Steve Ulman

Great site Nathaniel. While I've head of "The Center for Responsive Politics", I've never spent the time to visit their site before. I think I'll be spending alot of thme there in '08. Beyond just the section you pointed out, this site will be a great resource into the various 501c's and 527's that are bound to crop up next year. (at least it has a very comprehensive listing from 2004) I tend to find these little organizations more interesting because they can have more of a direct effect on the issues than the candidates.

Jack- His explanation of the load bearing characteristics of the outer walls coincides with the way I understand the buildings were constructed (told to me by a Professional Structural Engineer - who had inspected the towers after the '93 bombing). However, they were not a "Curtain Wall" design. A "Curtain Wall" is just what it sounds like - a curtain "hung" on the outside of the building. My apologies - Perhaps you did misunderstand him. In terms of whether or not the buildings were "steel framed" - there is some nuance involved here. ALL loads in the Towers and WTC-7 were carried by steel members, vertical and horizontal - in that sense they were "steel framed". The typical construction of low rise buildings places most of the loads on interior columns, spread out to columns throughout the interior of the building including the perimeter columns. The WTC buildings were not of conventional construction, the loads were shared by only two systems, the core and the perimeter walls, with the floor beams connecting the two - and yes - you must think of them as a SYSTEM - if any one part failed, the other parts would be compromised - all steel. In any event, Peter McKenna does understand how the Towers and WTC-7 were constructed.

I know I said I wasn't going to discuss this anymore but I cannot let this disinformation / misinformation pass. Jack exhibits his abysmal lack of information regarding the WTC bldgs when he says: "The twin towers were NOT STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS. They were a newer type of construction called CURTAIN WALL." Neither of the Twin Towers or WTC-7 had a curtain wall. From Wikipedia: In all three buildings the outer walls carried building loads. Anyone who has researched 9-11 knows this - EXECPT jack! This isn't the first time jack has shown a lack of research skills regardijng 9-11 and I'm sure it won't be the last. Either jack is trying to deceive or has no clue about 9-11 and the WTC - either way, no one who cares about the truth should pay any attention to what he says. Duh!

Hilarious - :blink: I can't believe you posted this! (I guess you'll invoke rule 9)(or 24 and ask for my bio again)(or do a jack and invoke 25) You and jack have used most if not all of the 25 rules at one time or another! Thanks for showing your true colors.

Doug- Thanks for keeping up with this - Not only is it important, but as the saying goes - "truth is stranger than fiction". Not cell phones, not GM corn, not pesticides, not .... I can't wait until we find out what is actually happening - that way I'll be able to read just how the research was done, the blind alleys pursued and the final Eureka! moment. - More interesting than a good mystery novel. I just hope the final outcome is a good one. In reality, my guess is that mother nature will figure out the fix before we ever know what is really happening - we humans tend to be arrogant and forget that the earth was successfully dealing with problems like this long before we climbed down from the trees.

Dave- Since you say Egypt doesn't exist and therefore the great pyramids are really in "Canada" (which I'm certain doesn't exist), please explain what you see when you go to: Latitude : 29°58'33.52"N Longitude: 31° 7'51.62"E Please make sure you use Google Earth because you've already identified it as a source you trust!

Dave- Are you saying that there are no such things as pyramids - or that the ones in Egypt don't exist? I ask because I've been to Las Vegas and have seen this with my own eyes!

Personal insults and character assassinations will be ignored. John- Not only are you insinuating that Dave is hiding something but you have forgotten the basic credo of hoax photo analysis: The photographs are FAKED. Therefore the file numbers identifying them are FAKED. Therefore the "official documentation" supporting the photos is FAKED. Therefore FILE NUMBERS AND DOCUMENTATION ARE IRRELEVANT TO WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS. That has always made sense to me...

WOW - George Orwell's ghost lives at your place?!? Can you get me his autograph - I'm a big fan.

nice try jack- We all know why you don't like to give file numbers. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind - check out jack's " A very peculiar Apollo series, ...Bernice, please post image here". Your attempt to hide the truth about the 4 photos in question, and the reason for that attempt at deception is obvious. If you did half the research you claim to do you'd know the naming convention most commonly in use is mission # - roll # - frame# - just as Dave posted. The remainder of your post is just smoke and mirrors trying to keep you from being answerable for your lack of civility and common decency for other researchers. Especially those who don't know much about the subject and truly want to know the truth, like the students that visit this site. I'll risk speaking for all - We don't care which convention you use. Technically, you should use the naming convention used by your source, and then also tell us what your source is. It’s not only for our convenience, it is what any serious researcher knows to do automatically. Maybe I just found the answer – “serious...”

To all Moderators: (sent via PM) I believe the time has come for serious and public censure. This either applies to Evan Burton or Jack White – Only you know who is right and who is wrong! I wont go into the gory details of why Jack has done what he has done, but here is the crux of the matter. Either Jack or Evan is intentionally lying in order to make a point. Either Evan locked the thread: “A very peculiar Apollo series, ...Bernice, please post image here:” http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10008 or he did not. If he did then he needs censure because he has openly said that he did not lock the thread in question in the post immediately above: “The thread has NOT been locked and it has NEVER been locked.” If he did not lock the thread then Jack is intentionally trying to deceive when he posts: “I will continue to post research in the "four sticks" series regardless of how many times Apollogist Burton locks it... every day if necessary. He is totally out of line to consider it his power to censor legitimate research which he disagrees with. He certainly has no power to control how I conduct my research or how I publish it. I REFUSE TO BE CENSORED.” From: Continuing the unfairly locked apollo series, ...this is serious research, despite Burton's bias: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10025 There is a reason that there are several moderators on this forum – this is it!

Evan - I wasn't aware of the '56 launch capabilities. Interesting take on why we delayed. Its true that we were able to use the fact that the USSR was first with overflights from space to deflect criticism from our own spy satellites with much success I'd like to think that Ike or someone was that clever - unfortunately, the pervasiveness of incompetence in our government (at least over the past 30 years that I've been paying attention) leads me to believe that it was more dumb luck than anything else.

Bernice - I am very familiar with that photo. It is used by many CT's to give a false impression of a "massive" central core. Yes, the photo does give a good view of how the Towers were constructed, but unless you know what you are looking at, it can be very misleading, which is why the CT's use it so much. As mentioned on this site in many threads, possibly even this one, (I'm not going to take the time to find out) the "massive" and heavily braced sections at the corners of the core are the supports for the 4 tower cranes, which were removed once construction was completed. I'll bet you can't find that info on the various CT sites. Actually, no CT who posts here has ever acknowledged that fact. I wonder why? IIRC, the central core columns were not as substantial as the parameter columns, but there were many of them acting as a system. Also, I believe it is true that the central core did not support as much of the load as the perimeter, but I'm not sure how much "weaker" it was - hence my comment to Peter.

Peter- I think its a good overview explanation of the collapse of the Towers. I haven't been able to really go through it in detail (maybe this weekend). One quick item - I'm not sure how much weaker the central core columns were compared to the outer columns, especially considering they acted as a system because they were tied together at each floor by the concrete slab. You may want to elaborate on that. As for the Kansas City Hyatt - IRRC the structural engineer of record lost his PE license because of the collapse. What has always shaken me up about that incident is how obvious the mistake was once its been pointed out, and the realization of how easy of a mistake it was to make. I think about it often when I'm reviewing shop drawings. A bit off topic but some thoughts on the 9-11 truth movement in general: <get on soap box> I've come to the conclusion that the truth movement is divided primarily into two camps - one out to make a buck / or get their 15 minutes of fame and couldn't care less about the truth and the second camp believe the nutty CT's simply because they want / need to. There is a third group, people that truly think we haven't been told the whole truth and really want to know what happened - this group is relatively small and many believe the Towers collapsed due to the impacts and fires - they're just not sure of the specifics of who flew the planes, who they worked for - etc. I've decided to stop debating this with people I perceive to be members of the two primary camps because the 9-11 attacks still evoke great emotion for me and I find it too frustrating when one side appears to simply make things up and refuses to answer simple questions while I'm trying to deal with real life engineering, science and demonstrable facts. Besides, no mater what I or anyone else says, they don't really want the "truth" - just your money or your confirmation of their preconceived notions. <step down from soap box>

Kathy - If any of the posted fantasy were true it would be frighting. However, it is so wrong its laughable. As for images of the far side of the moon - try these two links for a start: Astronomy Picture of the Day – 2007 February 25. (composite from the Apollo 16 Mission) Wikipedia article "Far side of the Moon" which has some of the most recent images taken by Clementine and one of the first - taken by the Soviet Luna 3, in 1959. There are many close-ups in the various Apollo photo archives. One good place to start is the Apollo Image Atlas. Just to nit-pick one thing - the phrase "dark side of the Moon" is a misnomer - the lunar day is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 3 seconds long, therefore entire moon receives approximately 14.8 days of sunlight and 14.8 days of darkness - during one lunar "day".

No need to go any further. This is a flat out lie. NASA nor anyone else who has a brain has ever said such a thing. Everyone has always said that the stars are visible from space and the moon. To claim anything else, is asinine. Duane - I sure hope you simply posted this for our information, and haven't bought into this persons delusions! P.S. - This is a watered down version of my thoughts.

{double post}

Regarding my fact checking - I've sent the request to the BBC: The reason 21:54 GMT = 4:54 EST 21:54 GMT = 5:54 EDT 21:54 BST = 3:54 EST 21:54 BST = 4:54 EDT (I think I got that right - after all its 3:48AM EST) Confused yet? {edit to fix last line - was 21:54 GMT = 4:54 EDT}

{edit - Fact checking my post - need info on GMT/BST/EST/EDT- Stay tuned...}

Duane- You keep on saying that the Astronouts could not have kicked up enough dust to cover the LRV tracks and other boot-prints. Oops again... Take a look at the Hi-Res version of AS17-137-20982 of the Station 3 drive tube. Low-Res: Note the the covering of the LRV tracks and the obliterated boot-prints. Another one of Duane's myths exposed.

Duane- SMART-1 did not create a large impact plume – they believe it created an ovoid crater 7 metres long and 4.5 metres wide ejecting material to the front and sides. Your claim of a plume miles high is planned for the LCROSS mission. From your 4th link: This is being done to try to find evidence of water.

1. Where did you get the idea that the SMART-1 craft put plumes of dust "miles into space"? Neither of your links that work (1 & 3) mention this. 2. Since your 2nd link does not work, I cannot comment on your quote regarding it. 3. I don't know for sure, but maybe they wanted SMART-1 to kick lunar material because they could crash it into someplace with different properties than were studied by Apollo or the impact would kick up material from deeper than most Apollo samples, or both.

Who said that the steel needed to melt in order for buildings to collapse? Please provide a relevant quote from an expert in in the fields of structural or materials engineering. Please provide a UL cite that they certified the steel in the WTC.

The conspiracy doesn't but the Titanic sure did! The following is from the ThinkQuest page discussing the switch. I have no clue about the voracity of the above statement, but then again, I suppose a conspiracy as big as a Titanic/Olympic switch/insurance scam could involve multiple generations and encompass the team of explorers as well.

Absolutely! You didn't even wait 1/2 an hour before you posted after Mike! - Although, expect a pay cut for taking 22 minutes - your contract reads 20 minutes or less!