says it.

If you have concerns regarding the motives, identity, or other aspects of a poster, then address them to John or Andy via PM.

You were allowed to make your feelings known regarding that matter, Charles, and even after a number of posters correctly pointed out that the subject was not to be discussed, you continued to make the accusations. Let me make this totally clear:

THE SUBJECT IS CLOSED. ANYONE MAKING A PUBLIC POST ABOUT THE ABOVE MATTER (LEN / IDENTITY / MOTIVES) WILL BE REPORTED TO THE ADMINS WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF IMMEDIATE MODERATION.

Charles,

You are free to do so... WITHIN THE RULES. This includes the identity or motives of a poster.

It was in part due to posts of Jan and David being made invisible-unfairly so, where as Len gets preferential treatment for his blather and anti- conspiracy nonsense.

Dawn - Rubbish. Jan was offered a reasonable compromise - one which made the intention of his post clear - but chose to take offense and leave. His choice.

Jack refused make a simple effort to comply with the Forum rules - rules which applied to everyone. Instead he acted like a petulant child. His choice.

But seriously, I wish to go on record that I cannot and shall not be personally offended by a post on this Forum. So, dear moderators, please be advised that, for whatever it's worth, you needn't scold, censor, or in any other form or fashion punish any of our correspondents for even the boldest, most ignorant libel leveled or slander slung in my direction.

Charles

Thank you Charles, but the issue is not whether you will be offended; it is about a member violating the Forum rules.

Just a small point, but a number of 9/11 researchers have often relied totally on Google, etc, for distances. This is fine if they are going to be indicative or illustrative, but when that distance forms a key part of the argument, I would strongly recommend they (or people relying on that research) check distances using more authoritative sources such as surveyed maps or charts.

Google, though a wonderful tool, has been shown to be inaccurate at times.

Charles,

The reason for the Colby thread was plainly stated in the opening post.

For sometime now people have been sending me emails and PMs calling for Len Colby to be banned from the Forum. His critics claim that he is some sort of disinformation agent. I refuse to do this because in my judgment this is not true. Len seems to disagree with every conspiracy theory posted on this forum. This includes several threads started by myself. However, that does not make him into a disinformation agent. Nor do I understand why his membership of this forum upsets so many people. True, he asks a lot of questions. He did that on my thread on Winston Churchill. You can either try to answer the questions he poses or ignore them. It is then up to the viewer to judge whether his questions were valid or not.

In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len. This has resulted in the moderators rightly making these comments invisible to viewers. Then this group decided to break other rules by removing the link to their biographies and removing their avatars or replacing them with something that is clearly not a photograph of them. These members have been placed on moderation and their posts made invisible until they abide by forum rules.

This group of Len’s critics has warned me that they intend to set up their own rival forum. That seems like a good idea to me. You can then create your own rules that pleases your own membership. Most forums that deal with conspiracy issues prefer to have members who hold similar views. The intention of this forum was to create something where members debated these issues. It seems to me that if your theories are correct, then they can withstand questioning by others.

The strength of this particular forum is that it gets a lot of page views. This is because of the way the search-engines work and the popularity of my own particular website. Therefore, it is always a good idea to publicize your views on this forum. This you are free to do as long as you abide by the rules.

CLEARLY the purpose of the thread was to INFORM people of what was going on.

It stated you could discuss matters WITHIN the rules. This does NOT include questioning the motives or identity of a poster.

Address what is said, not who says it.

If you have concerns regarding the motives, identity, or other aspects of a poster, then address them to John or Andy via PM.

You were allowed to make your feelings known regarding that matter, Charles, and even after a number of posters correctly pointed out that the subject was not to be discussed, you continued to make the accusations. Let me make this totally clear:

THE SUBJECT IS CLOSED. ANYONE MAKING A PUBLIC POST ABOUT THE ABOVE MATTER (LEN / IDENTITY / MOTIVES) WILL BE REPORTED TO THE ADMINS WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF IMMEDIATE MODERATION.

Craig Lamson has been placed on moderation due to an offensive post.

Good question - what is truth, and why is one standard (yet to be defined) applied to one member only?

Jan's bio said he worked for the BBC (IIRC) but I've never seen his work. Should we demand a showing? If so, what point does it serve? Does it verify a point Jan makes?

What about Jack White? What if I claim that he is a conglomerate? Just because I have doubts is it fair that he have to prove his identity to everyone?

I saw adverts on the TV in the US about this. Homes for as low as a few hundred dollars - whatever it took to pay off the rates owed on the property.

I thought it just a con. My motto remains "If it sounds too good to be true, then it is likely not true".

It seems, however, there are cases where the low prices are actually true.

Charles,

Free speech can be difficult. Because the subject continues to revolve around Len being some type of composite character - and this discussion regarding a member is normally taboo - it is my responsibility to stop it. For instance, what if I claimed that the person/s posting as Peter Lemkin were not a single person but a conglomerate of people with a shared aim on this board? Would the accusation itself be fair? What if I demand proof of Peter's identity? Would it be fair? I am sure there are people who would complain if I took such a path.

Instead, I rely on John and Andy to regulate the board members. If they decide someone can post under a bogus name, then that is their concern - not mine. I'm interested in what is posted. If they decide a member's concern over an image is justified, then it matters not if I know or do not know that the member's avatar is a "fake" - all I need to know is that the Admins have approved it.

If someone has concerns - or even evidence - that a Forum member is not who they say they are, what should they do? Post accusations about? I would think the way to go is to contact the Admins, inform them of the concern, present the evidence, and await a decision.

For instance, let's hypothesise that Len's avatar is not actually of him. Does that show intent to deceive? Some would say YES... but what if it was done with John or Andy's approval? What if Len had a genuine concern regarding his image?

David has told us that his image was only similar to himself, not an actual image. This was done with John / Andy's approval.

Did the Mods know? No. Did David try to deceive us? No. He simply had reasons that John / Andy considered sufficient to justify using a likeness.

I have no problem with that.

What if Len has been granted similar status? I am NOT saying he has, but what if this were the case? Would the rule then be that some people had to reveal their identity, but others were protected? If you were on one side of a fence this rule applied, but if you were on the other it did not?

Anyway, you get my point.

Lastly, I am quite genuine about congratulating you. I would ask that you speak to any Forum members you are in contact with, and that have withdrawn from the forum, and ask them to follow your example and speak up for what they believe.

Oh, BTW - Charles:

Although I disagree with your stance on this matter, and generally seem to be on the opposite side of the opinion fence to you, I do have to congratulate you for staying here and continuing to provide a voice for those who share your opinion. If what I / we / "the dark forces of this Forum" is / are spreading so much disinformation, I would have considered it the moral duty of all people who recognise the disinformation to remain and counter it, point out the flaws, tell people the truth.... however it would seem that you seem to be the sole representative of this faction.

I congratulate you for having the guts to "stand up" to me and my ilk. Seriously. You have a suitable avatar, you provide a link to your bio, and although I think your current posts fall into an area that violates Forum rules, you have the conviction to say it. Well done.

Dave and Matt - agree with your posts... particularly the concept of addressing the content of the posts, not the poster. If I state that F = ma, then it is either right or wrong regardless of whether I am a physics professor, a supermarket stacker, or a serial killer. If I say the GWB is a womaniser, then people have to look at what evidence I use to support that statement and either accept the evidence, or argue that it is not correct and demonstrate why. It matters not if I am a staunch republican, a communist, or a 16 year old writing from an insane asylum.

Also, this is the only forum on which I use my real name, and I belong to several forums.

Charles,

Your posts are very interesting but totally without basis. For any query you raise against Len, the same can be raised against you.

Let me - if possible try to address this to your satisfaction.

Exactly what evidence will confirm to your satisfaction that Len Colby is who he says he is? Please remember privacy regulations of various countries, so asking Len to post a copy of his passport on a public thread is NOT an option.

BTW, this is a move totally on my behalf. Len is quite within his rights to totally refuse any suggestions put forward. I'm asking to try and figure out what standards of proof you consider adequate.

Could people stop arguing and return to the thread, please.

Len: I don't consider Michael's answer to me to be an insult, so no need to treat it as one. Thank you.

I'm going to read through the replies here, but if they have not already been posted I'd like to hear peope's opinion on this. I am still very much in two minds.

On one hand we have areas wanted to gain independence. Russia is supporting this. Is this not what we of the West have always upheld? Is this not what the US and other nations have done on many occasions?

On the other we have an area which has apparently traditionally been part of a state / nation and now wishes to secede because it has resources which enables such an action. Would we think it fair that Liverpool suddenly secede if it was discovered it had resources to support such a call?

What are the opinions?

I'll remind EVERYONE to abide by Forum rules.

If they want to have a swipe at ME, and me alone (without swearing), please read my post on the complaints thread. It's open season on me.

Elsewhere you are to abide by Forum rules.

I would also remind people who - in protest - have changed their avatars to emoticons or images not of themselves.

Maggie - I asked you a few days ago. Please update your avatar within a few days or your posts will be made invisible until you do.

Other people - please amend you avatars to reflect Forum standards. You will have 1 week to do this, then all posts will be made invisible.

If you have reasons for not abiding by Forum rules, please contact John Simkin via PM and request a waiver.

Thank you.

Okay Evan.

Why did the Hanjour plane do the turn? I understand that planes in normal circumstances need to make approaches to certain runways and will also depend on weather conditions like wind also.

In the case of Hanjour it is not a normal situation. It is a disposable plane landing on a vertical runway with out traffic control in pretty perfect weather. He doesn't need any one else's permission for anything he can do what he likes. He is apparently in control of the plane since at least 9.24 am when the FAA knew for sure that his flight was missing and by some accounts notified the NORAD At 9.29 am he is flying at 7,000 feet and is about 38 miles west of the Pentagon. He can drop altitude any time from here and just cruise in to the side of the Pentagon or in the middle or where ever he wants to park it. Point and aim. No need for any tricky maneuvers. He does not have to stay high and then drop 1 mile out (or what ever it was) and do the turn to get down. He was heading towards the pentagon anyway he just needed to adjust a few degrees and drop down along the way. Impact at 9.37am. Eight minutes is plenty of time to descend.

Oh, fine - I thought I had answered but I'll go into greater detail. Firstly, no-one can be sure. I'll give you what I consider to be the most likely explanation.

Secondly, I haven't checked your distances / heights / locations against records, but I'll accept them as accurate unless shown otherwise.

Now, a rough guide for a normal approach wants to put you overhead at about 1000 feet. You then work out your descent point based on your cruising altitude and expected ground speed. A normal descent will be at 1000 feet per minute, though often people use a higher rate of 1500. Let's say you are at Flight Level 310 (31,000 feet). You want to be at 1000 feet, so you have to lose 30,000 feet. At 1000 feet per minute rate of descent, it will take you 30 minutes. Next we apply the ground speed. I don't know the actual ground speed during descent, but let's say 300 knots for this example. 300 knots is 5 nautical miles per minute. You are going to need 30 minutes to descend, so 30 minutes x 5 nautical miles per minute = 150 nautical miles away is when you start your descent.

Other people use the 3-6 rule: 3 times your altitude (in 1000s of feet), 6 times your ground speed. Using that in my example: 30,000 feet = 30 x 3 = 90 nautical is your descent point, and a ground speed of 300 knots is 300 x 6 = 1800 feet per minute. As you can see, this has a greater rate of descent and so descends closer.

Now, you say he was at about 7000 at 0929. The record supports that. However, 7 minutes before that they were at 25,000 feet. They lost 18,000 feet in 7 minutes - about a descent rate of 2500 fpm at a steady rate. Then, for the next 5 minutes (0929 - 0934), the aircraft waivered between about 6000 feet and 9000 feet (Reference: NTSB analysis). At around 0934 it was at 8000 feet.

Between 0928 and 0935 the aircraft had an airspeed of about 300 knots. I'll use a similar groundspeed although it is not 100% accurate; there are a few knots difference. 300 knots is 5 nautical miles per minute.

So at 0929 he is 38 nautical miles away at about 7000 feet. At 0934 he was about 13 nautical miles away (5 mins x 5nm/min = 25 nm; 38nm - 25nm = 13nm) and at 8000 feet. At this point he increased speed up to about 450 knots (7.5nm per min) but let's look at this time.

13 nautical miles away at 8000 feet at at least 300 knots (5nm per min). That means he is now 2.6 minutes away from the Pentagon. 8000 feet in 2.6 minutes is over 3000 feet per minute.

Therefore Hanjour realises he is far too high for his experience level, and concerned that he might miss his target by making a too steep approach, makes a descending turn in order to make a much flatter approach to the Pentagon.

I hope this makes things clearer for you.

Yes, equal treatment is all that people have been asking for and not getting. That is why the brouhaha. If Matt had to change his photo because of what ever would it not have been a good idea to get every one's picture to conform to the same standard? And to do it at the same time instead of picking off people one at a time?

Perhaps you didn't notice, but it was posted in the JFK board on 3 JUL 08 - a month ago.

David, Jack, Charles and Jan are totally right to bring up the matter of the identity of Colby/Brasil in this forum.

Equal treatment then. Jack need not prove his identity. I don't, because Peter L already posted the Navy News article that featured me. But what about the others? I already posted a proposal. That would include you, BTW. I did note that you said you would have no problems with it... though I think some other people on the Forum - who you would consider friends - would baulk at the idea.

Instead the moderators run around screaming at Jack like he is a naughty child for not having the right socks on and to fix his bio link IMMEDIATELY or be 'disappeared' .

Once more, TOTALLY inaccurate. I sent Jack 3 PMs. he told me he "doesn't read PMs". So then I told him - in accordance with Forum guidelines - could he please fix the link on the bottom of his posts...like every other member on the Forum is required to do. (That's called equal traetment)

I reminded him for a few of days. NOT "immediately". We gave him instructions on how to put the link in his signature - like other members - on multiple occasions. It would appear, though, that Jack is above such trivial matter because he refused to do what other members did.

Is it equality for EVERYONE - or only for some?

David,

I'll try to answer your questions and complaints. I'll also say this:

Until otherwise notified on this thread, it's open season on me. You can say what you want about me on this thread - not anyone else, just me - without fear of any retribution. The only restrictions are no swearing, and nothing that would be considered inappropriate for children to read. Youths may read the forum. Otherwise you can accuse me of being CIA, spreading disinformation, not being who I say I am, etc.

(John, I haven't cleared this with you but I hope you don't mind. I am happy to listen & respond to whatever people have to say)

The thread was deleted after a couple of days; I don't know if it is possible to restore it. I'll look through the internet to see if it has been saved somewhere.

I would be grateful if you would post a link to that exact charge about Jan and holocaust denial and any subsequent moderation decisions made about it, so that I can review the accuracy of the charge you now make. Thank you.

It was in the link where I first mentioned it, a few posts ago. I'll repeat the link again, though:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=150748

I do know that you have reacted badly to Jan's presence here in recent times (prompting an outrageous outburst of spleen) - to the extent that it was clear there was a personal issue involved and that has grown out of all proportion.

I may very well be wrong, but I thought the first time I 'reacted' to Jan was the thread for which I apologised. I still disagree with him, but I was acting inappropriately for a Mod. Perhaps I have 'reacted' to him before, but I don't remember a specific occasion.

Meanwhile many regular members here have now signed up for a new forum as they are sick and tired of the Colby debunking crowd and your protection of them. The view is that this place no longer warrants the effort to try to salvage it because the patients have taken over the asylum and that there is no courage in the leadership to take tough decisions. How this will play out only time will tell. But as I have indicated earlier, Jan has left, I will be leaving shortly, as will others.

According to what some people would seem to believe about me, isn't that exactly what I want?

Don't I want to drive "you people" away? In that case, aren't you giving me exactly what I want? Aren't you doing what I want you to do?

Wouldn't people who try to seek the truth want to combat me? Aren't you setting a poor example for others?

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to stand up to me? Show that you cannot be bullied by me? Because at the moment, all I see are people who are running away because they lack the courage to stand up for their convictions.

The fact is that when I began posting on this forum, John asked me to post an avatar. I declined and explained my reasons for doing so, namely security following two very unpleasant death threats that included the delivery to my home of a firebomb and other items on other another occasion. There is no publicly available picture of me anywhere and never will be. John offered ideas of a compromise and I therefore used, with his tacit understanding, a picture that is similar to me in some respects (lifted from the internet) but is not me. This has amounted to an intelligent compromise hitherto.

That is absolutely fine. What have I said on multiple occasions? That if there is a reason for not posting an avatar / bio / etc, then send a PM to John giving the reasons and get approval. That's all that is required.

But Michael - and now Maggie - say that I didn't adequately answer the question. I asked why, or in what respect. Neither Michael nor Maggie seems to have told me. I thought Len covered it pretty well.

If someone - anyone - would like to tell me what more they'd like to know, I'll do my best to answer. As I have said repeatedly.

Ooops - I forgot it was invisible.

Could I asked who did it? Thanks?

So...out of curiosity...what happened to the complaint thread?

Dawn

Too many whining ct children at play?

As David Guyatt said "If you can't complain of the "Complaints Thread' where can you?"

It has been made invisible...NOT by me. Let me say that again... NOT BY ME.

I'll investigate.

The thread about psyops has been deleted; if you care to repost it - ensuring it conforms to the standards expected - then there will be no problems.

Evan,

my question was not about the "psyops" thread at all. It was as follows:

Has a decision been made to delete the Len Brazil post yet? If not why not? If a decision has been made not to delete would you please unlock it so that others may continue to post in what is an important thread.

Will you now answer that question filly please.

David

Okay, I misunderstood... but which "Len Brazil" post? Do you mean the thread which Jack started? Or is there a specific post to which you refer. Please describe it so I can be sure what you refer to.

You would have thought at some point someone would have found truth in the writings of Sun Tzu, written in the 6th century BC, and still just as true today.

I thought that it would have been required reading.