Len Colby

No, the plane impacts severely damaged the towers' perimeter walls, cores, floor trusses and fire proofing making them more susceptible to fire and collapses. As already pointed out* the force of the winds acted on the entire building while the plane impact was concentrated in a small area Yeah right, I think 3 civil engineers in the entire world, none of whom have experience with high rises, back your theory. As already pointed out* the impact the towers were meant to survive was much weaker than the ones that occurred on 9/11 and things don’t always work as planned. Do you think the Titanic and the terminal at DeGaulle were sabotaged as well? Actually it was the perimeter columns not the core that was designed to absorb the force of the winds, the core was designed to support 60% of the static gravity load. So you don’t think 4000 ton floors crashing on to each other would make loud noises resembling explosions? - 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. - 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. * If we have to repeat ourselves it's hard to move the discussion forward EDIT - Correction each floor weighed about 4000 tons not 4 tons and each tower weighed about 500,000 tons not 500.

Even I’m a bit suspicious over the good senator’s sudden illness. Hopefully he’ll recover. If he is incapacitated but survives the Dems could try retaining control by having him continue nominally as senator. According to CNN, “Although the issue of incapacitation is not spelled out in state law, South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson said he believes there would be "precedent at the federal level." ”*.There is a precedent for this according to the NY Times, “According to information from the Senate historian cited on CQ.com, at least nine senators have taken extended absences from the Senate for health reasons since 1942. Robert F. Wagner, Democrat of New York, was unable to attend any sessions of the 80th or 81st Congress from 1947 to 1949 because of a heart ailment.”** Curiously enough Wagner’s appointed successor was John Foster Dulles. Such a move would not be popular politically but would leave the senate split 50 - 49. * http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/14/joh....ill/index.html ** http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/washingt...artner=homepage the CQ article is for paid subscribers only

Steve wrote: “Lez robertson says the building was designed to withstand the impact of a large airoplane so I dont see what difference it makes what speed it was going, 20 to 30 mph doesnt make that much difference and a lot of the energy was absorbed by the plane. How do you know how fast those planes were going? where is your evidence?” I agree 20 – 30 MPH wouldn’t make any difference but the planes were estimated to be flying at 470 (WTC1 – North Tower) and 590 MPH (WTC 2). The estimates were based on radar returns and video tapes. I’ve never seen any CT’s challenged the speed estimates. The impacts were of far greater force than Roberson’s study, which was based on a 180 mph crash, anticipated. Imagine someone made a study that found that the occupants of a certain model car should survive a crash at 18 mph and two crashes occurred involving that model one at 47 mph and the other at 59 and the occupants died, would that be suspicious? What if the coroner determined that they were killed by the resulting fires rather than the crashes themselves and the study hadn’t considered the potential of fires? Even if his study was for impacts of those speeds it would prove little, the Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable and that terminal at DeGaulle Airport wasn’t supposed to spontaneously collapse. “Besides the second plane hit the building right on one side, it nearly missed, and in no way did it impact the central 47 column steel core” Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I doubt you do because you’re wrong. I wrote the following for another forum. -the south tower was hit a little bit more than 1/3 of the way over to one side or about 65 -80 feet from a corner just counting the 14 foot wide fuselage but IIRC Boeings like other planes carry most of their fuel in their wing tanks. 767 have124 foot wingspans. And the core at the side flight 175 struck was 60 feet from the side thus at least part of the fuselage and one of the wings almost certainly hit the core. 3) According to the NIST study collapse initiated with the floor trusses not the core. “…some of it exploded out the adjoining corner side. Ten minutes later people were waving and shouting at that hole, one person has been videod lying down and looking over the precipice.” -Yes, and what does that have to do with whether or not the core was damaged? -Citation for people being in the South Tower entrance hole 10 minutes after impact. “The siezmic data shows explosions…” Cite one seismic expert who backs that contention. “…and buildings only come down in freefall when explosives are used.” -Citation? -Structural engineering professors from MIT (Kaussel) and Northwestern University (Barzant and Zhou) conducted studies showing that the towers could have collapsed due to structural failure in close to free fall time. -Even according to some CT sources the towers took far longer than free fall time. You obviously didn’t look at Matthew’s links. Get back to us when you have. “The buildings are falling at free-fall speed, they have been timed.” Citation? “The reason why some debris were falling faster than the free fall buildings is obvious and its the same reason why massive steel beams were impaled in builings across the street: because they were being propelled by a force, ie explosives.” The debris certainly doesn’t appear to be propelled downwards, it shoots out a bit then slowly starts to fall. “Why did they not reconstruct and investigate, which is the usual practice in these disasters?” Cite one example of when a collapsed civil engineering structure (building, bridge, dam etc) that was reconstructed for forensic analysis, I don’t think it’s ever been done. That would have been a huge waste of time and money. They did investigate have you read the NIST report and the base reports, IIRC they total about 10,000 and included the input of hundreds of engineers most of whom were not government employees? There were a few other investigations as well. “Why did they seal off ground zero with high security clearance?” They didn’t. Access was unrestricted for the first few days after that people needed to explain their presence. This was none for safety and logistics reasons. Engineers investating the collapses and journalists and numerous volunteers were given more or less free access. Some friends of mine went, they didn’t have to pass security clearance they were only asked stuff like their names, addresses, emergency contact numbers, blood types etc. “Why did the dispose of the evidence ?” Not all the steel was recycled; some is still in a hanger at JFK. Experts differ over whether enough of the steel was preserved to accurately determine exactly what happened. Dr. Gene Corley, head of the American Society of Civil Engineers team that studied the collapses, said it wasn’t a problem http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full...ar06/corley.htm . None of the critics have suggested they believe that the steel was disposed of to further a cover up or that they doubt the towers collapsed as a result of being hit by jetliners. “This was not mistaken identity because some of these guys saw their pictures on the news.” Citation? "No explosions at the world trade centre, whats this then scotch mist?.” “Sorry that last one was the wrong link.....................................here`s the right one.. http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.ph...&PAGE_id=63 ” Maybe I’m a bit slow, what exactly do you think that proves? Kevin asked: “What kind of explosives produce pools of molten metal?” The evidence for pools of “molten metal” let alone molten steel is very weak. Len

Steve wrote: “Lez robertson says the building was designed to withstand the impact of a large airoplane so I dont see what difference it makes what speed it was going, 20 to 30 mph doesnt make that much difference and a lot of the energy was absorbed by the plane. How do you know how fast those planes were going? where is your evidence?” I agree 20 – 30 MPH wouldn’t make any difference but the planes were estimated to be flying at 470 (WTC1 – North Tower) and 590 MPH (WTC 2). The estimates were based on radar returns and video tapes. I’ve never seen any CT’s challenged the speed estimates. The impacts were of far greater force than Roberson’s study, which was based on a 180 mph crash, anticipated. Imagine someone made a study that found that the occupants of a certain model car should survive a crash at 18 mph and two crashes occurred involving that model one at 47 mph and the other at 59 and the occupants died, would that be suspicious? What if the coroner determined that they were killed by the resulting fires rather than the crashes themselves and the study hadn’t considered the potential of fires? Even if his study was for impacts of those speeds it would prove little, the Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable and that terminal at DeGaulle Airport wasn’t supposed to spontaneously collapse. “Besides the second plane hit the building right on one side, it nearly missed, and in no way did it impact the central 47 column steel core” Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I doubt you do because you’re wrong. I wrote the following for another forum. -the south tower was hit a little bit more than 1/3 of the way over to one side or about 65 -80 feet from a corner just counting the 14 foot wide fuselage but IIRC Boeings like other planes carry most of their fuel in their wing tanks. 767 have124 foot wingspans. And the core at the side flight 175 struck was 60 feet from the side thus at least part of the fuselage and one of the wings almost certainly hit the core. 3) According to the NIST study collapse initiated with the floor trusses not the core. “…some of it exploded out the adjoining corner side. Ten minutes later people were waving and shouting at that hole, one person has been videod lying down and looking over the precipice.” -Yes, and what does that have to do with whether or not the core was damaged? -Citation for people being in the South Tower entrance hole 10 minutes after impact. “The siezmic data shows explosions…” Cite one seismic expert who backs that contention. “…and buildings only come down in freefall when explosives are used.” -Citation? -Structural engineering professors from MIT (Kaussel) and Northwestern University (Barzant and Zhou) conducted studies showing that the towers could have collapsed due to structural failure in close to free fall time. -Even according to some CT sources the towers took far longer than free fall time. You obviously didn’t look at Matthew’s links. Get back to us when you have. “The buildings are falling at free-fall speed, they have been timed.” Citation? “The reason why some debris were falling faster than the free fall buildings is obvious and its the same reason why massive steel beams were impaled in builings across the street: because they were being propelled by a force, ie explosives.” The debris certainly doesn’t appear to be propelled downwards, it shoots out a bit then slowly starts to fall. “Why did they not reconstruct and investigate, which is the usual practice in these disasters?” Cite one example of when a collapsed civil engineering structure (building, bridge, dam etc) that was reconstructed for forensic analysis, I don’t think it’s ever been done. That would have been a huge waste of time and money. They did investigate have you read the NIST report and the base reports, IIRC they total about 10,000 and included the input of hundreds of engineers most of whom were not government employees? There were a few other investigations as well. “Why did they seal off ground zero with high security clearance?” They didn’t. Access was unrestricted for the first few days after that people needed to explain their presence. This was none for safety and logistics reasons. Engineers investating the collapses and journalists and numerous volunteers were given more or less free access. Some friends of mine went, they didn’t have to pass security clearance they were only asked stuff like their names, addresses, emergency contact numbers, blood types etc. “Why did the dispose of the evidence ?” Not all the steel was recycled; some is still in a hanger at JFK. Experts differ over whether enough of the steel was preserved to accurately determine exactly what happened. Dr. Gene Corley, head of the American Society of Civil Engineers team that studied the collapses, said it wasn’t a problem http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full...ar06/corley.htm . None of the critics have suggested they believe that the steel was disposed of to further a cover up or that they doubt the towers collapsed as a result of being hit by jetliners. “This was not mistaken identity because some of these guys saw their pictures on the news.” Citation? "No explosions at the world trade centre, whats this then scotch mist?.” “Sorry that last one was the wrong link.....................................here`s the right one.. http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.ph...&PAGE_id=63 ” Maybe I’m a bit slow, what exactly do you think that proves? Kevin asked: “What kind of explosives produce pools of molten metal?” The evidence for pools of “molten metal” let alone molten steel is very weak. Len

Steve that film has come up before and many of its claims have already been debunked. IIRC John McCarthy started a thread about it has numerous errors just in the few minutes. 1) It quotes Leslie Robertson, the lead structural engineer of the WTC, as saying they designed the towers to withstand the impact of “a slow flying 707” but ignores the “slow flow flying” part. They calculated for a slow flying plane because they presumed it would be a plane on approach lost in the fog. Approach speed is about 180 MPH. The planes that hit the towers were flying much faster and thus impacted with far greater force. They cite the maximum cruise speed of 707 but this is irrelevant because their source did say the calculated for such speeds. Later on it mocks Robertson’s claim that they hadn’t calculated the effects of the jet fuel fires. Robertson is either credible or not he can’t be both just to suit the needs of the filmmakers. It also fails to mention that Robertson said "didn't know whether they would fall or not fall" due to the fires while watching them on TV http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html 2) It uses the Chief Orio Palmer quote about seeing small fires out of context. a)Palmer was in a stairwell his comments are no indication of the situation anywhere else in the building he was on the 78th floor NIST said ““there was only light fire activity observed on the 78th floor” http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html 3) It compares the 2001 fire to a 1975 fire on the 11th floor which did little structural damage but ignores important differences. a) there wasn’t any pre-fire structural damage the fire-proofing was only a few years old in 1975 and was presumably undamaged. c) the fireproofing above the 64 floor was different from that used below the inventor of the fire proofing used on the lower but not the upper floors of the towers said with uncanny prescience, "If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down," http://www.npri.org/issues/issues01/i_b0121101.htm 4) It cites the Windsor building in Madrid as a steel framed building that survived. The Windsor’s frame was concrete. The only steel part of the Windsor’s frame was its unprotected perimeter columns some of which started to collapse after and hour or two. It also shows a picture of the Parque Central tower in Caracas that also is a concrete building and didn’t have a central core design. Some of the buildings shown were steel framed central core buildings (like the WTC towers). But none had their frames or fireproofing damaged before the fires broke out. 5) It says “never before in the history of the world has as steel building collapsed due to fire this incorrect” although no steel framed high-rises have ever collapsed due fire. http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm 6) It says concrete frames stand-up better to fire when infract the opposite is believed to be true. 7) It says that heavy winds (which the towers survived) would have imparted more force on the towers than the plane impacts. This might well be true (no calculations are given). The winds however would act against the entire side (or two sides) of each tower while the force of the plane impacts was concentrated. Perhaps the same could be said about a person withstanding hurricane force winds and another who died because he was shot. That’s just the most glaring errors in the 1st 10 minutes (that's as far as I got this time). If you find any part of the film’s evidence compelling cite it, refuting an entire 90 minute “documentary” is impossible. Len

While it true that several witnesses said that they thought AT THE TIME explosives had gone off in the towers Rodriguez and his co-workers are the only people who were there that I know of who said AFTER 9/1 1 they still thought so. Also many of the people quoted by CD theorists said thing like "I heard an explosion" or "it sounded like a bomb" which doesn't mean they thought at the time bombs had gone off lots of things in a building fire or collapse can explode of make explosion like noises. Many compared the sound of the collapse to an explosion. Elsewhere on this forum I quote people saying bridge collapses, earthquakes, typhoons and tree being struck by lightning "sounded like a bomb". There reports of explosions during the Windsor building fire in Madrid.

You might also ask yourself why if the towers were demoed why out of tens of thousands of people who were there between the time of the impacts and collapses only 4 have said publicly that they thought after 9/11 that bombs had been set of.Note of the four made any such allegations till long after the fact. The most famous of them William Rodriguez was interviewed on 9/11 by CNN and he said nothing about feeling an explosion from below http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/ The CD proponents have yet to find a structural engineer with expertise in highrises to back their theories. They have AFAIK 2, one whose area of expertise is oil rigs and another who is a specialist in shopping malls they also have a civil engineer in Vermont a state whose tallest building is 12 stories tall and wass built in the 60's or 70's. While about 10% of the general population thinks CD was "very likely" only a miniscule fraction of a percent of the people who were there or with relevant expertise publicly back such theories. Why is there an inverse realtionship between having direct knowledge of the events and believing in CD?

I have lost track at how many times it has been pointed out that no one has said that altering images didn't exist in 1963/64. The argument has been that they could not have occurred to Kodachrome II film and gone undetected to those people qualified to know what to look for. Now what would qualify someone to make such a call .... I'd start by finding someone who could understand the simple points that you continue to miss. Dave your playing dumb/use of strawmen routine is getting old but I still find your referencing a book whose author said you're wrong amusing. For the upteenth time, can you actually cite any passages from his book (or those rags) which bolsters your "case"? Funny you would have us believe Fielding didn't know what he was talking about in 2006 but was an authoritative source back in 1965 As for you use of a computer to make your composites are you a fool or just pretending? Using technology that doesn't even resemble what was available at the time does nothing to strengthen your case. So when exactly are you gonna get around to renting the Mary Poppins DVD? Perhaps repetition can help you comprehend, Bill got the frames from the DVD, Bill got the frames from the DVD, Bill got the frames from the DVD, Bill got the frames from the DVD. You should stop making yourself look stupid and stop asking the question. As I pointed out if you don't think the defects he pointed out are really there you have a perfect oppurtunity to humiliate him. Len

Dave you xxxxx (I was tempted to sink to your level but sewers make me nauseous) - Bill already said he got the frames from the DVD. If you think he's making it up you have a perfect opportunity to humiliate him, rent the movie and extract the same frames sans the defects seen in the clips he posted and post them here, Just for the record how much have you handled and what exactly did you do with it? Are you duping film to DVDs as a sideline these days? Aren't you a VIDEOgrapher? If you have any optical printing/FILM compositing experience why do you refuse to tell us about it or post any examples of your work? I assume he was referring to the half assed "composites" you made for Hoax. (No I couldn't do any better but I don't claim to be an expert.) http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/healy.html Len

Dave please point out where I said I know little about photography. I have been taking photos since I was 12, took photo courses including advanced ones and worked in photo labs etc no I'm not a pro but I know what I talking about. I think I said know little about film post-production perhaps that's what you were referring to but you have yet to tell us what experience you have in that field, we all know you can talk the talk but do you actually have any experience? Your “video editing is just like film editing” argument won't wash.Due to my lack of expertise in film editing I have not based my arguments on finer technical points but rather your inability to cite any films that or experts who back your position and the opinions of Zavada and Fielding etc. I suppose your sarcasm is an attempt to cover up the fact that you have been asked straight forward questions but so far have refused to answer them. I'll waste my time asking them once again. 1) What scenes from movies contemporaneous to or predating the assassination are the result of UNDETECTABLE alterations of the type alleged in Hoax? 2) Does anybody with FILM (not video) post production or forensic photo analysis experience back your position? Why not? Brian simply stating that you think something is true without giving any real reasons isn't very convincing. What exactly do you think is wrong with the film? Why do you think it is that the alterationists can't get anyone with relevant expertise to back their position? Your “we went to the moon” argument doesn't hold much water cinemaphotography and aerospace engineering are totally unrelated fields one could find it hard to believe that a civilization could be capable of brain surgery, advanced irrigation systems and building pyramids yet never develop the wheel but that was the case of the Aztecs. Craig - I don't know why you think Bill's point about color temperature is stupid it was basically a rewording of a point made by Zavada. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf (pgs 1 - 2) Len

This isn't the DellaRosa forum Dave, you got t'a make the case and you're failing miserably... you have yet to 1) tell us which scenes from which movies contemporaneous to or predating the assassination exhibit undetectable alterations similar those alleged in Hoax or 2) quote a cinemaphotography book or magazine that indicate such alterations were possible at the time. Note: "your" = the 2nd person possesive adjective, "you're" = the contraction of "you are" Zavada already had access and tested the color balance, do you think he was a) dishonest or incompetent? Has anybody qualified to do such testing asked to be able to test the film and been denied? Can you name any forensic photo/film or FILM post production experts who doubt the authenticity of the Z-film? C'mon Dave just one. I guess having little else you revert to strawmen and lies being an 'anti-alterationist' does not make one a LN or a defender of the SBT or WCR and you know it, I take this as a sign of your desperation. With that kind of thinking there is no way of being sure of anything relating to this or any other case. It's possible but not very probable, the alterationist's inability to name a movie (not made long after the fact) with similar undetectable alterations or find a single expert to back their position is strong evidence that they (Fielding, Zavada etc) are correct."How does Robert Groden, Gary Mack, or Roland Zavada acquire the knowlege of how many light years in advance of the film industry, that intelligence agency expertise might be? The reason that this debate continues is because it is apparent to those arguing "IMPOSSIBILITY"," I would suspect that it was the other way round, i.e. that Hollywood was in front the government, the former had been investing millions of dollars and thousands of man hours into making film fakery as realistic as possible for decades, before the assassination the latter would have had little incentive to develop such technology at all let alone secretly. It's hard to believe they could have done this so secretly that even decades later there is no evidence they even attempted to do so. "that not one of those who know that it is "possible" will ever "dare" to show their complicity. If one did dare to do so, they would have to be declared insane or have their loved ones found dead......most likely both." I don't know lots of people have said things that contradict the WCR the vast majority are still alive or their deaths we clearly not murders related to the assassination. There have been some allegations that people were murdered to shut them but AFAIK nothing has been proven "I no longer can accept anything as absolute. Certainly not the impossibility of undetectably altering an 8mm KodacolorII film strip." I don't think anybody would say that it is 100.0% certain that the film wasn't altered or that it was impossible nor for that matter can the possibility that the assassination was carried out by ET's be totally excluded but the probability of either is extremely low. You have said a few times your understanding of the technical issues is nil, perhaps your belief that alteration is a reasonable possibility is due to this lack of expertise like creationists with no science background declaring that the theory of evolution is obviously wrong. Len

Charlie I disagree with you often it can be stated that something would be impossible to achieve with existing technology. Leonardo da Vinci drew the designs for 'helicopters' similar to modern ones but it was not possible to build such contraptions in his day. If not even the best people in the business could produce effects like those alleged in Hoax undetectably they were can reasonably conclude it did not exist. Can this be stated with 100% certainty, no but can anything? Zavada's opinion is not proof that the film was not altered but it is strong evidence to that effect, Zavada based his opinion not principally on his belief that the 'know how' didn't exist but rather that based on his examination of the "original" Z-film and his undisputed expertise in the characteristics of Kodakcrome II that it was an "in camera original" and that there were no signs of alteration. Zavada was not the only expert to reach such a conclusion. Robert Groden who also examined the original reached the same conclusion. Ray Fielding who literally "wrote the book" on the "Techniques of Special Effects Cinemaphotography" said such alterations were not possible. According Gary Mack Oliver Stone reached the same conclusion and according to Pat Speer so did the director of "The Commission" (a movie about the WC). Who are the alterations experts? Let's see a VIDEOgrapher who refuses to disclose what if any experience he has with FILM post production and is unable to back his claim that such alterations were possible by citing a specific passage from a book or magazine or a specific scene from a movie, a retired ad. exec./studio photographer/self proclaimed (still) photoanalyst and paranoid particle physicist who until about a year ago was a grammar school math/science teacher and couldn't figure out that a bullet would accelerate blood splatter. After all these years they have yet to find anyone with demonstrable expertise in film post production to back their claims. Still waiting for your side to produce anyone with such qualifications. As stated his main argument against alteration was that the film he examined was an "in camera original". I see you've adopted the Fetzer/White lowball tactic of saying or insinuating that some one who disagrees with you is a government agent. After you falsely claimed that Zavada told you he'd submit his reply to you soon why should we believe anything you tell us concerning what people said to you about this case?. Did you ever ask him? As I already posted on this forum he sent me the following e-mail (the only alterations I made was omitting our e-mail addresses from the header) From: (Ray Fielding) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST Suject: Zavada To: (Len Colby) Mr. Colby: I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence. I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruda film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me. Raymond Fielding If you think I made it up you can ask him. He told Zavada the same thing. Zavada told me "I spent a day and a half with Ray confirming my understanding and position that it was impossible to alter the Zapruder film and if attempted to have the results easily detectable." You're not insinuating that Zavada is lying are you? That's what it sounds like to me. You've already been asked to cite specific scenes from those movies which were the product of alterations similar to those alleged in Hoax where the fakery is undetectable till you do so you're just wasting our time. Hopefully you'll be able to post links to clips of or stills from the cited scenes to back your claims. I have challenge for you 1) film or video tape a group of people in a convertible* 2) cut them and the car out of the original background 3) make their arms and legs move differently than they originally did 4) paste the car into a different background clip shot on the same street 5) cut out intermediary frames so as to speed the clip up 6) paste in things like street signs and lampposts. 7) Show us the result of your work. If can't do so undetectably in 2006 it is doubtful it was possible in 1963. * If you can't get someone to lend you one perhaps you could get Fetzer or the publisher of Hoax to pop for the rent. Heck it's only $ 64/day No I'm not fixated on that movie though I enjoyed it as a kid and more recently as a parent. Three of your coauthors (including the editor) cited it as an example of a film from that period that used such compositing. How is my correcting your inaccurate statement that they hadn't or Bill showing frames with obvious flaws a sign of fixation? . If you want the technical name for the errors I can't help you but the fact that the World's leading special effects studio couldn't make undetectable composite frames doesn't bode well for your theory. My reply doesn't depend on the authenticity of Bill's frames which I assume he got from the DVD. Len[/font]

duplicate post

I was traveling and didn't notice this thread till yesterday. Frank...hate to disagree, but computers did exist in the sixties. NASA used them. NASA and the military were at least twenty years ahead of the public in such matters...which were withheld from the public for "national security". When studying Badgeman in the 80s, I saw computers for the first time at MIT and other government sponsored places, doing things I found incredible and which were unknown to the public. A place in Dallas Gary Mack and I were able to visit showed us how they could take a one-dimensional aerial photo and using computers could create a 3-D view of flying through mountains and valleys at low level. I still have no idea how it was done. An Israeli company called Scitex showed us things that in the 80s I thought impossible, but are commonplace today. Your "computer example" is not apt. Jack (emphasis added- Len) No Jack Frank was 100% correct in his original statement but you failed to comprehend what he said. He said that a computer like the one Charlie Black was using was not possible back then not that computers didn't exist. Do you really believe that 1963 computers had anywhere near the capabilities of current ones? Someone else speculated that in 1906 people would have said television was impossible that they would have been wrong doesn't change the fact that it was not possible at the time.As Steven succinctly put it, the question is not whether the alleged alterations are possible today or even if alterations via optical printing were possible back then but whether the technology to make the alleged alterations so as to be undetectable today existed then. Dave's list of films didn't answer that question for he has yet to say which scenes from those movies utilized alterations as extensive as those alleged in Hoax yet don't show obvious signs of alteration let alone withstand close examination. It is instructive to remember what is being alleged, Hoax's "top technical expert" John Costella wrote: "When the forgers made the Zapruder film, they needed to use genuine film of the limousine and the people in it, to make it look realistic—they couldn't just get Warner Brothers to draw cartoons! They cut and paste this genuine film into a new background film of Elm Street. Some changes could be made. They could cut people out and move them around a bit. They could make copies of arms, legs and bodies, and stick them back together to make them perform actions that the real people never did." (emphasis added- Len) http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html Elsewhere it is alleged that items such as lampposts and a street sign where not as they should have been and presumably were added by the forgers (though why they would have to do this if the film was shoot on the real Elm St. is never made clear). Perhaps Dave as been asked of him repeatedly can identify scenes from 'his' movies in which there were alterations like those and the fakery isn't detectable. Jack is playing (??) dumb again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to him and Mr. Healy, Zavada later went beyond the findings of his original report and concluded that the film housed at NARA is an "in camera original" and that the technology to make the alleged alterations was "unknown" http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf Also "more than one" = two or more nor necessarily 'numerous'. I'm not sure if the movie was cited in the book itself but it certainly was cited by its authors. Fetzer himself cited it. http://www.assassinationscience.com/shex12.html As did Costella http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html and Jack. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry48849 It's funny that Healy keeps referencing Fielding's book even after Fielding said Healy was wrong and such alteration was not possible at the time, funnier still that he never quite gets around to quoting a passage from it that supports his case. He keeps tilling straw men no one disputes that compositing predated the assassination. Dave are you sure we went to the Moon? White says it never happened and Fetzer and Costella have their doubts. Funny how he keeps repeating the 'anti-alterationists' = Lone Nuts straw man. "Miller" has no idea what he is talking about. The light's color temperature is what matters, not the kind of light. Name the experts you refer to. Show us examples. Jack What kind of silly semantic argument is that? The color temperature of light is directly related to what 'kind of light' it is. http://www.3drender.com/glossary/colortemp.htm As already pointed out more than once on this forum Roland Zavada the inventor of Kodacrome II said that the difference in color temperature would have been detectable. http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...comments-r1.pdf pg. 2 So Dave you think they could have known a head of time they would be developing the Z-film? IIRC they said they didn't have any copy film. Actually Myra not even Costella claims it (they) completely disappeared in 1 frame as even he shows some blood (or cranial fluid) until frame 315 (see your link) and his copy of the film shows splatter at least until frame 318 [ http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z318.jpg ]. If your claim that you've read every page of every thread on this forum is true you should have read the thread in which a forensic expert explained the obvious, that the blood would have been accelerated by the bullet, funny that some one with a PhD in physics (Costella) couldn't figure it out.

The University of Pennsylvania’s journalism school concluded that National Republican Campaign Committee consistently resorted to deceptive and factually incorrect attack ads. http://www.factcheck.org/article460.html In one of those ads they alleged that a Democratic candidate billed a call to a phone sex line to taxpayers. The truth which even the Republican’s don’t dispute is that he or an aide accidentally dialed the wrong number the 1st brief call was immediately followed by a longer one to the same number in a different area code. See the ad here and watch Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), chairman of the NRCC, defend such tactics. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) said of the White House / GOP intentional distortion of Kerry's “stuck in Iraq” remark: "A fundamental premise of politics is: We can make this work if people just never figure it out." and "Well, it's pretty standard fare in political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage." In other words leading Republicans think it’s OK to lie to achieve your political objectives and aren’t ashamed to admit it. This however had gotten very little play in the supposedly “liberal media”. It is interesting to note that when a Democrat (Kerry) flubs a line (stuck in Iraq) the media did very little to make it clear he (as even Armey admitted) meant something else but when a Republican (Bush) made a similar mistake (“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”) the press quickly pointed out the obvious, that he had misspoken. The Democrats unfortunately are incompetent in the PR game. Armey and Reynolds made their admissions BEFORE the elections but the Dems apparently DIDN’T make anything of this (I can’t be sure since I’m not in the US). Obviously if the Democrats had made similarly deceptive ads and leading Democrats bragged about it Rove and his clones and their spin machines (not to mention Ann Coulter et. al.) would have had a field day.

Any clues as to who did it and why?

I suppose Duane can actually cite evidence to back his allegation that Jay Utah, and Phil Plaitt are professional NASA disinformation agents and has not stooped to Jack's level of making baseless charges and of course if he can't will withdraw these acusations. I suppose also that since he is a reasonable person he will realize that he has stooped to ad hominem attacks and not actually address their points. He should also realize that Cosmic Dave didn't provide any backing for the assumptions upon which his questions are based this in itself makes them meritless.

No, but I trust this journalist to be fair in his reporting. Do you know who he or she is? Did the Times contact you or did you find out some other way?

One also wonders why if Jack has so much confidence in his research why he doesn't post on Apollo Hoax or BAUT. My guess it’s because he doesn't have the courage to debate on forums where there are numerous people quite knowledgeable about the space program in general and Apollo in particular. Jack seems more interested in pontificating that debating people knowledgeable on the subject or learning. You might want to try posting there too, you are more likely to have your questions answered there than here. Steve (Ulman), Craig and Evan are well informed about those subjects but I doubt they would take offence in my saying what they know (and the time they have to reply) pails in comparison to the collective knowledge of the members of those forums. Len

Jack you should know the drill by now what is the image number?

Yeah the photo analyst who: 1-misidentified the Pentagon's point of impact by several hundred feet 2-identified the WFC Winter Garden as a toppled over building 3-thinks a western wall would be in the shade in the afternoon 4 -missed the shadow cast by that flagpole on the moon etc etc can do no wrong! What a lame cop out excuse See no debunking, hear no debunking, admit to no debunking! Len

Come'on Jack - that "12:14" photo is too low resolution to reach any such conclusions - there is no guarantee that it is authentic or that the time/day stamp is accurate please tell us its provenance, your failure to do so will be taken as a sign that you have something to hide. -please provide uncropped copy of the comparison photo, the trailer appears to be next to the collapse zone in the inset and NOT in the location that you suggest. Hopefully you will be able to document the date the comparison photo was taken. Len

November 11, would have been 2 months after the attacks which happpened on September 11, you're really racking them up this week Jack!! Where did you get the photo? And Jack, if I'm not mistaken the sun sets in the west so we wouldn't expect the west wall to be in shadow in the afternoon but rather to be front lit

Another option is linking to remotely stored files. There are numerous free photo and file hosting sites. I would suggest using seperate hosts or at least seperate accounts for your personal files/photos and and the stuff you post on forums. I heard a 2nd or 3rd hand story (don't know for sure that it's true) that on another forum somebody hacked into another member's photo hosting account and posted some of the other member's personal photos on the forum.

Let's not be silly now Jack, Yes I'm sure that many special effects people work with explosives but that doesn't mean that they all do. There are many types of special effects some are done entirely on computers or in the editing process some involve building models others involve make up other robotics etc. Types of special effects There is a website called http://www.fxsupply.com/ they sell many types of supplies but no explosives. Nova made an IMAX documentary about special effects and very little if any mention is made of explosives on the website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/specialfx/effects/makingof.html . There is a company in Hollywood called Special Effects Unlimited, Inc on a page of their site they list their recent projects and some the types of jobs they do: Another page lists the types of products they sell "[ CONFETTI ] [ Air Mortars ] [ SFX Specialty ] [ Rain ] [ Foggers ] [ Equipment List ] [ Expendables ] [ Wind ] [ Snow ] [ Turntables]" On another is says Another page mentions some of the movies they are working on including "Charlotte's Web" somehow I don't think there's going to be a lot of pyrotecnics in that one. Another special effects company make very little mention of explosives on their site http://www.lemaitrefx.com/indexx.php . The site How Stuff Works has numerous articles about special effects some of which run several pages explosives are only part of the picture http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/search.php?terms=%22special+effects%22++movie&sitename=HSW&server=entertainment.howstuffworks.com&server=entertainment.howstuffworks.com&search=%22special+effects%22+%2Bmovie&hsw=Search&pg=1 Conclusion Calling a special effects person an explosives expert is like calling a cattle rancher a veterinary expert. I'm sure many (but not all) have taken courses in bovine medicine and take care of the basic veterinary needs of their herds. Jack's expert never claimed to work with explosives and didn't say anything technical that could not be picked up from a few minutes Googling. Another problem is explosions for film are very different from CD as even both of Jack's "experts" point out. Special effects explosions use "low order" explosives are design for maximum visual and auditory impact and normally for minimal destructive power because as your own source points out people often have to get very close to them. Demolitions explosions are the opposite they are design for maximum destructive power and I'm efforts are made to reduce noise high order explosives are used, in other words its not "apples and oranges" its grapes and watermelons. So citing a special effects person's opinion about the CD theory is about as valid as citing a cattle ranchers opinion about bird flu. The author is anonymous and never claims to be a special effects technician only to work with special effects she (or he) could be the person who runs the stock room of a special effects company/department. So calling the author of that article an explosives expert and citing her (his) opinion about the collapse of the WTC is like calling the anonymous author of an article who claims to work with cattle ranching a veterinary expert and citing her (his) opinion regarding bird flu. Len PS Jack please erase the distracting double post.