Len Colby

Jack do you have any evidence to back your claim that some one from the Brazilian Government or the CGI is monitoring this forum or are you just making stuff up again? I doubt you do otherwise you would have presented it. You have lied here before like the times you said you: didn’t have an Internet site, never said the Moon landings were faked, didn’t read our posts and admit error when proven wrong. The question is how would you know this? Unless I’m mistaken the IP addresses of people reading the forum are only available to the administrators and hackers, you’re not the former are you the latter? Even if true 1) I have no connection to the ‘CGI’ which I never heard of before 2) It isn’t a government agency as anyone who read the page you cited* should have been able to figure out, but then again this wouldn’t be the 1st time you misunderstood what you read. Len * http://www.cgi.br/internacional/index.htm

Tosh, Peter is making a big deal about a notice of your death appearing on an unofficial Air Force site http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...opid=76614& He claims that you took it as a death threat. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Len

I said your facts were wrong. Your offered no supporting evidence and I provided evidence that show they were false. I do believe your conclusions are wrong because the facts do not support them. It is the “inside jobbers” here who have by in large been unable to back their assertions Fetzer is an at times dishonest sloppy researcher, I don’t find it surprising he would been impressed by this “movie”. Asking me to debunk an entire 90 film is a bit unreasonable perhaps you can tell us what parts you found especially compelling (and the time stamp where they appear). On another JFK forum someone posted a link to the same video and I sent him this reply Another member of the forum a known (conspiracist) JFK researcher said:

Straw man, I never said I held either report dear.If you had been paying attention you'd have seen were in several places in this forum I have said that I believe JFK assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy. The only aspect of that case I've looked into is allegations that the Zapruder film and other DP images were altered thus normally this is the only aspect of the case I comment on. You also missed where I stated that the 9/11 Commission played political cover for various parties and various aspects of the case.keeping in mind, of course, that folks who have studied them don't really owe you an explanation of their opine. The idea of this like most other forums is for people to debate theories and ideas. If you don't want your opinions (opine is a verb) challenged then seek out a forum where they won't be. I guess you want to be able to make up "facts" about 9-11 to fit your theory, offer no corroborating evidence then stick your head in the sand when they are proved wrong and continue to insist you're right. And while you're at it, have any of your friends and associates in New York been affected by the invironment created by the collapse of the WTC? As a matter a fact a friend of mine lived very close to the WTC and he and wife got sick (esp. him). He was one the first and one the most outspoken people to complain about 'Ground Zero illness' aka 'World Trade Center syndrome' he has been interviewed by many major outlets, led groups and even testified before Congress. For his efforts he got death threats (presumably from local land lords) which he took seriously enough to move out of town for a few years. He dismisses 9/11 inside job theories as crap though. The EPA's cover-up of the environmental effects of the WTC collapses is one of the areas which the commission avoided because it was too politically thorny. Len LOL You're right Jack your resorting to personal attacks is a sign of your weak position. Uuuuuh, the irony!

Well it made me laugh. LOL Me too, was that a "Jack White original"?

Not exactly nitpicking I showed that all your points were wrong."I am glad you were born in North Carolina in 1965. I was then killing communists and protecting your Constitutional Rights to Free Speech because one of the stated reasons for the War in Vietnam was to 'fight them over there so we didn't have to fight them over here'. Sound familiar?" I agree both wars, Vietnam and Iraq, were unjustifiable based on their pretexts and their costs in blood and money both to us and our allies and the countries we were supposedly 'saving'. How does that bolster your argument? "I have taught various courses in various countries around the world with one axiom in mind; "If the student failed to learn, the instructor failed to teach'. The nay sayers in my classes who disregarded the cold hard facts ended up dead from hard headed ignorance." We'll have to take your word for it but I don't doubt you are a specialist in combat operations (or what ever term you wish to use). This doesn't mean that you are an expert in everything you theorize about. Fetzer resorts to the same logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. "Fortunately for you, New York and Brazile have provided you the opportunity to grow and become the worldly person you are. It is noted, however, that diplomacy was not a part of your curriculum. For you to draw a conclusion that "you got your facts wrong" is a statement even the OJ Simpson Jury could see through." Diplomatic or not it was an accurate statement. You can insinuate otherwise all you want but such denials are meaningless unless you can show your were right and I was wrong. More on you "no IDs" claim. I found the following in the few minutes it took me to debunk Walker's claim that Atta's passport was found near the WTC. Obviously like most "inside jobbers" you never read the 911 Commission or NIST reports in a similar vein I doubt most "creation scientists" ever studied evolutionary biology. To debunk a theory you have to know what it purports but most "inside jobbers" don't understand this. From the 911 Commission Report July 2001 July 2. Hamza al Ghamdi obtained a Florida driver's license; Mohand al Shehri, a Florida identification card. Moqed and Salem al Hazmi acquired USA identification cards in July.157 The Hazmi brothers' identifications were found in the rubble at the Pentagon and appeared genuine upon examination.158 Pg. 22 202 FBI records of airline personnel indicate that some recall specific hijackers presenting U.S. identification documents with their airline tickets. The American Airlines ticket agent at Logan Airport recalls the al Shehri brothers presenting drivers' licenses at check-in. FBI report of investigation, Elvia C., Sept. 13, 2001. When Hamza al Ghamdi and Ahmed al Ghamdi checked in at Logan Airport in Boston, Hamza al Ghamdi used his Florida driver's license and Ahmed al Ghamdi used his fraudulently obtained Virginia identification card. FBI report of investigation, interview of Gail J., Sept. 21, 2001. At Dulles, Khalid al Mihdhar and Majed Moqed provided their fraudulently obtained Virginia identification cards at the ticket counter. FBI report of investigation, interview of Susan S., American Airline ticketing agent, 44 Sept. 13, 2001. A "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Student Identity Card" was found in the rubble at the Pentagon with Moqed's name on it. Forensic examination indicated that it may have been fraudulent. United States Secret Service Forensic Services report for the FBI PENTTBOM investigation regarding the physical examination of forensic science research request, Oct. 10, 2001. Hijackers Omari, Wail al Shehri and Hanjour also had international driver licenses and Jarrah had an international student identification card. Pgs 38 -39 http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statem...errTrav_Ch2.pdf From the Senate Intelligence Committee Report The only hijacker that we know did not use a U.S.-issued identification was Satam Al-Suqami, who was the only person who knew he was in the United States illegally. He used his passport instead. http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?...amp;wit_id=4067 http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id807.html Bests, John McCarthy How does your webpage refute what Evan said?

Len... this Guardian journalist thought otherwise The Guardian columnist sounds like and inside jobber to me was unfortunately quite misinformed. See what I was saying. It was widely reported on forums and less reliable Inside jobs sites that it was Atta's passport. AFAIK The Guardian was the only 'MSM outlet' to make this error Mainstream sources 911 Commission Report – Chapter 2 Suqami's passport survived the attack: a passerby picked it up from the World Trade Center and handed to a New York Police Department detective shortly before the towers collapsed.109 PDF pg 16 http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statem...errTrav_Ch2.pdf ABC News ABCNEWS sources identify another hijacker as Satan Suqami, a Saudi national on American Airlines Flight 11, whose passport was recovered in the rubble. <A href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010913195826/http:/abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_MAIN010912.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20010913195826/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_MAIN010912.html Investigators discovered the passport of Satam al Suqami, one of the terrorists aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to hit the World Trade Center. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/...osurvivors.html New York Magazine Laying out his scenario, Tarpley touched on many of the "unanswered questions" that make up the core of the 9/11 Truth critique of the so-called Official Story. […] And why, if the impact destroyed the planes' supposedly crash-proof flight-recorder black boxes, was the FBI able to find, in perfect condition, the passport of Satam al Suqami, one of the alleged American Airlines Flight 11 hijackers? http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/ The Independent Suqami's passport was discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Centre. Along with Ahmed al-Ghamdi, he has been tied by the FBI to a former cab driver now on trial for a series of foiled bombings in Jordan. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...21/ai_n14420622 The Telegragh Suqami's passport was discovered in the rubble at the site of the World Trade Centre. http://web.archive.org/web/20030105091516/...20/wterr120.xml Note that even some of the mainstream sources reported incorrectly that the passport was found in the rubble, according to the "official story" it was found before either tower collapsed. Inside Job sources 911 Research According to ABC News and the Associated Press, the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami was found a few blocks from the WTC. 1 ֲ 2 ֲ The Guardian was skeptical: "the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged [tests] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism." 3 ֲ Note the passport did not belong to Atta, as is commonly claimed. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html Cooperative Research It is reported that the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami has been found a few blocks from the WTC. [ABC News, 9/12/2001; Associated Press, 9/16/2001; ABC News, 9/16/2001] Barry Mawn, the director of the FBI's New York office, says police and FBI found it during a "grid search" of the area. [CNN, 9/18/2001] However a senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission later claims it was actually discovered by a passerby and given to an NYPD detective, "shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed." [9/11 Commission, 1/26/2004] The Guardian says, "The idea that Mohamed Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged [tests] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism." [Guardian, 3/19/2002] (Note that, as in this Guardian account, the passport is frequently mistakenly referred to as Atta's passport.) http://cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp...01passportfound Rense & Artic Beacon the unscathed passport of Satam Al Suqami, one of the alleged 19 Arab terrorists, turned up several blocks from Ground Zero. Although ABC News and the Associated Press played up the importance of the Suqami passport, http://www.rense.com/general68/moremir.htm http://www.arcticbeacon.com/23-nov-2005.html Team 8 Plus Suqami's passport survived the attack: a passerby picked it up from the World Trade Center and handed to a NYPD detective shortly before the towers collapsed http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/fo...wtopic.php?2480 There are a lot more, wow that took me about 10 minutes. LOL When being sarcastic it's best to make sure what you're saying makes sense. How can I "be closer to" anything "than either of us"? As for falsifying evidence that is the specialty of the truth movement who continuously make up facts and take quotes out of context to fit their theories Len

Nathaniel - Please provide Rich's quote in context. Peter - You love tossing out long lists. Why don't you start some threads and spell out your cases for those various "secret" "conspiracies"

Perhaps the lack of "media follow up" is due to the fact there have been NO new developments for about 4 years.

Provide a citation for Rich saying or implying all or most "9/11 truthers believe that no planes hit the twin towers". Then prove that it was an intentional dection. What about all the times leaders of the " 'truth' movement" make mistakes like claiming the Pentagon has anti-aircraft batteries (Griffen, Messeyen) or that passengers can be heard planning to use the beverage cart to knock down the cockpit door on the flt. 93 CVR (Fetzer) or that the steel from the WTC was certified by UL to withstand 2000F for 6 hours (Fetzer and IIRC Griffen and Jones) the CEO of the company that handled security for the WTC was a cousin of GWB (Fetzer, Griffen et. al.)Do you really think that Rich who has been one of Bush's most vocal critics "is in on it"? DO you want to know why the MSM doesn't pay "inside jobbers" more attention? It's probably because they are journalists and NOT sci-fi writers. As it is they have gotten coverage on most MSM outlets often more than once. As for Peters list mosts if not all of those are a) unproved or widely acknowledged. In anycase none of them chage the fact that there is no credible evidence backing the MIHOP theory.

Emphasis added; provide a citation for Moussaoui stating he was not interested in talking off or landing. You said it was their "stated purpose". Also it is not 100% clear he was part of the 9-11 plot. "citation for 'they had id'?" You're the one making a claim they did the burden of proof is on you you want a citation see the 9/11 Commission report. Also don't forget the "magic passport" from the WTC, one the flt. 93 hijackers documents was found in Shanksville. See also this article "Hijackers got state IDs legally:Florida and federal officials are reviewing policy after the terrorists traveled on state identification" http://www.sptimes.com/News/091601/State/Hijackers_got_state_I.shtml "citation for 'there names were on the manifests'?" Once again the burden of proof is on you but hey why not, http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_manifests.html http://www.911myths.com/html/cnn_passenger_lists.html http://www.911myths.com/html/autopsy_list.html http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html "citation for 'they didn't have explosives' (what are those funny blasts throwing multi ton steel girders into adjacent buildings?)" You are supposedly debunking the "official story" according to it no explosives were planted. Citation that they did have explosives? See the ASCE, NIST, Berkley and 911 Commission Reports. As for the debris being ejected, come back when you've calculated how much KE would be released by a 1360 foot plus 500,000 ton building collapsing and show that it would not be sufficient to project those chunks of steel. " I don't have the time to be your research assistant" Nor does anybody here have time to be yours if you are going to make an extraordinary claim its up to YOU to back it up. This not the JFK forum but I think the same general rules are expected to apply, it up to the claimant to provide evidence not the skeptic. "len, so if you really want to view the photo evidence of this you might just want to google the info yourself or look at the URL posts already cited in this and other threads on the WTC." I've already seen a good deal of the photo and video evidence and all the 911 threads here. You seem to have missed where no names on the manifests BS was previously debunked a few days ago. "citation for 'it was captured by two cameras' can you provide the film of this claim showing any type of flying aircraft?" You said it wasn't captured at all. The two cameras were low resolution, slow shutter speed cameras with fisheye lenses meant to photograph objects traveling at low speed about 5 feet away. The plane was traveling at about 500 mph and was about 100x further away. Provide evidence that the plane should have been clearer under the circumstances. "citation for a 75 foot hole are you sure you don't mean a 14 foot hole?" You missed this elsewhere on this forum as well. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that the hole was 75 feet wide based on pre-collapse photos. Even Hoffman acknowledges that the hole was that big if not bigger (he thinks it could have been up to 90. Even Gerarad Holmgren estimated the hole at 65 feet wide ""please provide photo...." http://rense.com/general70/3o.htm see photos 4, 5, and 6." LOL they show the 1st floor still standing quite aways in from the impact point http://rense.com/general70/Pentagonroof.jpg ""because you got your facts wrong" Don't think so len, and who are you protecting, anyway?" The truth, john. Len passport came fulttering down onto a dusty Manhatten street on that day of many miracles. What's remarkable is that...any of us on this forum with independent minds bother to debate with the likes of you. Sid it WASN'T Atta's passport. Why are the inside jobbers always so misinformed? LOL By independant minds you mean people who believe everything they read on Rense, Infowars and What Really Happened as uncritically as the supposed sheeple do everything they see on FOX etc

Provide a citation that any of the hijackers said that was his stated purpose. It is my understanding that admission to the few flight schools in Arab counties is hard to gain. According to the 9/11 Commission report they did intelligence gathering while learning to fly. 2 birds 1 stone. "It gets damn warm when public knowledge provides us with the fact that the FBI Field Agents who travelled to FBI Hq AFTER 911, found their initial reports of concern MODIFIED and relegated to file '13', the dead file, because the 'modified' report which finally made it to the decision makers did not contain the essential elements of information required for action to be taken, as in the request for permission to search one of the laptops mentioned in the initial inquiry." Citation "And yet, the government would have us believe that someone in a cave, in South Asia" A multimillionaire in a cave with decades of experience in guerrilla fighting and terrorism advised bu other university educated aides "had the capacity to send a group of folks to board aircraft without providing ID (just try it sometime)" they had ID "nor having their names on any manifest" There names were on the manifests "and have the capability to place exposives in the WTC" they didn't place explosives "and fly a plane (?) into the Pentagon that has elluded all cameras in the vicinity," It was captured by 2 cameras, provide evidence it should have been captured by others "and stealthfully creating a hole smaller than itself" A 75 foot hole, enough to accommodate the plane past the engines. What do think is stronger an aluminum wing or a blast proof limestone fronted, reinforced concrete wall? "and leaving the first floor ceiling intact and photographed after the fact." Please provide photo and citation. How much of the plane do expect to be left after the crash? "No consiracy theory here, folks, just the facts. But these facts never made it to the Senate Select Committee investigating 911, for some reason. The question is why, thats all." Because you got your facts wrong.

There are about 30 professors at US colleges and universities who are members of ST911, I know of at least 3 profs who aren’t members of the group who back the inside job theories William Woodward at UNH, Jane Christensen at North Carolina Wesleyan College (who is also a Holocaust denier) and Jane Wood from Clemson (she was a member but quit). So far AFAIK only Barrett, Jones, Woodward and Christensen have had any trouble. In three cases i.e. all except for Jones the Universities stood by them. Jones teaches at one of the few colleges in America that doesn’t offer tenure, Wood is untenured and Barrett is part-time. Barrett was maintained despite having violated paragraph B of the AAUP’s (American Association of University Professors) guidelines on academic freedom which have been in place since 1940 before he was born: “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results...Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.” In a 1970 interpretation of the 1940 guidelines the AAUP stated paragraph C “serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject” Barrett admitted to teaching his 9/11 theories in a folklore class It could be argued that Jones suspension was covered by this section of the AAUP code “If the administration of a college or university feels that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of paragraph © of the section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extramural utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts concerning the teacher’s fitness for his or her position,” Paragraph C states “College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.[<A href="http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsresearch/policydocs/1940statement.htm#comm4">4]” [All quotes of the AAUP’s policy from - http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsresearch/poli...ement.htm#comm2 ] Numerous errors have been pointed out in Jones work. “NIST employee Kevin Ryan goes public with the information that the WTC steel passed Underwriters Laboratories standards, and could not have been weakened by the oxygen deprived fires in the twin towers, and is.......you guessed it - fired.” Uuuum, Ryan NEVER worked for NIST he worked for a water testing company that UL bought a few months before 9/11. As stated elsewhere on this forum he was fired for falsely claiming in a public letter on UL letterhead that senior executives at UL backed his position and that the company had tested the steel. His dismissal has nothing to do with academic freedom. “The claim that all the qualified people in academics support the official story is very deceptive. How many highly qualified people doubt the official story, but have decided to not make their beliefs public for fear of opening themselves up to public ridicule, or possibly losing their jobs?” Out of 30+ profs one without tenure was suspended with pay. Tenured professors and those who would be commenting with in their areas of expertise and those not bring their beliefs into the classroom would have little to fear. I think you under estimate the integrity of you average professor. “On the other hand, how many of the so-called "experts" who claim to support the official story are really venal shills without a shred of professional integrity? I'm not saying they all are, but a good many of them are.” This is a libelous claim you make without any evidence. You don’t have the appropriate expertise to make such a judgment. Hundreds of highly qualified engineers employed by universities, private companies and diverse government agencies worked on the ASCE, NIST and other reports supporting the collapse theory. So far not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world has publicly challenged it. IIRC the names were only divulged a day or two after the attacks. On some of the flights stewardess identified the seat numbers of the hijackers. The authorities also found a bag belonging to Atta which wasn't transfered from the Portland flight to flight 11. That's the official story any way. No rmarkable intelligence needed. CNN got the info from the Feds not vice-versa

No both pilots of the Wellstone plane were quite incompetent, there is a very long thread about Fetzer's book on the crash in the History Books section. Fetzer omitted a great deal of evidence leading to pilot error including 1) Conry (the pilot) told one of his oldest and closest friends who was himself a pilot that he had difficulty flying, especially taking of and landing King Airs, the accident plane was a King Air on approach (part of the landing phase), 2) Conry told his wife the other pilots at the company thought that Guess, the co-pilot, was incompetent, 3)Guess was fired from his previous piloting job (a sky diving company) for incompetence 4) one of the pilots at the company said that Guess had difficulty landing on his own 5) Conry almost certainly had far fewer flight hours than he claimed 6) most of those flight hours were accumulated before a 12 hiatus due to being sent jail and being legally blind 7) he had lasik surgery to improve his vision but was still required by the FAA to use corrective lens, his wife and friend said he didn’t and the coroner didn’t find any evidence he was 8) three days before the crash Conry screwed up so badly his co pilot suggested he retire 9) a colleague said Conry nearly crashed into the control tower when taking off 10) the pilot who said Conry was very careful had not flown with him for about 12 years 11) the plane didn’t suddenly turn off course, the plane missed a turn off and was on the wrong vector for several minutes 12) there was a problem with the beacon at the airport FAA tests carried out shortly after the crash led pilots very close to the crash location 13) Conry normally let his co-pilots fly so much that many said they could not judge his piloting skills others said he had a tendency to become distracted. (All of the above is documented in the thread) Also the weather wasn’t nice not even Fetzer claims this. .... ????Several Democratic senators voted against the war Who said they weren't able conduct an investigation. Why seperate the two? I would assume because there was no evidence the two were connected if by war on terror you mean Al Queda I'm truely at a loss to get what you are driving at. Do think Walker's post proved anything.Was Zack the culprit? He could well be but that is far from proven. Did the FBI fail to investigate him properly? The evidence for that is lacking too..

Politics in the US is of course dominated by 2 parties the Democrats who are considered the liberal party and the Republicans the conservative party. I already cite a source indicating that traditionally 90% of American Jews from the period in question voted for the Democrats. [ http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_co...Republicans.htm ] In that same period less than half of Americans traditionally voted for the Democrats. I guess it depends on how you define "few and far between" but to me 1 in 10 qualifies. By American standards a person who consistently voted for Republican candidates would be considered conservative or rightwing, one who alternated their vote a centrist and one who consistently voted for the Democrats or leftist candidates liberal/left. The exception would be conservative white southerners who reflexively voted for the Democrats because the Republicans were the "party of Lincoln" and till about 1924 the more progressive / less regressive party on racial issues. Southerners who from 1924 till about 1964 voted for Democratic presidential candidates can be divided into 2 groups, 1) white conservatives who voted for them out of habit and 2) white liberals and African Americans who supported their politics. There were relatively few Jews in the south and presumably most of them belong to the 2nd group We can look at how Jews compared to Americans in general voted in presidential elections. A more legible version of the table below can be downloaded by clicking the following link . Popular vote in US presidential elections 1924 - 76 Jews -Gen. Pop. 1924 -Coolidge ®-27-54 -Davis (D)-51-29 -La Folette (Progressive)-22-16 1928 -Hoover ®-28-58 -Smith (D)-72-41 1932 -Hoover ®-18-40 -Roosevelt (D)-82-57 1936 -Landon ®-15-36 -Roosevelt (D)-85-61 1940 -Wilkie ®-10-44 -Roosevelt (D)-90-55 1944 -Dewey ®-10-46 -Roosevelt (D)-90-53 1948 -Dewey ®-10-45 -Truman (D)-75-50 -Wallace (Progressive)-15-3(?) 1952 -Eisenhower ®-36-55 -Stevenson (D)-64-44 1956 -Eisenhower ®-40-57 -Stevenson (D)-60-42 1960 -Nixon ®-18-49.5 -Kennedy (D)-82-49.7 1964 -Goldwater ®-10-38 -Johnson (D)-90-61 1968 -Nixon ®-17-43.4 -Humphrey (D)-81-42.7 -Wallace (I)-2-13.5 1972 -Nixon ®-35-60.2 -McGovern (D)-65-37.3 1976 -Ford ®-27-48 -Carter (D)-71-50 -McCarthy (I)-2-2 Data for Jewish vote from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html Data for popular vote from "United States History: Search For Freedom" and http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?type=national&year=1924&f=1&off=0&elect=0 In this period 10% of Jews consistently voted for the Republican candidate or a candidate to his right (G. Wallace '68), 60% consistently voted for the Democrat or a candidate to his left (La Folette '24, H. Wallace '48, McCarthy '76) ', 30 % alternated their votes. Thus based on their presidential votes by American standards 10% of Jews were rightwing, 30 centrist and 60% liberal. If we look at the period 1932 – 1968 we can see that only one Republican candidate, Ike, got more than 18% of the vote getting 36 and 40 % in '52 and '56. I imagine most of this shift was due to his status as a national hero as the "liberator of Europe" which would have been especially compelling to Jews a mere 7 and 11 years after the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed. Thus we could say of that period 60% voted consistently for liberal/leftist candidates, 22% only voted Republican when Ike was the candidate, 8% alternated between liberal and conservative candidates in other elections, 10 consistently voted for the Republican candidate. By this standard 82% were left/liberal, 8% centrists and 10% conservative. If we compare this to the general population from the same period (1932 -68) 38% consistently voted Republican, 42 voted Democrat and 20 varied their vote, it should be noted that a significant portion of the Democrats popular vote 1924 – 1960 were conservative white southerners. So instead you used a definition which better suited your argument and ignored the definition used by your souce. That's turning logic on its head "If you think equating racketeers with political parties is a bit of a stretch, you are more naive than I thought." This question is becoming circular. Even getting involved with politicians doesn't make racketeers political. I obviously meant that in context of groups having a political view point (e.g. liberal, conservative, extreme right). Provide evidence that Cohen's gang had a political orientation. Effectively you did. That's what I said (see post 19) and what you challenged (see post 23) "You've failed to show that right wing groups cannot be pro-Israel. That's the debate. You've totally failed to prove your highly questionable hypothesis." That's not what I said. I referred explicitly to EXTREME right (as opposed to merely right) in the late 50's early – 60's. If you want to end this debate I acknowledge that: 1) There probably were conservative groups back then which supported Israel, I never denied this. 2) Depending on how you define "extreme right" there could be some extreme right groups that are pro-Israel. I did deny this in my 1st post but my emphasis was always on the period before the assassination. Are you willing to acknowledge that 1) most (if not all) extreme right groups in the early 60s were anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and 2) you can't produce any evidence of exceptions? No, it's not. If it were accurate it wouldn't be a straw man. Len

LOL Jack you spent 30 minutes reading that and didn't realize that it his chapter from "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"? You know the book you both contributed to 3 years ago. Didn't you read it when it first came out? It didn't strike you as familiar? I skimmed but it didn't notice any new despite his claim that it was revised. He didn't even change the first line "During the past six months or so I have designed graphics…" Perhaps David can highlight what if anything is new here. I didn't find the chapter particularly compelling last time around. It still doesn't answer any of the questions he didn't answer in any of the innumerous threads about Z – film alteration. No where in it does he cite any films from that period with alterations comparable to what was alleged in Hoax Zavada replied to Hoax soon after it came out. We're still waiting for Healy's "formal claim" which he declared publicly would be ready "soon" 8 months ago a month before Zavada privately said he would write a new treatise but it would "take some time". Speaking of which Healy has yet to provide any evidence that Zavada said it would be ready soon or admit he was wrong.

That comment was basically added as an after thought. Nathaniel missed the part where I said the quick destruction of steel was largely a myth. The steel wasn’t removed as quickly as the “inside jobbers” make out. The last steel wasn’t even removed from Ground Zero until 8 ½ months after the attacks http://www.wndu.com/news/052002/news_14322.php During this period numerous volunteers as well as emergency personnel and construction crews etc had access to GZ. Many of the clean up workers came from controlled demolition companies. I don’t know of any reporting they saw anything suspicious. A controlled demolition expert said “Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event, You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.” http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78...000f932a8c0____ An architect who doubts “the official story” who visited GZ a few weeks after -11 report he extensively examined and photographer structural steel from the towers and saw “no signs of melting” http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/wtc.htmlh A Professor of structural engineering at the University of California Berkeley who study the collapses said he was given full access to wreckage of the towers http://www.designnews.com/article/CA636342...ndustryid=43653 The same controlled demolition expert quoted above spoke to the people who handled the steel and the told him there was no undue rush to remove the steel from GZ or the landfills where numerous forensic engineers and others had access to it. http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STU...rd%208-8-06.pdf pg. 8 Exerts who had access to the debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill came from 24 local, state, and federal agencies including 1000 FBI agents specially trained in evidence recovery from 55 cities. But hey they were all probably in on it. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov03/nyhs112703.htm Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the American Society of Civil Engineers / Structural Engineers Association of New York ASCE / SEAoNY) Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which produced the so called FEMA Report told the House of Representatives: “There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures". www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm The National Fire Protection Association, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers also participated in that initial study. Did any of the numerous highly qualified structural, civil and fire engineers from the ASCE, SEAoNY, NFPA or SFPE who participated in that study complain that inadequate access to the steel hampered their report? No. A few engineer who did not participate in that study the recyling of the steel compromised the final result but none of them challenged the collapse theory. One of them assistant fire chief, professor of fire science and (former) associate editor of Fire Engineering magazine Glenn Corbett worked on the more comprehensive NIST Report (also with about 200 other engineers most of who didn’t work for NIST or other federal agencies. Another was Corbett’s boss at the magazine, former chief editor Bill Manning (who isn’t a fire a engineer but a journalist) but he welcomed the NIST report. http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis..._NUM=1&p=25 Over 1300 pieces of steel from the towers are still in a hanger at JFK Airport where I believe they are fairly available for inspection. http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...gallery?index=1 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf The theory that a combination of impact and fire damage caused the towers to collapse has yet to be challenged by anyone with relevant expertise and has been back by literally hundreds of highly qualified engineers. For all the talk of people who believe just about every CT under the sun that they are free of mental conformity normally the exact opposite is true. Instead of conforming mentally to what they hear on Fox and see on other “MSM outlets” they do so with the CT cites they spend so much time on. It doesn’t seem to occur to them to independently verify what they read on them. Nathaniel your coworkers and the "tweedy professors" you so disdain are right. Len

Damn Owen ya beat me to iT .More from the same site LOL All this was explained long ago. The hijackers were not identified because the medical examiner didn’t have DNA samples from relatives for comparison. The passenger manifestos Olmsted refers to are really victims lists complied from media reports (which explains a few discrepancies) which specifically excluded the names of the hijackers who murdered them. http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html http://www.911myths.com/html/autopsy_list.html http://www.911myths.com/html/cnn_passenger_lists.html The Boston Globe obtained the official manifestos of the two Boston flights and the names of the hijackers are on them http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_manifests.html

Scott that's interesting. Can you refer us to a link that discusses this?One thing that the people who complain about the steel removal fail to take into account is that there wasn't a lot of spare space in the NYC area for thousands of cubic feet of debris.

You're quoting Wikipedia, are you serious? Couldn't you find a definition from a more definitive source? Or did you look at several and cherry pick the one that best suited your argument? You even cherry picked (not coincidentally I would suggest) the last part of their definition. Definitions of the phrase in the order I found them: American Heritage Dictionary 1. The conservative or reactionary faction of a group. See right http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...ntry/right+wing Right noun - 3. often Right 1.The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called right wing . The opinion of those advocating such measures. Webster's Dictionary Function: noun 1 : the rightist division of a group or party 2 : RIGHT 8 http://m-w.com/dictionary/right%20wing 8 a often capitalized : individuals professing support of the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and conservative governmental policies b often capitalized : a conservative position Compact Oxford English Dictionary right wing • noun 1 the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system. see LEFT WING. 2 the right side of a sports team on the field or of an army. — DERIVATIVES right-winger noun. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rightwing?view=uk 7 (often the Right) treated as sing. or pl. a group or political party favouring conservative views. So right wing is a relative expression and the standards of the US in the 50s and 60s Jews were overwhelmingly not right-wing. Even if we would accept the definition of your favored source you are pinning your hopes and the last part of the definition "the opposite of left-wing politics". And how does Wikipedia define "left-wing politics"? Read it yourself. "In politics, left-wing, the political left or simply the left are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of, to varying extents, socialism, anarchism, communism, social democracy, progressivism, American liberalism or social liberalism, and defined in contradistinction to its polar opposite, the right." Did you simply not bother to click the link to check how Wikipedia defined "left-wing politics" or did you see it and conveniently ignore it? The evidence suggests the vast majority of American Jews supported "American Liberalism" traditionally 90 of them voted for the Democratic party though (unfortunately) those numbers have dropped to 60 -75% http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_co...Republicans.htm In the 1960's Nathan Glazer, a (liberal Jewish) sociologist, wrote "Jews are the most liberal group in the country," http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/FalkBooklet.pdf pg. 10 In 2000 a Historian who teaches at San Francisco State University concluded in a book publish by Princeton University. "For over sixty years, Jews have ranked as the most liberal white ethnic group in American politics, figuring prominently in social reform campaigns ranging from the New Deal to the civil rights movement. Today many continue to defy stereotypes that link voting patterns to wealth." http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6952.html My request is not silly, if my assertion is so obviously wrong you should easily be able to come up with contrary evidence rather than simply assert it is self evident. You have yet to turn up evidence that Cohen, let alone his gang as a group were right-wing let alone extreme right. It's "a bit of a stretch" because as Norman pointed out (specifically in the case of Lansky) mobsters generally are not political their only interest in politics and politicians is how it and they can further their criminal enterprises. I doubt the author of that line about Lemnitzer had criminal organizations in mind. Mark so far you have utterly failed to turn up any evidence of pro-Israel extreme right groups in the US in the late 50's early 60's, let alone ones that Lemnitzer associated with. "Until recently you were denying the existence of the Kosher Nostra." Straw man

An obvious solution is for the poster to erase the content of duplicate message him or herself . This would be especially helpful if the post is long and or has images.

Admittedly, I've been busy doing things you can only dream of: making a living; making love; not falling asleep in a recliner; being regular; etc. Just think how much more peaceful it'll be when God yanks your cord. Earth to John: This is at least the third time this wacco has called for someone's DEATH. Free sppech is one thing but hate seech should not be tolerated on a forum dedicated to education. BS has zero to offer the research community. His continued presence here probally drives away a lot of interested newcomers. I would bet if we took a poll to ban him he'd get one vote to remain: his own Dawn Dawn – I agree with you that BS is obnoxious but as Bill pointed out in this case Jack provoked this. I remember when Jack accused BS, Craig, Bill and me of being accessories to the murder of JFK and you were silent, but when we replied with indignation you asked why we were ganging up him. When Evan got pissed off because Jack accused him of hacking the forum you told him it was a joke and that he should grow up. BS's comment however in bad taste could be considered a joke too. I sense a double standard, when Jack is obnoxious you're silent but when his 'victims' reply you jump to his defense and criticize them. I once said Jack was the worst provocateur on the forum, I was wrong that 'honor' probably belongs to BS but Jack probably comes in 2nd or 3rd.Len

By pattern of action do you mean cover up? In the case of the JFK assassination the evidence that one existed is very strong as it is with 9/11 but in the latter case the evidence points to a CYA type cover up rather LIHOP or MIHOP. The evidence for the latter (MIHOP) is especially lacking. If on the other hand you mean that in both cases what happened has been disputed and is likely to be disputed for a long time the same could be said about just about every historic event, think of Pearl Harbor, Watergate, the Lincoln Assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident etc etc. "Quote:"Demonstration of ignorance #1, Let us simply say there were 12 men who hijacked seperate aircraft… Uh, 19 men if YOU are that ignorant of the case 1) you have no right berating others for theirs 2) how valid is your opinion?" " I wasn't talking about "the case" Mr.-too-busy-calling-me-ignorant. I simply pulled a number out of the air to demonstrate the definition of the word: conspiracy. It certainly sounded like you were referring to 9/11 you could have made it clearer you were making a hypothetical example by talking about a different type of crime. And it was you who started a thread bemoaning the ignorance of those who hold contrary views. Obviously most people who use the term conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist are aware of the meaning of conspiracy. But the phase normally connotes a conspiracy involving powerful secret groups (or powerful known groups acting covertly) and an explanation that duffers from the commonly accepted one. I however normally avoid using the phase regarding 9/11 to avoid semantic arguments like this one. "I would say my opinions are quite valid, in that i've spent decades researching the machinations and atrocities of this government." I am well aware of the misdeeds of the US and other governments which is why I never deny Bush and Co. were capable (morally) of doing such a thing it's just that the evidence supporting such claims does not hold up to scrutiny. Based on your comments in this post you have NOT researched 9/11 that closely. "And i'm always open to new input, which you clearly are not." So you judge me based on minimal evidence and I'm close minded one? I have researched most of the claims about 9/11 and found them lacking. I look at LIHOP/MIHOP, debunking and neutral sites. My impression is that most "inside jobbers" look only or primarily at sites that reinforce their beliefs and do little very claims made there on. "I find it quite telling that all your arguements focus soley on the towers; a good researcher examines all the evidence as a whole:" That was only one paragraph of one thread; once again you reached a conclusion based on minimal and insufficient evidence. If you had even bothered to look around this section of the forum you'd have noticed I comment on various aspects of the case. "Bush doing nothing, Bush not even looking surprised (much less angry) when someone came up to him and whispered what had happened,…" He always struck me as a clueless idiot who didn't know what to do or say or how to act without Carl Rove or some other handler giving him a script. Don't you think if they knew what was going to happen they would have planed a photo op of him acting all presidential? He ended up getting mocked on SNL and in a Leslie Neilson movie (not sure of the title I only saw the trailer) "the quick destruction of evidence (the steel debris. Shades of JFK's limo);" That is largely a myth some of the steel is still in a hanger at JFK, much of it wasn't removed from GZ let alone the landfill for many months during which time people had access to it. Some forensic experts complained about this, others said it wasn't a problem "the relationship between the Bush family and the Saud family," I assume you mean the bin-Ladens, they are a big family, I think Osama has something like 50 brothers. Both families were in the petroleum business. Show me a connection between Osama and Bush and you might be on to something. In any case most inside jobbers claim that bin-Laden didn't have anything to do with the attacks and that the tape in which he denied it is authentic but the ones in which he takes credit crude fakes. "the people running down the stairwells who heard a continual series of explosions on different floor levels" Fires tend to cause things to explode and explosion like noises are not always explosions. People reported explosions in the Windsor building too. There were explosions in the lobbies of both towers caused by jet fuel coming down shafts in the core. Elevators are believed to have dropped to the bottoms of their shafts. Many of the people have been selectively quoted. Tell me the names of people other than Rodriguez and his 3 coworkers who were in the towers who say they believe the towers were demoed. AFAIK there aren't any. "the goverment officials from the mayor of San Fransisco to various members of Congress and Senate who changed their air travel plans for Sept. 11 (not to mention the ones who were warned ahead of time not to fly on that day)." I'm not familiar with the supposed cases of the senators and members of the House, there is a tread here were I debunked the brouhaha over Willie Brown. The truth is that Brown a liberal Democrat was on his way to the airport that morning despite having gotten a vague warning not specifically for 9-11-01. "I could go on (the stand down orders to our figher jets, and the F-16s that flew at half speed)" There is a thread about that too. "but if you don't grasp my point by now, i'd simply be wasting my time." No I get you point, I've already heard just about all the arguments made by the "truth movement". Not only have I heard them, I've looked into them and found them wanting. "Truthers" often like to talk about the cumulative weight of the evidence but dozens of baseless claims still adds up to nothing, a million times zero is still zero. "Since you're a True Believer and you know so much; why are you here insulting people when you could do something productive like join the Army and ship out to Iraq?" One doesn't follow from the other, Chomsky, Edward Said and Ward Churchill among other well known leftists don't (didn't) believe 9/11 was an "inside job" either, even Carlos the Jackal said he believes OBL did it. Even Josiah "Tink" Thompson author of Six Seconds in Dallas who is still very much a conspiracist on the JFK case and no fan of Bush extensively researched the collapse of 7 WTC thinks that "inside job" theories are lunacy.

Do you seriously believe such a dopey statement or are you just kidding me? OK prove me wrong, I didn't say rightwing Jews didn't exist just that weren't very many. If I'm wrong you should be able to cite an extensive list of rightwing Jews in the US and the names of rightwing Jewish organizations from that period. No, I was pointing out a logical fallacy, one could say they have a) read something before and believe to be true about just about anything thus it proves nothing. Even IF Lemnitzer was pro-Israel that wouldn't implicate Israel. I assume he supported the government of Australia too. No, look up the meaning of, 'straw man argument' (or fallacy), a straw man argument is when you refute an argument not made by the person you are debating with. I never said that "being right-wing and pro-Israel ARE mutually exclusive" Cohen and Begin were both violent men with similar ethnic backgrounds; can you show that they associated because of shared politics or any indication that Cohen and his gang would otherwise be considered "extreme right" in the US? This quote from your previous post seems to indicate Cohen didn't know or care much about the differences between Israeli political factions. "Anyway, he (Begin) makes a speech and after him just about everybody made a speech. It just goes on and on. Afterwards, these other guys from the Haganah, another underground outfit, start arguing with Begin about who's going to handle the money. So Mickey chips in and its agreed that his rabbi will handle the money and Mickey will buy guns and ammo and ship them over there"." In any case equating a racketeering outfit with a political organization is a bit of a stretch. Did Lemnitzer hang out with Mickey Cohen? Len Nat, is this what you mean? Stephen, I was familiar with the Walker stuff. What I had heard much less about was Ford and Lyman in 1975. It seems an interesting appointment made by a member of the Warren Commission at a time when there may have been some worry that legislative oversight of the CIA might finally prove to be something other than an oxymoron. Any signs that this appointment was related to the assassination? The bit about Lemnitzer being on the Rockefeller Commission is interesting, it goes beyond conflict of interest and makes one think of line about the fox and the hen house but Ford probably didn’t know about O. Northwoods. Didn’t they reveal MLK/Ultra?

Thanks for that Norman. I guess I was wrong about that. What I really meant to say was that Lansky only started supporting Israeli later in life. If you still have the book handy or have a good memory I have few questions:When did he start raising money for Israel? Was this an individual effort or did he involve his gang? Was he particularly political? If so what were his leanings? Did involve his gang in his political activism? Did Lemnitzer have any dealings with Lansky or his gang? To make a long story short is there any truth to Mark’s contention that Lansky’s gang was an extreme right pro-Israel organization in the late 50’s early 60’s? Len