Steve Ulman

Duane- Where are the extra 3 shadows on the front of Cernan's suit? In the real world, your 3 fill lights would cast additional shadows on his suit from the RCU. Please point them out to me, because I don't see any. Also, explain why the "Footlights on a moon set" don't show up in any of the other 7 photos taken around the same time.(forget looking at AS17-134-20383 - does not contain a full visor) Here is the photo sequence from the time period of AS17-134-20380: AS17-134-20376 118:18:20 EVA-1 AS17-134-20377 118:23:25 EVA-1 AS17-134-20378 118:23:20 EVA-1 AS17-134-20379 118:23:20 EVA-1 AS17-134-20380 118:23:20 EVA-1 Gene borrows the camera to take Jack's portrait with the flag. AS17-134-20381 118:25:18 EVA-1 AS17-134-20382 118:25:18 EVA-1 AS17-134-20383 118:25:18 EVA-1 AS17-134-20384 118:25:54 EVA-1

Jack- Hard to tell what is really going on due to low resolution. Do you have a link to a hi-res, or can you post in on photobucket.com, or similar site?

Jack- I agree with Stephen. My cynical response was slightly over the top. Obviously my attempt at humor was way over your head!

Stephen- I think you’ve got it basically correct. My cynical view: Those with the most power will lie, cheat and steal to keep it. Those with some power will lie, cheat and steal to get more power. Those with no power and want power will lie, cheat and steal to gain power. Those unwilling to lie, cheat and steal will never have power. It's been that way since man first started to live in communities, and will always be that way. No need for an over-arching conspiracy, the individuals with power will do anything to keep it.

Randy- Good luck in your search for truth, maybe you'll find it some day. Not today oviously, but someday when you stop believing everything you hear on CNN and ABC and learn to think.

Randy- I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you'll never get to the truth unless you do the research. Read up on "Pilot's Spatial Disorientation" - its a real phenomena, and can affect any pilot, regardless of experience. If you are going to dismiss it as a significant factor in the crash, at least study it and understand what you are discussing. Accepting as the true and authoritative fact the things reporters say on the day of an incident, when they have no real facts themselves, and then rejecting out of hand a long term - extensive expert review of available facts, shows me that you have no interest in finding out the truth about what really happened. In my opinion, you started this thread already convinced that JFK Jr. was murdered, and wanted confirmation. Sorry that you are now upset that some of us don’t agree with you and won’t simply reinforce your views. Also - What point were you trying to make about KAL-007?

Randy - Some of the "Facts" listed in your previuos post aregarding the JFK Jr. crash aren't really facts. From the NTSB Official Report. The airplane did not just fall out of the sky. {bolding mine} {bolding mine} JFK Jr. was not IFR qualified. Unfortunately, like the majority of general aviation crashes, pilot error seems to have been the cause. IIRC - As for his plans to run for elected office, there is no consensus, some close to him have stated that he had told them that he thought he might get into politics in the future, others state that he had told them that he had no interest in public office. However, all seem to agree that he truly enjoyed publishing George and intended to keep doing it.

Peter- Anything to back that up? I'm sure you did all the requisite research to create the list.

If you have to ask what it does you have no right to know what it does.

FYI- The plane Cory Lidle was in was a Cirrus SR-20. Max Gross Weight = 3,000 lbs. Usable Fuel Load = 56 gallons (US) / 336 lbs. Full specs here.

Deleted duplicate post. Sorry I just can’t resist. A pet peeve. Anyone who has done any research knows that Kevin Ryan’s statements are to be ignored. Even Mr. Ryan acknowledges that he has no first hand knowledge of how or what UL’s involvement was in the WTC Steel. He is a water quality expert who once worked for a subsidiary of UL and fraudulently used his UL connection to try to bolster his claims regarding the collapse of the WTC Towers . Mr. Harrington is at best, very ignorant, or at worst, intellectually dishonest. Anyone who uses Kevin Ryan as a source should be ignored.

Deleted duplicate post.

His BIO: What are his specific qualifications to make the claims in is article? (most of which is simply a rehash of info on other "Truth" sites). When did he practice? Where? Where did he get is education?What did he specialize in, if anything? BY the way - be VERY careful when clicking on any of the links in Mr. Ward's article. Many are broken and when one lead to a porn site I stopped looking for fear of what else I might find.

I find it difficult to believe that enough of the fuel, could have remained in liquid or gas form, and caused that amount of damage over ninety floors below. I don't buy the claim that 3000 gallons of jet fuel survived the impacts. That theory is just as unsupported by the facts as you claim the explosives theory is. There is no more evidence to support it, than there is to support the explosives theory. Brian- Your are correct, 3,000 gallons of fuel did not survive the impacts and initial fireballs. Try 7,000 to 9,000 gallons! Source FEMA 403 / May 2002 - “World Trade Center Building Performance Study” From Section 2.2.1.2 Fire Development (First Sentence) (Second Paragraph discussing fireballs of WTC-2) Oh, and by the way, notice that the report gives a source for the basis of its calculations / estimations.

Brian- Try here http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Item # 11 - If you can find a competent expert to refute the NIST response - post it and we'll discuss. I suggest all those who are so confidant that the "official" version is incorrect, pick a section or two, and do the same. BTW- Also, Find me a competent peer review of S. Jones work, and I'll be happy to discuss - oops, I forgot, he won't submit his work for a competent peer review.

Jack- The same thing has happened to me. The one thing I noticed was that each time it happened I had multiple sessions of the forum open. I use FireFox and had multiple tabs open. Don't know if it means anything, or helps.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Sigh, That paragraph discusses the initiating event - NOT what happened after the buildings started to collapse. The Protec paper doesn't even attempt to address what the actual mechanics were that initiated the collapse, they just say it wasn’t explosives. And you are correct about NST - my mistake - in haste I was thinking of the ASCE report - my apologies.

It's my understanding that the towers were designed to withstand the mass of high speed aircraft. And I'm sure that damage to the core was taken into consideration. As for the mass of the liquid fuel, in the case of the south tower most of it apparently exploded outside the building. Spectacular show. But then the south tower falls first? a - In case you forgot - both Towers withstood the impacts - just as designed. The design did not account for full fuel loads, the loss of fireproofing, and fires burning out of control for an hour or more. b - The reason for WTC-2 falling first is two fold. 1- Estimates are that WTC-2 lost significantly more fireproofing than did WTC-1. The second you should be able to figure out because your eyes never lie - WTC-2 had an equlivant of a 30 story +/- building above the impact zone where WTC-1 had a 20 story+/- building above its impact zone. BTW - if you did some actual research you'd already know that while WTC-1 suffered significant damage to its core, several columns in the core of WTC-2 were also damaged.

Leave it to jack to post a misleading photo. His photo is indeed authentic, taken during construction of WTC-1, but the bulk of the steel seen within the core is the support scaffolding to support the erection cranes, which was removed once the building was constructed. I don’t why I bother, those who blindly follow the CT’s won’t believe me or bother to do any independent research.

Do you EVER read anything other than that material that simply confirms what you already believe? The NIST report, which you obviously didn't read and which you wrongly characterize as "the government", states that the "pancake theory" as the initiation event was incorrect. The NIST report doesn’t address what happened after the collapse was initiated. This was discussed in great detail in the "An engineer speaks on radio about 911" thread, which you obviously didn't read or simply ignored.

Thank you for making my point about the various CT theories much more succinctly than I could. {edit to remove sarcasm}

I've covered that, I said that you official CTs call it an illusion. You didn't address the grand coincidence of the three collapses at all. GRAVITY! I guess you don't know that the major force at work in a controlled demolition (CD) is GRAVITY. That’s all - GRAVITY. And guess what - all three buildings were affected by it! A CD is simply the use of explosives to degrade the structural integrity of a building so that gravity will bring it down. The WTC Towers and WTC-7 were significantly damaged by impacts – in the case of the Towers it was the planes – in the case of WTC-7 it was debris from WTC-1, and all three had their structural integrity further compromised by fire. Once the structural integrity of the buildings was sufficiently compromised GRAVITY took over and brought them down. Even a non-engineer should be able to understand – GRAVITY is the common element. Now I guess the CT’s will say that the gub’ment can control GRAVITY. Sorry Ron – your belief that WTC-7 was brought down by a CD because that’s what it looked like doesn’t cut it. It sounds like your suffering a case of wishful thinking rather than critical thinking.

for starters, what is wrong with all the eye witness testamony?

Don’t know if I agree with all of his conclusions. However, I have always wondered why some people are drawn into the various CT’s. and he does make some compelling arguments. As others have observed, there is usually a significant cross-over between the various CT’s – i.e. many of those who believe the 9-11 CT’s also believe the JFK CT’s which fits in with the first half of the paragraph quoted above.

Don’t know the exact reason for Ryan being terminated, but can guess it was because he misrepresented, through omission, his expertise. He also, tried to use his employment with UL to add credibility to his claims, when he later admitted the letter he sent was on his own personal behalf, not as an UL employee. If you read his letter, you are left with the impression that he was in a position of knowledge within UL to know about their research on the steel and their certification process. This borders on fraud. He is a water quality expert and has no connection to their steel certification division. I’m surprised that they didn’t bring criminal charges. IMO, he was fired because he fraudulently used the UL name, which is very solid ground, not because he believes in the 9-11 CT theories. As for Prof. Jones, lets leave that to the other thread. Politicians want a lot of people fired and or hired for a lot of reasons. Hell, they impeached Clinton and there’s a possibility that the same could happen to Bush – politicians will say or do anything if the think it’ll get them a vote or two. As for the two prof’s, - teaching something as fact that which has no scientific basis as fact is wrong - and people have the right to scrutinize just what is proposed to be taught. After visiting your web site I think you’d agree, or do you now believe it is ok to teach ID in a science classroom???? As for Reynolds Dixon, if threats were made against him or his family, it is totally unacceptable and should be investigated. However, the only reference I can find about this is the Fetzer press release (your link) and or copies/links to the same thing. Not saying it didn’t happen, but I’d prefer additional sourcing. As for explosives felling the Towers. How can anyone with an interest in knowing the truth state that they believe there were explosives used when no relevant experts will make the claim. This is even compounded when you ignore the testimony of relevant experts and choose instead to believe people have no expertise in the field. Talk about blind faith. As to your and many CT’s contention that thousands of Engineers and Architects are part of the cover-up – let me try to explain further why this is just total crap. Ron – you stated earlier: What you don’t understand, an engineer’s career and reputation only stands on one thing Integrity. Without it, you cannot have a career. The people who hire them, accept their work, etc. must be able to trust them. I am a Traffic Engineer and routinely give public testimony regarding my studies/designs. If the people I am presenting to don’t think I’m qualified or trustworthy, the project I am working on doesn’t go forward. When that trust goes away, so does my career. You may not realize, but you put your trust in my profession just about everyday. Every time you drive through an intersection with a STOP sign or a signal you trust that the engineer did the design correctly, because if he didn’t you could be killed. You trust that when you drive under that hanging signal head the engineer specified the correct materials to keep it up there, not fall through your windshield. You trust that when you are driving on a winding road, that the engineer did things correctly so that you can see far enough ahead to avoid problems. You trust that he knew the strength of the steel specified when he designed that bridge over the 100 foot gorge you’re currently driving on. Without that trust,( trust that is only gained being honest, trustworthy, having integrity – being a Professional) an engineer’s career is over. I hope now you understand why I took such offence at your insinuation. This is a subject that directly affects my ablity to feed my family. Apology accepted. Sorry for the length of this post. FYI an interesting link - http://jod911.com/