Len Colby

9/11 MYSTERIES which you are so enamored of has already been critiqued on this forum I only watched the 1st 20 - 30 minutes or so and found numerous errors and distortions and gave up. For example the fireman who said the fire was small was referring to his location which was a fire protected stairwell on a floor NIST itself said only had limited fires. Griffin isn’t much better many of his claims are unsourced or drawn upon sources that don’t document their claims he once even cited the manual of a consumer computer flight simulator as a source regarding FAA policy. He also suffers from a sever misunderstanding of fire engineering. He for example claimed that because some steel framed buildings stood after 10 hours of fire that steel frames could withstand 10 hours of exposure. Sounds reasonable except the same area isn’t continuously on fire for that amount of time, fire burns until all the flammable material has been consumed and by then has spread to other areas. As for the explosions HEARD (there are only 1 or 2 reports of seeing explosions) 1) many things can produce explosions like noise and lots of things (like transformers and stores of flammable cleaning, photocopying etc supplies) that aren’t bombs would have exploded in the towers. There were reports of explosions in the Edifico Windsor fire in Madrid as well, do you think there were bombs there too? As for the smoke find me a fire fighter or fire engineer who agrees with the inside jobbers that the fires in the towers were weak. Many of those are featured in 9/11 MYSTERIES, which runs for almost two hours. As I stated above I only got through the 1st few minutes before I gave up because it was such crap. Perhaps you can tell us the names and credentials of these experts and at what point they appear. Funny that no other truth sites seem to have cited them. John Ashcroft places a gag order on Sibel Edmonds, folks who knew Atta in Florida are advised by the FBI to keep their mouths shut... the 'Jersey Girls' 9/11 widows have slammed the 9/11 commission report as ignoring 80% of their requested questions.. Bush and Cheney demand that their 9/11 testimony be kept private, with note books confiscated... an FAA official cuts an audio recording tape into pieces.. Of course, none of this happened in the happy-go-lucky world of the article above, where all government officials are chatty and gabby and the Commission Report members were all ears to criticism. . Edmonds only joined the FBI after 9/11 and was a low level translator of Turkish, Persian (Farsi) and Azeri, languages unlikely to have been used by any of the suspects from the “official” version, show me where she indicated she thought 9/11 was an “inside job” Please provide a citation for you claim about the people who knew Atta. Show us where the Jersey Girls indicated they suspected an “inside job”. Bush and Cheney are unlikely to have confessed during their testimony. The cut up tape was of the recollections of flight controllers after the fact nothing would have prevented them from repeating what they said. There is no indication the recording was indicative of a stand down. The articles focus on LOOSE CHANGE as the source for all opposition to the official story seems clearer after this comment, as only someone really keen to avoid the more difficult questions would bother. A single click to the link below - http://patriotsquestion911.com/ - gives a long and literally tiring list of of former and sitting US Senators, former and current US military officers, members of the prior Reagan and Bush administrations, former members of MI5, journalists foreign and domestic (including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg), scientists and ex-members of the CIA (including Ray McGovern), all of whom couldn't be any clearer or blunter in their unhappiness with the official story and their suspicion that there is a cover-up. Perhaps all these government and intelligence officials were happy with the official story until they saw LOOSE CHANGE, in which case I should probably thank the author for pinpointing LOOSE CHANGE alone as the source of all those niggly questions. . And if you whittle out those who weren’t in office anytime around 9/11 and those who don’t say they suspect an inside job your let with only one or two politicians. Rather than bothering with the teenybopper LOOSE CHANGE boys, I'd love it if 'conspiracy theory' boosters bothered to tackle the comments made by Ray McGovern, Robert Baer, Barbara Honegger and countless other harder-to-dismiss authorities at the link above, but I suspect those criticisms would prove harder for the lifestyle page at The Guardian to nervously reduce to a comic hit-piece for the ill-informed. McGovern, Baer and Honegger had long since left their intelligence jobs none of them claims inside information Baer only indicated that he suspected an inside job. Serious questions have been raised about Honegger’s sanity. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...e-honegger.html

Steve raises a good point but i'm not sure that I agree that moderators should avoid offering their opinions re: the most contentious topics on this forum though not starting threads would be a good rule and avoiding involved debate would be wise.So far we have only two candidates I think at least three would be a good idea. Ron (though I frequently disagree with him) and Mr. Carrol and Mr. Dunne and John Dolva would IMHO be good candidates and I'm sure there a several others but since I don't spend much time on the JFK forum (except on the photo threads) I can't really say who they are. Len

Piper baited such name calling perhaps intentionally so as to avoid defending his thesis.

Still waiting for a reply Jack

Still waiting for those answers.

I've never heard the underlined claim before, can you elaborate?

Your continue you to be the most charming member of this forum. Obviously there is more than one Nathan Jones in the world. You in fact found two one was a senior (forth and final year) physics student probably specializing in astronomy at Michigan Technical University (which US News and World Report classifies as “third tier”) in 2002 the other was a chemistry professor at University of Western Ontario in 2006 who one a research award. We have no indication that the Nathan Jones who posted the FAQ in 2003 was either of those men or even that it wasn’t a pseudonym. The notion that just because he posted the FAQ on a few forums for people interested in science he is a probably a scientist is risible. Since he has a UK e-mail address ( physic...@top.notch.uni.uk ) he is unlikely to be either scientist. I imagine if he had any scientific credentials he would have mentioned them and if he had a PhD would have called himself ‘DR. Nathan Jones’. True but if he had scientific credentials that would bolster your case. Also your position continues to be contradictory when you think you’ve found some one with credentials you tout them, when they are cast into doubt you say they are irrelevant. There is nothing really to refute the FAQ was nothing more that a cobbling together of various HB (Hoax Believer) claims he fails to provide any documentation for most of them and most of them even if true are evidence the landings were faked. And contrary to what you’ve several of his claims have been debunked. Others are simply ludicrous such as his claim that the lack of astronaut comments about the stars is an indication the missions were a hoax.

This from the guy who is constantly whining about personal attacks, there was no way for any of us to “suss out” you were joking you seem pretty humorless. No one attacked his religious beliefs, no religion that I know of backs geocentrism, like Neville Jones. You say you don’t know if Nathan is a creationist but his comments about radio dating make it sound like he might be. There are many religious scientists since Galileo most have be able to reconcile their beliefs with what can be established scientifically. If he isn’t a creationist his assertion that radiometric dating is unreliable is harder to comprehend. Perhaps there are problems with radiometric dating but unless he offers evidence this is so merely claiming so proves nothing. The burden of proof is on him. That’s because he repeatedly offered no evidence to back his claims. A claim not backed by evidence is nothing more than an assertion. If he doesn’t back his assertions with evidence there is no need to debunk them Ad homonym AGAIN - Circular logic - As I understood it Jones was claiming that according to NASA the engine was on Where is the evidence the hatch was too small?Where is the evidence the hatch sizes were different in the simulator and the real LM. . You didn’t present evidence only assertions with no evidence to back them up. PS – How do we know that Nathan Jones the scientist is the person making these claims?

Steve you missed the part where Duane claimed (post #2) that he saw a Russian cosmonot (whose name he couldn’t recall) and rocket scientist (whose name he couldn’t recall) say in a documentary (whose name he couldn’t recall) saying that manned deep space travel was impossible due to radiation and thus the moon landings must have been faked. How then Cosmonots were able to survive months in space was not addressed. Because he constantly cites compelling incontrovertible evidence like that no one can debunk him and instead results to insults and ad homonyms.

News coverage is by nature normally superficial I’m sure there’s more to life in Australia than shark attacks, kangaroos popping up every once in a while in urban areas, racist mobs attacking immigrants, brush fires and a sycophantic PM who let his crazy Uncle Sam lead him into war in Iraq. There certainly is more to life in Brazil than Carnival, deforestation and drug gang/death squad/police violence. I actually did see a story recently on CNN International or BBC World Service about the hopes and aspirations of middle class Tehranians. You and Sid implied that such images were being intentionally left out of Western media coverage I’ve seen no evidence this is the case. “Iran (or Australia or Brazil) has beautiful fountains” or “Iranians (or Australians or Brazilians) enjoy sports in their free time” isn't newsworthy enough by most media outlets standards. The more distant a country is geographically and culturally the less likely you are to see human interest stories from them. Strawmen indeed! Where did I equate them or say they were “in the same category”? My point was that just because pictures like that were taken in Tehran no way indicates everything is honky dory there. And it isn’t Iran is theocratic dictatorship with numerous human right violations, though certainly not as bad as Nazi Germany and probably not as bad as Pinochet’s Chile.How exactly was my comment "adversarial"?

Inconclusive and a strawman similar pictures could have been taken in Berlin 1933 - 40 or Chile 1973 - 90 etc etc and you haven't shown that Western media have presented images of Tehran contradicted by those pictures.

I wonder if anyone still believes 93 was shot down or didn't crash in Shanksville and if so based on what evidence? Please take into account all information presented on this thread before responding.

Which would be worse if he was telling the truth or if he was lying?

And his brother, if Nathanial is his brother, is not only a creationist but a geocentrist, a theory which no serious scientist has subscribed to for several centuries. Coincidence? Since he some times agrees with the debunkers and when he doesn`t fails to document most of his claims and the documentation when provided is inconclusive (or dead links), what is there to debunk? Perhaps Duane can cull from the list the claims indicating the landings were faked which he thinks are adequately documented.

From message # 3 “Please provide a citation for higher percentage of “hoax believers” 6 percent is about the same percentage of the population that believes Elvis is still alive, I imagine there is significant overlap.” [You cited poll result up to 20%] “Please cite the “scientists , astronomers and physicists” who believe ….” [that the moon landings were faked] “Did you actually look at the page you linked? If so how did you fail to notice it was drawn from a Wikipedia page?” Craig responded to Jones’ claims that you posted in the “Debunking Duane” threads I have yet to see you respond in a meaningful way.

I nominate myself! Just kidding

This is simply a formula used in movies for conflict and resolution. Every movie has to have conflict (in the sense of tension, not necessarily violence), preferrably some conflict in every scene, to hold interest. No one wants to hear one detective tell another throughout the movie "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie." For a good movie, you've got to have the detectives or the main characters arguing, disagreeing, or fighting about something all the time as they are trying to reach whatever their goal is in the story. So I think this has less to do with culture than with good movie-making. Some of the best British films I've ever seen are full of conflict, whether serious or hilarious, e.g., "This Sporting Life," "The Wrong Box," "Lawrence of Arabia." Conflict is what movies are about. A prime example of an English movie with lots of conflict and aggressive behavior is Sexy Beast (a gangster film, not sure why they gave it that title) where Ben Kingsley plays (as one critic put it) an "anti-Gandhi' one of the most aggressive movie characters in recent memory. The Long Good Friday is another example.

Duane I have yet to see you apologize and there was nothing incorrect in my post I don't remember saying anything to Jack that merits an apology if you or anyone else would point out when I have done so I will. As for you you've been here less time i have never said anything to you that calls for an apology. I never insulted you (the converse isn't true though). Craig didn't insult you in the thread you said he remided you of what you had to scrape off your shoe after walking your dog. I note that you continue to insult Craig without provocation (calling him a "2nd rate nobody photographer"). I furthur replied to you here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=92417

"I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my Mac is too old for the new software." When are you going to stop using that same excuse Jack? The very simple process for posting images from free photo hosting sites like Photobucket ( http://photobucket.com/ ), Village Photos (http://villagephotos.com/) and Yahoo Photos etc has been explained to you more than once. 1) Open an account (click on one the links above and fill in the form) 2) Upload the photos you want to post (there are dozens of photo hosting sites I can’t believe none are compatible with your old Mac. 3) Copy the image’s url to your message (most if not all hosts provide the url) 4) Put image tags [img*],[/img] on either side of the url – i.e. [img*]http://imageurl.com[/img] * At most photo hosting sites steps 3 and 4 are simplified because all you have to do is click on a button labeled “IMG Code” and it copies the tags and url to you clip board and all you have to do is paste it into your message. One more thing Jack, when are you going to address the challenge I put to you on page 2 of this thread? Oh one more, almost forgot, why are you asking Dave to do things like photogragh his feet the we don't see in the Apollo photos in question? * I added the asterisks to image tags otherwise they would not show up when actually doing this omit it i.e. the 1st tag should look like this not like this [img*]. The same process can be used for online images. Normally the img tags can be generated clicking on the "add image button"

OK I stand corrected you didn't call him dog $#!& you said he reminded you of it that's about equally pejorative as saying you are ignorant about a subject in which you admit ignorance. Craig hasn't always been polite but often he has you use the instances when was rude as an excuse to not address points he made when he wasn't rude. I asked you politely to provide documentation for your claims and pointed out that one (Wikipedia is a pro-Apollo site) was false you resonded by calling me a xxxxx. Is it possible for you to poliitely address the points/questions that Craig and I put to you?

I re(found) the quote. During a debate on a NYC cable public access show Dylan Avery, with Jason Bemas at his side, said the following at the 6:47 mark: “We made that film essentially as a bunch a kids. That’s, that’s the reality of the situation. We’re a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I will be the first to admit our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it definitely does come to some conclusions that are not 100 percent backed up by the facts.” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508 That's probably the truest thing he has ever said regarding 9-11 or his "documentary" Since so much time had past I decided to make a new post rather that simply updating my last one. Len

Jack frequently labels those he disagrees with as "ignorant" the polite an honrable Jack White uses words like asshole and goon to describe them as well. In case you missed it Jack started a thread in which he declared that calling someone ignorant isn't a personal attack and that people who think it is are ignorant and uneducated

Perhaps you'd be willing to point out where I lied, perhaps you'd be willing to point out where you apologized, perhaps you'd be willing to point out where Evan, Steve or I insulted or "attacked" you beyond pointing out that you have repeatedly insulted other members of this forum and made false or unsupported claims, perhaps you'd be willing to point out where I insulted Jack, perhaps you'd be willing to provide citations for the claims I politely asked you to, perhaps you'd be willing to admit you were wrong when you labeled an article from Wikipedia as coming “from a web site that defends the Apollo missions”. “No one ever "politely" rebutted my Apollo evidence posted here ... but if you consider being called a crackpot , ignoramous, delusional , stupid , etc ., mostly by Craig Lamson as being "polite" , then you really do need a reality check ....” Yes it's true Craig wasn’t always very polite when replying to you. I didn’t he was always polite to you but he never sunk to the level of calling you dog $#!&, his post you were replying to when you made that unfortunate declaration was polite as you well know and you have been politely responded to by your other ‘critics’ and Craig wasn’t always rude. I won't debate who has worse manners any more with you it's pointless. If you wish to continue pressing your claims go ahead but I and others will continue to point out when you are in error and ask you to back your claims. If that is too much for you to deal with it's your problem not ours, don't blame the messenger

Bump - Since my last post didn't seem to register

John how well documeted are the claims that the Japanese killed millions of people? You only mentioned one professor(by name) making such a claim. Have you heard about any survivors initiating lawsuits against Japanese companies involved?