Len Colby

Hey David ... you forgot to mention this to Jack when he said and I quote: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8939&st=30 Post #41 “I have absolutely no experince with movie cameras and film; all my photo exprience is with still cameras” Bill thanks for pointing that out but you missed the greater irony. Healy has never clarified what his experience regarding movie film and cameras and more importantly post production techniques is. Yes we all know he knows his stuff regarding VIDEO cameras, tape and post production but they're hardly the same thing.I never claim such expertise which is why I normally avoid technical issues other than to quote people who (unlike Jack and David) have proven expertise. Len Edit –typos fixed

Peter – Your post and the ire it expresses are quite well taken but they are directed at the wrong person. Steve as you are well aware has always disputed Sid Walker’s long debunked crap. He has never indicated he though such idiocy was in the least bit likely. You’re anger and condemnation should be directed at Walker and PERHAPS his ‘defense attorney’ Mark Stapleton. IMO (and as someone with a similar family history) I think you owe Steve an apology. I also see little value in debating this issue here but for different reasons. Apparently only one member of this forum believes this nonsense and he is extremely unlikely to ever change his mind no matter how much evidence is produced. Len

Paul, what evidence do you have that the CIA aranged for Powers' plane to be downed?

If you put your energy into producing evidence rather than merely being sarcastic you'd be more pursuasive. Provide evidence for your claim none of them had passports even in the article you cited Craig Murry was quoted as saying " Many [of the alleged terrorists] did not even have passports..." "MANY did not" i.e. SOME did.

Was the whole thing a hoax? Or was it an over reaction? Or was more or less as we were told? To be honest I haven't looked into it enough to say, but I have yet to see any evidence it was the former. The PosionPlanet article Sid cited is no exception. All it establishes is that "A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges..." . The arrticle claims that he was "THE alleged ringleader " but he is only identified as having A key role in articles I've seen [CNN for example said he "...allegedly had a key operational role in the suspected plot." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12...plot/index.html ].

Was the whole thing a hoax? Or was it an over reaction? Or was more or less as we were told? To be honest I haven't looked into it enough to say, but I have yet to see any evidence it was the former. The PosionPlanet article Sid cited is no exception. All it establishes is that "A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges..." . The arrticle claims that he was "THE alleged ringleader " but he is only identified as having A key role in articles I've seen [CNN for example said he "...allegedly had a key operational role in the suspected plot." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12...plot/index.html ].

U2s were shot down or crashed before the USA-USSR summit, which caused its cancelation, during the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, and now, as Robert points out, within days of JFK's assassination. I would say the loss of a U2 is a harbanger of things to come. BK Bill do you think anything sinister was at play? before the USA-USSR summit The summit had already been planned, though I guess the possibility that the PTB wanted to sabotage the summit can’t de totally discounted. Is there any evidence Ike and Krushev might have reached a break though that would have challenged their interests. The Cockburn-Ridgeway article seem to suggest the Russians might have sabotaged Powers’ plane. during the Bay of Pigs nope no U-2’s were shotdown during the BOP Cuban Missile Crisis Anderson was shot down well into the crisis the superpowers reached a deal the next day. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/cuba-62.htm I am now in correspondence with Joe Hyde III, he told me the following (he gave me permission to quote anything he writes me): Does anybody know anything more about the symposium?within days of JFK's assassination But Robert has been unable to come up with any reason to believe the events were linked. And hey Bill don't forget the U-2 that crashed near Oruro, Bolivia (see earlier post) a few months before and about 200 miles from Che's capture and execution in Valle Grande I asked Hyde: And he replied: Apperently the book mentions the Hyde crash if anyone's interested. Hyde also told me: Regarding the possibility that his dad’s plane had been made to crash as an aborted pretext for an invasion he wrote (emphasis Hyde's): He wrote the following regarding Cuba’s “Gringo” “on the rocks” story: Len

bump

The coverage the Anserson shoot down was roughly compatible to the Hyde crash considering the latter was a less newsworthy event that happened days before the JFK assassination and didn’t involve the complication of having the pilot’s body being returned by Cuba. A search of the NY Times archives turns up 9 articles from 1962 that mention the Anderson incident. Only 4 were specifically about Anderson as opposed to the missile crisis or U-2 planes etc, by comparison there were 3 articles about the Hyde crash. Below are the headlines and summaries of the articles about Anderson and an earlier one which was the 1st mention the plane was missing and presumably shot down. http://tinyurl.com/yj6mc8 Many other U-2’s crashed. In 1967 for example “USAF Pilot: Robert D. Hickman became unconscious and his plane flew out over the Gulf of Mexico, eventually crashing into the side of a mountain [near Oruro, Bolivia], destroying the plane. Robert Hickman died in the crash. http://www.blackbirds.net/u2/u2local.html There were only 2 mentions of the Hickman crash in the NY Times archives. http://tinyurl.com/yz4x3a Robert wrote: “I would also like to point out that the State Dept. official who is referenced in the above article, if you will notice, failed to mention the downing of Capt. Hyde's U-2 in November 1963, and the author of the piece had to make mention of it in order to give the reader a full accounting of all the facts, which is how I characterize it, forum members are obviously free to draw their own conclusions.” Even if there was a cover up in 1963 would we expect a State Dept. spokesman in 1976 to have been in on it? In any case he answered accurately Hydes plane crashed 40 miles northwest of Key West over 100 miles from Cuba. Also there is no evidence Hyde’s plane was “downed” all we know is that it crashed. Robert wrote: “The idea behind creating this thread was based on the fact, that the crash of Capt. Hyde's U-2 did not recieve a great deal of attention, whether my logic was faulty or accurate is not the point. The point is I was 'exploring the idea and hoped to create a dialogue among forum members' as to whether my idea was valid or not. ” And I replied as part of a dialogue saying why I didn’t think it was valid. What’s the problem? The amount of press coverage it received was comparable to other U-2 crashes of the period. Robert wrote: “I also do not share sentiments that talking to people at the CIA and being assured there was no relationship, settles any and all arguments re the issue” I agree but that was not the extent of Hyde’s argument, he spoke to the people who investigated the crash and there was no sign the crash was due to anything but a stall

I too, have had that problem and forgot to mention it. Bill Me tooAs for the photo problem another advantage of using a site like Photobucket is that it puts less strain on the forum or so one of the administrators told me a while ago, I'm not sure if that's still the case. Len

Or a car like the new "Ford Pardon" If he were still alive I would give him a pat on the back, but he would report it as the neck. Ed LOL

Robert wrote My replies to your posts were meant to be informative not wittyRobert wrote I don’t think leaving a comment to an article (or more accurately a reply to an author’s comment) really qualifies as contacting someone. He was the one who first classified your posts on this thread as constituting “a conspiracy theory that should definietly be debunked”. I said I was ‘the guy debunking that "conspiracy theory" ’.to identify myself note that I used the term “conspiracy theory” in quotations and echoed his language. He clearly isn’t buying your theory. I don’t see how asking the author of an article cited and witness to events debated on this forum for clarification can be construed as improper. Robert wrote I don’t understand your point. I found your posts to have been unfounded, should pretend like I agree with when I don’t? Should we refrain from commenting if disagree with each other? If you look at my replies to you you’ll see that their tone is quite respectful, your replies to me are unduly hostile. Robert wrote I don’t think asking you to back your claims and theories with evidence and logical thinking is akin to having ones deposition taken or should be considered unduly burdensome. Would you prefer it if everyone just told you how clever you were every time you post even if you’d failed to make your case? I have no hidden agenda but hey insinuating I do throws in an element of FUD.Robert wrote My replies to you were intended to be part of a “back and forth of ideas”. YOUR replies to me by their hostile tone and attacking the messenger rather than the message have given this thread the air of a pissing contest. I’ll make a deal with you let’s leave personalities aside and concentrate on the issues directly related to the topic instead, I get the impression you are using the former to avoid the latter. Len

Marianne Smith has accomplished two things with this book. First, she has paid tribute to a group of unsung heroes who, at great risk and sacrifice, worked to preserve the peace for a decade during the coldest days of the Cold War. Her husband, Captain Joe Hyde, Jr., one of that select company, made the ultimate sacrifice in 1963 when his U-2 aircraft crashed while returning from a reconnaissance mission over Cuba.

Joe Hyde jr.'s widow wrote a book about her husband and other U-2 pilots. http://www.publishersbookstore.com/browse/...N=0-7392-0239-1

I’m not sure what your talking about 90% of my posts on the JFK Forum are regarding the authenticity of the Z-film countering the position of the alterationists. My POV on that issue is shared by Josiah “Tink” Thompson, Robert Groden, Martin Shakleford, Bill Miller, Debra Conway and Sherry Gutierrez among other well known researchers. If you were referring to my post on the Political Conspiracies forum the vast majority of them are regarding the Wellstone Crash and 9/11 my position regarding the latter is not that different from John Simkin’s (I think) and Steve Turner’s. I’ve also made posts rebutting Holocaust denial, chemtrails, and Apollo hoax claims, if find my arguments in those cases lacking you should bring your objections up there. In any case your comment didn’t amout to anything more than an ad hominem. My mistake I had forgotten about the 1962 U-2 downing (I was born in 1965) and thought you had gotten confused about the date. However my basic argument still stands. It’s a cliché that “dog bites man” isn’t news but “man bites dog” is. A crash prone plane crashing isn’t especially newsworthy but that same model plane being shot down during (and escalating) one of most serious crisises this planet has ever faced, one that took it to brink of a catastrophic nuclear war is. You have failed to show that the 1963 incident got suspiciously little press coverage. Calling the 1962 shoot down and the 1963 crash similar events is disingenuous. Your contention that it “garner(ed) only three wire-service reports” was simply incorrect I found additional though similar stories about the crash quickly with little effort. Also as his son pointed out (see below) news of his father’s crash was probably pushed aside by the events in Dallas a few days later. This site lists numerous other U-2 crashes can you show that all got more press coverage than Hyde’s (or just the dozens including US pilots in the 60’s if you prefer). http://www.blackbirds.net/u2/u2local.html Robert wrote: -Your speculation was based on a faulty premise.-You failed to address other points I raised Robert wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Which of his points did I critique? If you go back to the article you’ll see he was far from supportive of your theories. He added the following in the comments section: If you have any doubt he is referring to you there is a link to this thread. You can leave a comment or contact him if you like. If you are really interested in finding out the truth about this case it is an opportunity you can’t pass up. I asked him furthur questions so check back for his reply.Robert wrote: Really! - There is no indication the family at the time sought but was denied additional information. -There is no indication they had any unanswered questions. - There was no indication he actively researched “said topic” he went to a reunion of veterans of his father’s unit and spoke with some of the people who investigated his father’s crash. In his comment he added that he spoke to other people but neither of us knew that at the time of our earlier posts. It isn’t clear if he was investigating the incident as much as he merely sought out people who knew his father. I met childhood friends of my mother’s while she was still alive and asked them numerous questions, I wasn’t “investigating” her past. -The son presumably was quite young at the time. Later as a USAF pilot his interest in and understanding of what exactly caused his fathers plane to crash might well have been greater than his mother’s. He didn’t really indicate he spent a great deal of effort researching the topic. - I meant an “information blackout” beyond disclosing information like under what circumstances a U-2 would become unstable and crash or what kind of stall recovery maneuvers were SOP which was presumably highly classified information at the time. I’d imagine if a similar crashed happened today with a modern plane the military would not disclose such details to next of kin that didn’t have the appropriate security clearance. Though I hate Bush et. al. and oppose the Iraq invasion I wouldn’t see anything wrong with that. Robert wrote: I edited your reply above to only include the part of my quote I presume you were referring to. Perhaps I should rephrase that, “Nor have I seen any basis for speculation Hyde's or Powers’ planes were sabotaged”. You haven’t really presented any in Hyde’s case do you have any for Powers’? Len

The son’s article reinforces the notion that U-2’s were crash prone planes and that Hyde’s was especially dangerous and probably crashed without outside interference: “Flying the U-2 without an autopilot is dangerous, especially at high altitude where the air is extremely thin. The airspeed indicator allows for only three knots (about 5 mph) of deviation. If you fly too slow, the U-2 will stall and lose altitude quickly. If you fly too fast, the U-2 will enter a regime called “mach tuck” where the aircraft will exceed the speed of sound and probably break apart. This regime is referred to as the “coffin corner” by U-2 pilots. The U-2C the pilot was flying that day was a former “Agency Bird,” a term used to describe U-2 airframes that were once inventoried by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)… Agency birds, because of their origin in the clandestine world, were modified on occasion to improve mission effectiveness, sometimes at the expense of safety. In this case, the U-2C flying that day had previously had its “stall strips” removed to improve range and maneuverability. Stall strips were installed on the wings of most U-2s then to create a more noticeable stall warning by creating more turbulence over the wings that would warn the pilot of an impending stall. Without the strips, inadvertent stalls were more likely. With no stall strips, no functioning autopilot, and an airspeed tolerance of only three knots, even a small deviation in temperature or turbulence can quickly put the U-2C in an out-of-control situation. <snip> During the 4080th SRW reunion in Del Rio in 1993, I learned the details of dad’s accident from some of the pilots who participated in the safety investigation. Although no one knows exactly for sure, the theory is that his U-2 that morning stalled and entered a flat spin. My dad attempted multiple spin recovery maneuvers as the aircraft plunged from 70,000 feet altitude. <snip> The U-2 community has a poem that is read as a tribute to comrades who had died while flying the dangerous plane. It goes like this: ” I didn't see any indication the family was subject an"information blackout". The operations of U-2 was still highly classified and they presumably didn't have clearance. Nor is there any basis for speculation Hyde's or Power's planes were sabotoged. What would the PTB have gained by downing Powers?

Robert – You’re ignoring some obvious differences between the two incidents that made the earlier one far more newsworthy. 1960 (not 1962) -At the height of the cold war Gary Powers, a USAF pilot, was captured by the US’s arch enemy’s the USSR and was jailed for nearly 2 years after being sentenced to 10 years. -The U-2 had previously been secret. - It was only a few weeks before a summit between Ike and Khrushev. The summit collapsed because Ike refused to apologize. This increased cold war tensions. -The plane had been shot down. -The US tried to cover up what had happened claiming it was a weather research plane that had gone off course. Presumably by late Nov 1963 several other U-2 had crashed or been shot down. According to the BBC “Defence experts say the original U-2 aircraft were highly unsafe and 80-90% of them eventually crashed or were shot down. But later versions, the U-2R and U-2S, though 40% bigger, are much more reliable. ” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4119344.stm The safer models were only introduced in the late 60’s. According to Wikipedia (the source is a book not available on line but it fits with the BBC statistic) “The U-2 had a very high loss rate initially. Of about 86 airframes produced, 40 were destroyed or severely damaged in crashes through 2001, and at least four were shot down, over the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China. Some airframes were rebuilt from parts of crashed aircraft. Transitioning into the aircraft was hazardous; the U.S. Air Force lost 9 aircraft in 1½ years when they started operating the U-2 in 1957.[2]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2#Losses “there has not been, to my knowledge, any clarification on the part of our Government as to the circumstances which led to the U-2 crash on Nov. 20, 1963… Why did a very similar scenario to the one detailed in the historical record of October of 1962 garner only three wire-service reports and then vanish as a news story, to the degree that it was practically, as if it never happened?” How closely have you researched this incident? Is it possible?: - The crash was “clarified” but you are not aware of it. Normally the USAF carries out an investigation after a crash. I’m sure the report would have been classified at the time but that was 43 years ago and it might have been released. If not you could try filing a FOIA request. -There were more than those 3 wire reports? “Was the burying of the news surrounding the loss of the U-2, part of the abandoning of the "plan to invade and/or unleash a massive air to ground assault on Cuba, once it was apparent that LBJ was not going to do anything rash?" Your proposed scenario doesn’t make much sense to me. -The story was being ignored before LBJ became president. Why didn’t the CIA arrange for more press coverage? -If it was part of a plan to stir up trouble why not make it appear as if the plane had been shot down? -Wouldn’t it have made more sense to wait till LBJ was president? -Why would the case qualify a “causus belli” if the plane even according to press reports had flown over Cuba and the downing of Gary Power’s plane was a source of embarrassment for the US rather than motive for hostilities? Len

Don’t get me wrong I agree that the US’s fundamental role in the ’73 is just one of many unconscionable crimes (Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Brazil, Vietnam, Iraq etc etc) carried out by the government of my homeland. But I was wondering if Peter actually had any evidence to back this claim.

Oh God! Not the "pod plane" crap that even most of the truth movement seems to no longer believe in (it was dropped from Loose Change). Analyzing low resolution images like those is like a Rorschach test people see in them what they want. If something appears only in low quality images the most likely explanation is that the “something” is merely an optical illusion. The “pod” not coincidentally is on the same side of the plane as the other highlights. Not even the “pod planers” AFAIK have turned up images of the pod/missile being “fired”. What are you talking about?

That's the Doubletree (not the Shereton) hotel video. I don’t think it proves anything one way or the other. Yes and your point is…?[ As Kevin pointed out there were numerous differences: speed, altitude, type of plane and presumably type of lamppost. As I wouldn’t trust Loose Change as a source numerous errors have been pointed out and the “producer” admitted they intentionally included disinformation “…We know there are errors in the documentary, and we’ve actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves” http://smithmag.net/2006/08/10/korey-rowe-...e-cannon-of-911 Now I see what you’re talking about, we can’t really say it “flowers out in all directions” because we can only see two (out of four) sides. There is some sort of flange on the left but not on the top, I doubt there is one on the bottom because it appears to be lying flat on the ground, can say about the right side because it's hidden from view. Is this consistent or inconsistent with what we’d expect from a lamppost of that type being struck by a wing of 100 ton jet hitting it at 800 KPH (500 MPH)? I don’t think either of us or anyone on this board (except perhaps Steve Ulman, a traffic engineer) can say. It looks like a flange consistent with a break to me. The post also could have been made that way perhaps that's where the mast attached to larger part just above it. As Steve pointed out there is overwhelming eyewitness and forensic evidence indicating the Pentagon was struck by a jetliner. The “no planers” have yet to come up with a reasonable motive for the plotters to swap a 757 for a missile, drone or fighter plane etc. No one reported exploding lampposts Len EDIT - The first time I tried the video link it didn't work, a few minutes later it did so I changed my repy accordingly.

Can you tell us the source of those images? They don't look like any of the ones I've seen even on inside job sites.

- Can you expound on this Bill? I think "Guissivious" is a typo it gets zero hits on Google. - I thought it odd that you compare what happened in Nazi Germany to what would have happened during the kennedy administration. Len

Is that you strategy when you can no longer argue a particular point, change the subject? The collapse of “Seven” doesn’t have anything to do with let alone override the facts that 1) numerous other structures have failed in conditions they were meant to survive and 2) Roberson’s study only indicated the “Twin Towers” would be able to survive impacts far weaker than the ones they suffered on 9/11. Why did 7 collapses? I’m not an engineer but I suspect that the ones who studied it are right and that 7 hours of unsuppressed fierce fires, being struck by debris from a 1368 foot 500,000 ton building (which tore out large chunks of its façade {including probably some support columns} several thousand gallons of diesel fuel and its unorthodox architecture (it was built over an electrical substation, some of the columns didn’t go top to bottom) had something to do with it. Numerous firemen and other emergency personnel said they suspected it was going to collapse for several hours and reported seeing 20 story tall holes, bulges and the building leaning over. The NYFD ordered all personnel away from the building, I guess they were “in on it” too. ME: So you don’t think 4000 ton floors crashing on to each other would make loud noises resembling explosions? STEVE: No I think they would make loud rumbling and crashing sounds; I think explosives would make a sound resembling explosions. You think they sound like explosions I think they sound like crashing and rumbling. Elsewhere on this forum I posted quotes (with links to the sources) of people (including war veterans) saying things like collapsing bridges, earthquakes, tidal waves and trees struck by lightning sounded like bombs. ME: Not “every bit of concrete” was pulverized I’m not even sure most of it was. - Even Hoffman admits much of the concrete would be pulverized by the force of the collapse. Each tower was about 1366 feet (416 meters) tall, and 500,000 tons. I’d like to see your calculations with references as to the KE released by the collapses then the KE needed to pulverize the concrete. STEVE: What nonsense! not all the concrete was pulverised, just most of it and collapsing buildings do not turn into pyroclastic flows. I have yet to evidence that most of the concrete was pulverized let alone that there were any pyroclastic flows (nice moving target) why evidence do you have that they weren’t merely dust clouds? "Thats a bit rich asking me to prove my argument with mathematics. In all the earth quakes of recent years show me one building that collapsed in the manner that these buildings collapsed, I know you cant show me a building of steel and high grade concrete that gets pulverised by collapsing. I can show you a building that collapses in an almost identical manner. " No asking you to provide evidence for your claim (that the pulverization of concrete can only be explained by CD) isn’t “rich” it’s called ‘burden of proof’. As I already pointed out even Jim Hoffman, who was the first (AFAIK) CD proponent to bring up the pulverization issue, acknowledged that the collapses would have released enough KE to pulverize a lot of the concrete. Earthquakes are poor analogy because they often knock over structurally sound buildings. The collapses were similar to CD in that collapse was initiated by damage to a few floors and gravity did the rest. What do you think would happen to several tons of concrete that drops about 1300 feet or falls a lesser distance and has several tons of debris collapse on it? Might not we expect some to get pulverized? ME:Is it your theory that explosives were placed on every floor in “every nook and cranny”? That seems like far more than necessary. In normal controlled demo explosives are only placed in a few select locations on a few select floors. STEVE: Power downs, evacuations, relocations, Sundays, empty floors and drills were all happening in the months leading up to 911, You’re bringing up an issue not relevant to what we’re debating. The evidence for these claims is very weak and based on only two witnesses Scott Forbes who has contradicted himself at times and Rodriguez who true to form only started saying such things AFTER Forbes’ claims started to draw attention. Forbes' claims don’t make much sense and he hasn’t been able to provide any evidence to corroborate his story. Even some “inside jobbers” have questioned his story. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html , http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html “…besides workmen could access the areas where the trusses were without raising suspicion." But they would have raised attention; do you have any reports of workmen accessing the trusses? Besides one of tenets of the CD theory is that collapsing trusses couldn’t have brought down the core or perimeter columns. “Explosives dont neccessarily have to be placed on every floor so long as the right type of explosives is used…” Exactly, though most CD theorists think they do but it’s your theory that the pulverization of all or most of the concrete can only be explained by explosives. So let’s say explosives would have been necessary on every 10th floor in select locations. How does your theory explain pulverization of the concrete on the other 99 floors and the parts of those floors not close to the cutter charges? “…and some investigaters believe that thermate was used” - The evidence for such theories is weak. - Thermate doesn’t pulverize concrete. “…in this case and when you look at who owned the building…” The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey “…and who was in charge of security…” The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey “…it wouldnt be difficult to plan this demolition so long as you got rid of the bomb sniffing dogs for when you planted the really big stuff in the sky lobbies.” - So, you think the PANYNJ was in on it too? - Don’t you think the thousands of people who changed elevators on those floors not to mention the numerous people who worked on them would have noticed? - There still were bomb sniffing dogs in the complex, the extra ones that had briefly were added (for about 2 weeks) one even died in the collapse. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html - The difficulty or ease of planting explosives has nothing to do with there was enough energy in a purely gravity driven collapse to explain the degree of pulverization of cement from the towers. Len

I don’t get it, you would find the similarity of the collapses less suspicious if the buildings weren’t so similar? Let’s see 2 near identical buildings were hit by near identical planes in similar manner (level angle and speed) and collapsed in similar but different fashion. Level - The 1 WTC impact centered on the 96th floor (87% the height of the tower, the 2 WTC impact on the 81st floor {74% the height of the tower}). Angle - Flight 11 hit the North Tower (1 WTC) almost head on, flight 175 crashed into the other tower 23 degrees off center (i.e. 67 degrees). Speed – Flight 11 was estimated to be at 470 mph flight 175 at 590 mph. Collapses – 2WTC collapsed 56 minutes after being hit and the top part started to tilt before coming straight down. 1 WTC collapsed after 102 minutes and collapsed straight down. Funny most inside jobbers point to the differences as being suspicious. The difference between the buildings and how they were struck explains the differences in how they collapsed. 2 WTC was hit at higher speed and the rectangular core was closer to the perimeter wall stuck than 1 WTC and 1 WTC had thinker fire proofing according to a June 2002 story in the Washington Post entitled Fireproofing Faulted in Trade Center Collapse “The North Tower, which had 1 1/2-inch-thick fireproofing, fell in 104 minutes, and the South Tower, with its 3/4-inch-thick fireproofing, collapsed in 56 minutes”*. These factors explain 2 WTC collapsing in less time. That building having about twice as many floors above the impact zone as the North Tower explains the former tilting and the later not. As for the mistaken belief that the towers should have toppled over all that I’ll add to Kevin’s explanation is that none of three civil engineers who back CD have said this. Also conrary to your belief three other buildings collapsed that day and several others were so badly damaged they had to be torn down, others need to under go extensive renovations. Len * http://tinyurl.com/y45hgp , http://www.prorev.com/wtc.htm (middle of page)

How would you expect them to have reported the story differently if they weren’t “in on it”? Really good point JL. There are so many provisions to bypass the people's will... The rule of course doesn't inherently favor either party. Let’s not forget that the governor was elected by the people of his state. Would anyone here object if the situation were reversed? Also it's not accurate to say the governor could "repudiate the expressed will of the entire nation" Almost half of America's voters were misguided enough to vote Republican. What should happen in a case when due to death, resignation or removal a house or senate seat becomes vacant? In Brazil they have a better system, every senator is elected with 2 (or is it 3?) designated successors. This better preserves the will of the people but I believe would require an amendment in the US. In Alaska the governor is now prohibited from filling vacant seats. They changed the law after a senator was elected governor and named his own daughter to succeed him. The move was so unpopular that he came in third place with only 19% of the vote in the next GOP primary*. Apparently two other states don’t allow the governor to fill vacancies. Does anybody know how the vacancies would be filled in those states? I’m also curious what happens in situations like this in other countries. Len *This is AFAIK unprecedented, does anyone know of any other cases of an incumbent loosing so humiliatingly in a primary?