Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
David G. Healy's warning level has been raised for continuing to make unprovoked insults at other members.
-
I agree, though separating topics IMO is worthy. The point I would like to make is that if you disagree with a poster's viewpoint, then argue your opinion demonstrating why another's post / opinion is wrong / should be disregarded. Deal with the points they put forward. Give reference to support your views.
Simply saying someone is wrong with nothing to support that opinion is poor debating style. IMO.
-
My suggestion is that the member PM John Simkin directly. In the meantime I'll let John known about this thread but I am going to close it.
-
Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious.
David,
Unintentional as it may have been, the question can cause offense to Forum members who currently serve in the military. Because some people in the past have questioned why military people would post here, and have alluded to them having less than honest motives, it has become a case of questioning the posters motive - which is against the Forum rules. If you wish to know if someone is an active duty, serving member, then read their profile or ask them via PM. It is not a matter for public posting. Military member can face certain risks if their identities, current employment, and location are known. If you want to know if someone is employed by a certain industry or employer, ask them via PM.
If you feel the matter is of such importance that it must be publicly exposed, then CHECK WITH A MOD BEFORE POSTING.
I hope this will be the last I have to say on the matter - address the post, not the poster.
Thanks everyone.
-
Thank you, Jack. I was vaguely aware of it, but the reminder is well-taken and I agree with you. I think it's use here on the Forum for non-commercial, educational & research reasons does constitute "fair use".
Thanks again for reminding me.
Burton, being an Australian, does not understand the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to thecopyright laws. All uses I have made of the Biggert photo fall under FAIR USE as
educational non-profit non-commercial research, and has a laudable purpose.
For Burton's better understanding, I quote:
..........
U.S.C. TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
In practice, largely as follows:
1. The copier is a nonprofit, educational organization, or is doing work for such an organization;
2. The purpose of copying is for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, conservation or preservation;
3. The amount copied is small in relation to the size of the original work;
4. The copying will have no adverse effect on the market for the original work;
5. The number of copies made is small;
6. The work copied is a factual, informational or functional work rather than a work of fiction (the more creative the original work, the more difficult it is to justify copying it);
7. The copying is not done in a commercial context - - i.e. the copying work is not being used directly or indirectly to sell products or services;
8. The copying work performs a public benefit or has a laudable purpose;
9. The copying is for private rather than public use;
10. The copying work is itself a creative or transformative work, not just a copy of the original work;
11. The copying in question represents an isolated event, not a systematic or routine practice;
12. The amount copied is no greater than necessary to accomplish the copier's legitimate purpose; and
13. The copied work is not an unpublished work.
If ALL or most of the above thirteen points are true for a given case, then the copying falls under the doctrine of fair use.
If any of the above points cannot be answered affirmatively, then seek permission from the copyright holder.
And, of course, you may quote federal government statutes, because works of the United States government have no such copyright protection (see 17 USC 105).
-
There are two images for people to study. The first is the one Jack provided:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/ima...Biggart1748.jpg
the second appears to be taken seconds / minutes later:
http://www.billbiggart.com/images/911_4.jpg
The title on the second images says it was taken at 9:59:35 AM.
-
Jack, Josiah,
Please be very cautious about reproducing those images on this site. According to the Biggart website, the images are copyrighted. Jack also mentioned that is his study, but I am unsure if permission has been gained to use them, or if they are considered to be in the public domain, etc.
If possible, place a link to the image / website rather than displaying the image here. In other words, do not use the image tags (img)(/img).
Thanks
-
Josiah,
try here:
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart_intro.htm
or here:
http://www.billbiggart.com/911_1.html
I don't know if higher resolutions are available.
-
SECURITY COUNCIL FAILS TO ADOPT SANCTIONS AGAINST ZIMBABWE LEADERSHIP AS TWO PERMANENT MEMBERS CAST NEGATIVE VOTES
A Security Council measure intended to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe failed today when two of the 15-member body’s permanent members –- China and the Russian Federation –- voted against a draft resolution that would also have imposed an arms embargo on the country, as well as a travel ban and financial freeze against the President and 13 senior Government and security officials considered most responsible for the violent crisis there.The result of the Council’s vote was 9 in favour (Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Italy, Panama, United Kingdom, United States), to 5 against (China, Libya, Russian Federation, South Africa, Viet Nam), with Indonesia abstaining.
The draft text would have determined, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, that the situation in Zimbabwe posed a threat to international peace and security in the region, and would have demanded that the country’s Government immediately cease attacks against and intimidation of opposition members and supporters, while beginning a “substantive and inclusive political dialogue” between the parties with the aim of arriving at a peaceful solution that “reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people and respects the results of the 29 March elections”.
At the outset of the meeting, Zimbabwe’s representative said his country was “at peace with itself and its neighbours”, but the British and their allies had used their media to “viciously portray Zimbabwe as a lawless, disorderly and undemocratic country”. There had been adverse, over-dramatized reports of inter-party violence, but only 10 per cent of the country had witnessed some violence, which did not justify tabling the draft resolution. Zimbabwe had suffered under sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union, which had caused much suffering to the people and put the economy under siege. “The current sanctions are basically an expression of imperialist conquest and no amount of propaganda or denial can ever wish this away.”
He continued: “This resolution is a clear abuse of Chapter VII, as it seeks to impose sanctions under the pretext that the country is now a threat to international peace and security, simply because the elections held did not bring out a result favourable to the UK and her allies.” Moreover, adoption of the text would disregard Africa’s position. “Trying to impose a solution from outside will be unfair to Zimbabweans, to SADC (the Southern African Development Community) and to the African Union. Zimbabwe’s problems can be solved by Africans working together,” he said.
The representative of the Russian Federation said there had lately been some attempts to take the Council beyond its Charter prerogatives of maintaining international peace and security. Such illegitimate and dangerous attempts could “unbalance” the whole United Nations system.
Stressing that the differences in Zimbabwe could not be resolved by artificially elevating them to the level of a threat against peace and security, he called such action excessive. The draft was an attempt to interfere in the country’s internal affairs and ignored the dialogue launched between the parties. Mediation efforts by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola were under way, and the draft resolution’s co-sponsors had not considered the position of regional States, which were calling for the continued search for a solution.
The representative of the United States expressed disappointment with the fact that the Council had been prevented from adopting a strong resolution condemning and sanctioning the violent regime of Robert Mugabe. “ China and Russia stand with Mugabe against the people of Zimbabwe. A majority of the Council stand with the people of Zimbabwe.”
Recalling that the Russian Federation had only recently supported the Group of Eight (G-8) statement recommending the appointment of a special envoy of the Secretary-General and further steps, including financial measures, he said the Russian U-turn was particularly disturbing. “The Russian performance has raised questions about its reliability as a G-8 partner.” There should be no doubt that the situation in Zimbabwe affected security and stability in the region. No serious substantive negotiations were under way between the Mugabe regime and the opposition. The draft would have supported, not undercut, regional and international mediation efforts.
The representative of South Africa said talks were continuing in his country as the Zimbabwean political parties continued their search for a political solution to the challenges they faced. The African Union had expressed deep concern about the situation in Zimbabwe, but had not called for sanctions. Instead, it had “appealed to States and all parties concerned to refrain from any action that may negatively impact on the climate for dialogue”. The Zimbabwean parties’ commitment to dialogue was encouraging. It would lead to the improvement of the humanitarian and economic situation, thereby contributing to a better life for all Zimbabweans.
Burkina Faso’s representative said Africa’s history had shown instances of a small spark causing great conflagrations, adding that the situation in Zimbabwe should, therefore, be regarded as a potential danger and a threat to peace in Southern Africa. In order to prevent the conflict from spreading to the wider subregion, the African Union had encouraged the leaders of the parties to engage in dialogue in order to achieve peace and democracy. Burkina Faso endorsed that initiative, but as a member of the Council, it must shoulder its responsibility regarding any threat to international peace and security.
Echoing other members who had voted in favour of the text, France’s representative said the situation in Zimbabwe threatened to destabilize Southern Africa. While supporting mediation efforts by SADC and President Mbeki, France noted that the 29 March elections had seen victory go to Morgan Tsvangirai and his opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party. In order for a true dialogue to begin, pressure was necessary to protect the people. France and other European Union member States, therefore, supported a reversible sanctions regime and also called for an arms embargo.
-
The sad think is the USG has detailed time-stamped satellite photos of all of this event - and has released not a one - why. They will claim 'National Security'. I don't buy it.
Peter,
Are you positive there are no date / time details associated with the images, or is it just speculation because your copies do not have one / you have been unable to find one?
Not saying if one exists, but want to see what your investigations have determined.
-
Secondly, the claim that people who disagree with the "truthers" interpretation of events are backing some "official version" and hence are some sort of pawns of the Bush administration... that claim itself is both insulting and way off the mark. I happen to be investigating this for one side in a lawsuit. If the "truthers" claims were remotely plausible, I'd jump on their bandwagon in a minute. Why? Because if Larry Silverstein and persons unknown brought down WTC7 with controlled demolitions and this was demonstrable. we'd win the case in a New York minute. The fact is that the truthers claims about the collapse of WTC7 just don't pass the elementary smell test when one tries to prove them in terms of witness testimony and photos. We know with fair exactitude now what happened to bring down WTC7 and it has to do with negligence not criminal conspiracy. None of this has anything to do with being government pawns or with political persuasions. It has to do with boring factual analyses and engineering calculae.
-
Thanks for that Robin.
My skeptical nature tends to dismiss his claims, but as you say, if it were real how would one prove it?
-
Burton claims to know every scheduled air route which overflies Fort Worth Texas during daylight hours. I cannot address his claims unless he posts all the flights, their altitude and direction for every hour of every day.
That is completely untrue, a deliberate distortion of what I have said. I asked you if you knew what air routes where over your location.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=149061
I hereby state publicly I will pay AUS$500 to Jack if he can prove to the Forum owner's (John or Andy) satisfaction that I have ever made the claim to "...know every scheduled air route which overflies Fort Worth Texas during daylight hours...".
This is another personal attack on me. Jack has made a litany of false accusations against me, most commonly that I have banned people or deleted posts. I'd advise everyone to check his claims with an independent source before accepting them as accurate.
-
-
John has posted this in the JFK sub-Forum:
As you will know, it is a condition of membership that members post photographs as avatars. There are still some members who still have not done this. As a result, others have removed their photographs because they refuse to abide by rules ignored by others. I have decided that from Monday, I will place all members who refuse to abide by this rule on moderation. Until they add their photograph their posts will not be allowed through.
Please be aware the Moderators will be enforcing this policy.
Thank you.
-
It's something that has been approaching for years. There is a lot a debate about various water usage plans. Personally, I can't see why on a river that is running dry there are water-intensive activities like cotton growing. Mind you, I'm a city boy and know nothing about farming... and I certainly know nothing about economics.
I suspect that as a country we will have to learn the hard way about water conservation. In Sydney, during the midst of a hot summer and near maximum water restrictions, we saw people using water to hose down their driveways, etc.
I don't think the government is really taking the situation as seriously as required. Perhaps the only ones are in Brisbane, where they are on maximum water restrictions.
-
Duane, who is still banned from the forum by Burton,.....
You have been told before Jack, told by John, told by Andy, that I did not ban Duanne. I do not have that power. To the best of my knowledge, he chooses not to post here (though John or Andy can confirm that).
Your continual misrepresentation of the facts demonstrates your lack of respect for other members. I have requested that John formally reprimand you for these continual slurs on my character.
I am making your post invisible so that you will be unable to edit it.
Edited to add:
The remainder of Jack's post, minus the personal attack, contained a comment from Duane, who said:
Jack...She didn't say graves, she said "greys", as in little alien beings that were strewn across the crash site, dead, along with the wreckage and also one who was still alive and communicating telepathically with her fireman father... Her father was one of the few civilian witnesses to see the alien bodies before the military swooped in to recover all of the evidence, concoct the bogus "weather balloon story" and then devise a cover-up that has lasted for over 60 years .
-
Jack,
Those examples were only a selection of the dozens of witness reports.
So you are calling them liars? You who was not there?
You also dismiss others descriptions? "Heavy fires" "Burning out of control" "7 WTC was ablaze"
I thought that might be your position - anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.
-
As I have indicated before, my view of "alien visitation" re Roswell and other UFO sightings is that it is probably the most effective disinfo cover story of all time for advanced terrestrial aircraft.
It does explain a lot of sightings.
-
Witness statements must be studied individually in context.
One person's small fire may be another person's blazing inferno.
No photos exist showing a blazing inferno...just scattered small
fires on scattered floors. Nobody can explain WHY or HOW these
multiple small fires were started. The building was not struck by
an airplane, and only small amounts of debris. None of the debris
was on fire. How does flying debris cause a fire in an office building?
Jack
Individually, I agree... but we have dozens of reports that talk of large fires. How many times do I need to refer to them?
When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring.
–FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable.
–PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade
At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O.
So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.
Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building.
And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive.
- CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri
And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building.
–Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
-- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire.
–Assistant Commissioner James Drury
The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor.
– Fire Captain Brenda Berkman
et al
How do you explain all of their clear reports of significant fire? Please do not dodge the question with talk of photographs - just simply explain why all these dozens of reports should be, in your opinion, be disregarded.
-
I have in my computer I think 99% of all photos that have appeared on the internet, plus there are numerous videos available. Not a single photo that I am aware of shows a raging out of control fire in Building Seven...just flames in a few rooms and lots of smoke.
It may be quite true that no photos show significant fires (I am unsure if any exist; there may be some). If true, it might because:
1. There were no significant fires; or
2. There were no photos taken of those particular fires.
Taken in isolation, either could be true. Perhaps No 1 would be more believable... however when you see there are multiple descriptions of raging fires, descriptions from firefighters, from bystanders, etc, the existence of numerous large fires must be acknowledged.
The only alternative, as far as I can see, is to say that the witnesses are all lying.
Which is it, Jack?
I'll pit my EXPLOSION WITNESSES against your RAGING FIRE WITNESSES any time.
Check out...
http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php
Jack
Let's not dodge my question. Take me to task on your challenge after we finish with the first point, Jack. I'll try to defend whatever opinion I have on explosions.
Anyway, back to WTC7 and fires:
WTC7 basically either had minor fires and smoke, or there were significant fires.
There are witness reports of significant fires. Not one report, not two or three reports, but dozens of reports of significant fires.
How would you explain these reports?
I repeat: THERE ARE NO PHOTOS OF DOZENS OF SIGNIFICANT FIRES in all the photos taken that day.
Attached are photos of an actual skyscraper fire in Spain. It burned for many hours
and the building did not collapse. Show me an equivalent fire in WTC 7.
Jack
I am prepared to - at this time - agree there are no photographs of WTC7 fires (although I have not checked, and reserve the right to change my opinion if I find there are photographs of fires). You, however, failed to answer the question Jack. A most important question:
How do you explain the dozens of on-scene witness reports that talked of significant fires?
-
To me the highlight of the show was the explanation by Lt. Col. Wayne Mattson, USAF (Ret.) of why the AF has covered up UFOs (whether the Roswell story is true or not). Mattson said, "The Air Force is charged with keeping the skies clear of unwanted craft and if you can't stop one of these UFOs, you're not doing your job. So therefore they don't exist."
I think that's it in a nutshell. That's exactly the mentality that is probably at work.
Reminds me of this memorable exchange in "Young Frankenstein":
Frankenstein: I'm a doctor. Maybe I can help you with that hump.
Igor: What hump?
That is possible, but I think it goes far deeper than that. It shows that the "establishment"
has far greater power than elected officials. Even Presidents or Senators have NO NEED
TO KNOW and thus NOT A HIGH ENOUGH SECURITY CLEARANCE to be entrusted with
secrets such as UFOs.
Jack
I don't know about the US, but Jack is mostly right if we look at the UK. Peter Wright in SPYCATCHER talks about how information was withheld from the PM because the security services thought he might be compromised and / or pass sensitive information on to the Soviets.
Jack, minor point but you have it a little backwards there. In general, people have a security clearance. They then need to demonstrate a "need to know" for access to most material. I can't just go around reading all material at my clearance level willy-nilly; I have do demonstrate a reason to see it. If a person has a need-to-know, then their clearance is normally upgraded to accommodate that need. As I said, very minor point.
I still remain mostly skeptical about Roswell, though I wish someone would produce irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. I believe it has happened, and I believe it is still happening... but I won't lower my standards of proof simply to accommodate my own beliefs. There have been too many examples of fakery / misidentification, and this is simply a too important subject to allow those examples to be taken as truthful.
-
I have in my computer I think 99% of all photos that have appeared on the internet, plus there are numerous videos available. Not a single photo that I am aware of shows a raging out of control fire in Building Seven...just flames in a few rooms and lots of smoke.
It may be quite true that no photos show significant fires (I am unsure if any exist; there may be some). If true, it might because:
1. There were no significant fires; or
2. There were no photos taken of those particular fires.
Taken in isolation, either could be true. Perhaps No 1 would be more believable... however when you see there are multiple descriptions of raging fires, descriptions from firefighters, from bystanders, etc, the existence of numerous large fires must be acknowledged.
The only alternative, as far as I can see, is to say that the witnesses are all lying.
Which is it, Jack?
I'll pit my EXPLOSION WITNESSES against your RAGING FIRE WITNESSES any time.
Check out...
http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php
Jack
Let's not dodge my question. Take me to task on your challenge after we finish with the first point, Jack. I'll try to defend whatever opinion I have on explosions.
Anyway, back to WTC7 and fires:
WTC7 basically either had minor fires and smoke, or there were significant fires.
There are witness reports of significant fires. Not one report, not two or three reports, but dozens of reports of significant fires.
How would you explain these reports?
-
I have in my computer I think 99% of all photos that have appeared on the internet, plus there are numerous videos available. Not a single photo that I am aware of shows a raging out of control fire in Building Seven...just flames in a few rooms and lots of smoke.
It may be quite true that no photos show significant fires (I am unsure if any exist; there may be some). If true, it might because:
1. There were no significant fires; or
2. There were no photos taken of those particular fires.
Taken in isolation, either could be true. Perhaps No 1 would be more believable... however when you see there are multiple descriptions of raging fires, descriptions from firefighters, from bystanders, etc, the existence of numerous large fires must be acknowledged.
The only alternative, as far as I can see, is to say that the witnesses are all lying.
Which is it, Jack?
FBI, the mob, and 9/11
in 11 September 2001 attacks
Posted
Jack,
Please read John's reply again, because I believe it is you who has misunderstood.
No-one has mentioned anything about banning any members.
The idea behind posting research is - in part - to see if it can withstand scrutiny. You may have personally witnessed something, and know that you are accurately reporting such, but find that other people disbelieve your account, giving reasons why they disbelieve it. You may be unable to offer any evidence of your account except for "I was there". Peoples disbelief does not mean you are wrong or inaccurate - it means that you cannot prove to others your account is accurate. That would be its weakness, and so you could seek to find evidence to support your account.
So if people post things they believe to be true, or maintain are recorded fact, it should be able to withstand the scrutiny of those who disagree. People of different opinion should find it difficult to offer evidence as to why something should be given more weight than another when thinking about the accuracy of a statement. "Lurkers" or people of no particular opinion on a subject should be able to read the arguments on either side of a debate, and decide for themselves which viewpoint they support.
In fact, anyone who believes they have accurate information, etc, should WELCOME other people trying to disprove the argument.
That is healthy debate.
I totally agree that name-calling and personal attacks are to be forbidden... and within the bounds of allowing people to act as adults and not imposing an excessive amount of censorship.
Lastly, there is no reason why the member whose idea this was could not have sent John a PM, making the suggestion. They would not have to have made their name or ideas public.