Len Colby

It's like this....when I pointed out errors about your poll question interpretations, you selectively answered what you wanted to and ignored the rest. Even in that context, your answers left much to be desired. I don't have to put up anything nor do I have to shut up. Your words speak for themselves, just as mine do. Anyone so inclined (and I doubt there are any) can go back to that eight line sentence and see how poorly it was constructed and how patently ridiculous your claims were. They don't need me to point anything out. And as for me pointing them out to you? I don't think so. Especially in light of your clumsy taunts. In other words you can't identify any mistakes and you don't have the courage to admit it. Back to the subject of the thread. Jack / Peter - Do you have evidence that the column in the photo WASN'T cut with a torch or that the photo was taken before the clean up began?

I don't suppose you could point out the supposed factual errors in the sentence you are referring too? Like so many other issues in this thread, your suppositions are mistaken. Of course I could point them out; but since they are self-evident to any careful reader, I've chosen not to extend this debate with you at this time. I'll respond to you on my terms, not yours.... especially since that's the way you elected to respond to my comments. Great cop out answer Mike. If the errors are so self-evident you should have no trouble pointing them out, wouldn't that be easier than continuing to make excuses? In the words of Plato "Put up or shut up!"

I don't suppose you could point out the supposed factual errors in the sentence you are referring too? Still waiting Mike!

Can’t say much about the book I haven’t even heard of most of the contributors but apparently none of them is a civil engineer. A book contending (among other things) that the world’s largest structural collapse didn’t happen as numerous qualified experts concluded it did would carry more weight if the editors could find a single person with applicable qualifications to back that thesis. Not only are there no engineers among the contributors but the lead technical chapter, Dr. Jones error filled paper, wasn’t reviewed by engineers. Editor David Griffin thinks that review by engineers would have as appropriate as review by “morticians… or insurance scam experts” (e-mail to author). Such disdain for practitioners of the field most applicable to the collapse of the towers is a common trait among leaders of the “truth movement” ST911 founder James Fetzer condemned them to hell at least twice: “I am disgusted, disgusted with the structural engineers who know the truth about this and are keeping their mouth shut. There’s a special place in hell reserved for them. And they are going to deserve it” June 29th, 2006 Jim Fetzer interview with Judy Wood, http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html “I suggest that hell has a special place reserved for those like them (structural engineers) who betray their own nation.” http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread214717/pg1 I know that publisher’s blurbs are often not written or even approved by the authors / editors of a book that the blurb for this one starts with deception is another bad sign. The publisher’s description begins “Practically from the moment the dust settled in New York and Washington after the attacks of September 11, a movement has grown of survivors, witnesses, and skeptics who have never quite been able to accept the official story.” (see Jack’s link). This is highly misleading because survivors and witnesses have been notably absent from the ranks of the “truth” movement. AFAIK the only survivors amongst the 20,000 or so from the WTC are William Rodriguez and two of his co-workers and an EMT who also claims she saw a plane explode over NJ that morning. Rodriguez his coworkers as noted elsewhere only made their accusation after getting involved in a lawsuits and his comments contradict Rodriguez’s earlier comments. I know of no survivors from the Pentagon that back their theories. How the backers of these ideas expect anyone to take a theory not back by experts or credible witnesses seriously is beyond me.

If you are disingenuous how will we ever know when to take you seriously? You're still play acting since on another thread you replied to me with "smutty language" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6655&view=findpost&p=72145 So this whole act of yours of having Victorian morals is rather unconvincing no one on this forum AFAIK has ever suggested you perform a sex act on them (or anyone else). I won't pretend to be offended by such language, I grew up in New York after all, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Not that relevant because your were pushing the "Israeli spy ring" story as evidence of that country's involvement in 9/11 you have not replied to my debunkings of the "art students" and "movers" stories. The Bollyn articles had nothing to do with that. As for Cameron, he like Bollyn isn't very good at providing evidence to back his claims since his article about the art student ring was so distorted it's had to put credence in his other similar claims without documentation. Without documentation his article is just the undocumented claims of a "journalist" with an "ax to grind" and a credibility problem. That article lacks it doesn't reflect well on him. Very big "IF" this has nothing to do with the supposed spyring. Bollyn lied about Huntleigh which was only responsible for security for United at Logan, similar problems were identified at other terminals of the same airport whose security was run by other companies. The other hijacked flights left from terminals where English and Swedish companies ran security. Argenbright Security a unit of Securicor PLC, in Sutton, Surrey, England Security at Dulles, Terminal D, where AA Flight 77 departed Security at Newark, Terminal A, where UAL Flight 93 departed Globe Aviation Services a unit of Securitas AB which is based in Stockholm Sweden Security at Logan, Terminal B, where AA Flight 11 departed Huntleigh USA Corp., a unit of ICTS International NV, in the Netherlands. Security at Logan, Terminal D, where UAL Flight 175 departed http://www.planesafe.org/legislation/Ltr_S...0%2Bairports%22 This once again points to Bollyn's weaknesses as "journalist", wasn't it up to him to elaborate? By "granted complete congressional protection" he meant congress gave them immunity from lawsuits (see previous link). Why exactly they did this I don't know perhaps some sleazy backroom politicking perhaps a recognition that these companies did get a lot of money and thus their cutting of corners was in part at least the responsibility of the federal government. What is so explosive about that line? What does it prove? Sid you are really too transparent. The only connection between these guys is that they happen to be Jewish. The Russian mob is only partially Jewish anyway.Would it be fair if I pointed to Mel Gibson, his dad, the Cronulla Beach rioters, Fredrick Toben and you and implied that Australians were in general bigots? There's a rather unpleasant recent footnote to this story. Chris Bollyn was arrested and beaten by police in Chigago, after he himself had called the police to report on suspicious and intimidating activities in his own suburb. His post-release account is HERE. Bollyn was working on a follow-up article to his American Free Press article on Comverse and its Israeli founder who has fled US justice. This article was mentioned in my previous post on this thread. All we have is Bollyn's account to go on, and he has proven to be less than reliable in the past.

No comment is really necessary but Jack I'll add that you are right normally "splitting hairs over word definitions is not research" but the person who initiated the hair splitting was you not Chris. Also this is yet another example of you being guilty of what you so complain about others doing a personal attack, obviously consistency is not one of your hobgoblins! Len

Jack What exactly would be the point of altering details of blurry photos like these? What do you think was “covered up” by these alterations? What would the point be of deleting “the third man” from this photo? Don’t you think that all these supposed alteration you see are really just the result of the poor resolution of these images. Len

After a little digging I found the raw data of the poll, from context it seems obvious that those who answered “somewhat likely” only gave such theories ABOUT a 50 – 50 chance of being true: I think we can assume the 16% of the population that believer it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that explosives were planted are by and large the same people as the 16% who think participation by “people in the federal government”. So 6% of the population think it’s very likely explosives where planted and that there was government involvement, 10% believe that the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) or MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) theories are “very likely” to be true and that the planting of explosives is a possibility. 20% believe that LIHOP or MIHOP are possible but doubt the use of explosives. As for LIHOP I’ve never ruled that out, but I have yet to see evidence that’s true. Interestingly another question returned similar numbers . I don't suppose you could point out the supposed factual errors in the sentence you are referring too?

Steve I doubt you’ll get a straight answer to your question from Peter or Jack. Fact is no one really knows when the photo was taken or even exactly where. No one except the photographer, but since no one knows who the photographer is that leaves us back where we started. The photo comes from the “This is New York” site, it’s image 5100 http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp...5&picnum=13 and just like the thousands of images on the site was taken and donated by an anonymous contributor.

I guess that just means you are going to waste time on something else. That's certainly okay with everyone, I'm sure. Just think Len, if you hadn't brought up the topic in the first place, you wouldn't have wasted any of your time (or ours) at all. Mike if you think my posts are a waste of time you are free to skip over them. Who are you to presume to speak for "everyone"? Never claimed to be an expert on the English language, but it seems obvious to me if someone says they think something is “somewhat likely” especially as opposed to “very likely” they don’t think that the probability that it is true is very high. You’re right I did make a mistake; such errors of course are not uncommon in forum postings which are normally hastily written. Are you sure if I comb over every one of your posts I wouldn’t find any errors?

According to The LONGMAN DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH 'somewhat' means "more than a little but not very" http://www.ldoceonline.com/ According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (the full version is only available to subscribers) 'somewhat' means "to some extent" http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/somewhat?view=uk According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 'somewhat' means "slightly" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...4&dict=CALD According to the Cambridge Dictionary of American English 'somewhat' means "to some degree" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...*1+0&dict=A Likely can't modify the meaning of 'somewhat' because it isn't a 'modifier'. As a modifier 'somewhat' can't be used on its own the sentence "Twenty of respondents overall said it is "somewhat" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." Would have no meaning in English when we talk about the extent of something we normally use the adjective or adverb that indicates to a positive degree 'tall', 'old', 'expensive' etc. Modifiers show that we think these to be true to a greater or lesser degree so "somewhat likely" vs. "very likely". Don't expect me to waste more time on this. And no I don't " think that anyone who does not agree with (me) is either "mudslinging" or "silly" " which is why I rarely make such comments. So cut it with your silly mudslinging! Len The burden of proof is on people who doubt the scientifically accepted version of why the towers collapsed because they have yet to find a single qualified expert to back their version of events, because of the approximately 20,000 people who were there at the time only 3 or 4 back their version of events (about 0.02 %) and they all have credibility problems, because their claims don't stand up to scrutiny or prove nothing, because the collapses were among the most closely studied events in history and several independent studies have all reached the same basic conclusion: a combination of structural damage from the impacts combined with weakening of the remaining structure by the fires (exacerbated by thousands of gallons of jet fuel and damage to the fireproofing). Edit - diction error corrected see below.

A rather unconvincing article, as seems to be inevitable with "inside side job" writings the author is writing far outside his area of specialty. In this case the author is presumably Jim Hoffman, the site's webmaster, a computer programmer. Except for the following sentence "Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intragranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.", he never says what exactly is so suggestive of explosives. There is no documentation that Jones made such a comment or elaboration as to how he (Jones) reached that conclusion. Metallurgy it should be pointed out is not one of Jones' areas of specialty either, he is a particle physicist whose area of specialty in nuclear energy. What Hoffman left out of his article were explanations of the eutectic reactions from the WPI article that he himself cited, once again calling into question the intellectual honesty of "inside job" proponents. The quoted scientists of course unlike Hoffman and Jones are qualified to postulate about such matters Other scientists have suggested gypsum from drywall, heating oil and diesel fuel (several thousand gallons weren't recovered from 7 WTC) as potential sources of sulfur. Also nothing in any of the sources Hoffman cited suggests any of the scientists suspects explosives or thermite and nothing in any of the sources supports his contention that eutectic reactions were "never before observed in building fires". Another weak article no sources at all are cited. Once again reference is made to the radio communication of Chief Orio Palmer. He did say he saw two small fires he could easily knock down but he was in an enclosed stairwell not the sky lobby as the author falsely claims. NIST never speculated that fires were very intense on the 78th floor any way, in fact they said ""there was only light fire activity observed on the 78th floor" http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html According to Webster's LIKELY means "having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable. Other dictionaries give similar definitions. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/likely That's what 'likely' means when it's NOT preceded by a modifier. Most people would understand "somewhat likely" to mean possible but not very probable hence the options given to the respondents: 'very likely', 'somewhat likely' and presumably 'not very likely'. Let's try and not get too silly here Mike. Len

Dave I won't even bother responding to you attempt at grade school humor I've been too old for that for well over 30 years now, how old are you? Around 60 isn't it? Seeeeesh! Just when are we to expect your "formal claim"? Been 8 months now. remember the one you promised us all was going to be ready soon. Zavada privately promised his report 6 months ago (not 8) and said it was "going to take some time".

David, you are not attempting to tell us that Sherry should be faulted for offering an opinion by using the exact same film that Costella used to make his claims - ARE YOU??? dgh: of course, you think a first generation copy of the film was made privy to us? You lone nutters are terrified of that kind of occurence. Sherry has inside moves she can make, perhaps SHE can comment, or are you HER spokesperson (you do wear many hats) too? PS Can anyone tell me the names of some of these scientist that Costella wrote about below??? “More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film." email and ask Costella -- better yet, YOUfind a scientist or "blood spatter" analyst that'll confirm or deny it, for the record of course... hell, find a particle effects compositing specialist and ask if blood spray recreation was possible in the early 60's [whoops, or were frames removed]. Bring him/her in here, we'll chat it up....maybe Sherry will run your errrands for you! David, I cannot find where in my reply that I was telling Len what to say? In fact, I was sarcastically supporting the ridiculous things you had said. wasn't you I was addressing champ -- you're answering for him so, again, does Len need your permission to speak? Or, is this an overt control problem rearing its ugly head, AGAIN? Bill Miller Bill - Trying to have an intelligent discussion with Healy is normally a waste of time. Len

This only happens rarely to me but there seem to be a few glitches with the software.You could try hitting the 'Edit' button and erasing the 2nd message. This will leave behind a 'black' post but that is preferable to a duplicate. Len

David can you name "an expert in optics and light" who backs Costella's position? Despite Fetzer's and now your insistence that he qualifies nothing in his resume suggests he has any expertise in either field, no degrees, no papers, no courses taught etc. Here for example is a list of his papers (none published in peer reviewed science journals, 3 were published in a journal concerned with teaching physics in the classroom another in a unreviewed online publication), which of these relate to optics or light. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...sics/index.html It also occurred to me that I’ve never seen Costella himself claim such expertise. Can you provide evidence he ever made such a claim? Maybe to a posting on a forum or a webpage he wrote or you could post an e-mail he sent you or Fetzer. Len

There are a few problems with the first (and second) Zogby poll. The first is that the wording of the questions induced answers desired by it sponsor a 9/11 "truth" group. According to the political science department of an American university The question was obviously engineered to induce as many yes votes as possible almost as leading as the question cited above. A more neutrally worded question (Do you believe that some leaders…?) obviously would have returned less yes votes. Another issue is response bias, the poll had about 48 questions not including demographics (race, income etc) and obviously had an agenda. I imagine that people who questioned the official 9/11 would be more willing that others to spend time responding, incomplete polls are not calculated. The report above discusses response bias. The question is a bit vague I might even have voted yes. But answering does necessarily mean that the respondent believes bombs were planted in the towers or even that Bush, "let it happen on purpose". Another issue is as Craig very undiplomatically put it, "yes" answers are disproportionately associated with minorities and people with lower income levels both of which are associated with lower educational levels. In the second Zogby poll respondents were asked about educational level and the preponderance "yes" answers decreased the greater the person's educational level. [ http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZog...FinalReport.htm ]This fits with no one with technical expertise and only 3 out of thousands of survivors publicly backing such theories. In all three cases the more a person knows the less likely he or she is to back "inside job" theories. As for the Scripts Howard poll it didn't really show that "over a third" of Americans believe 9-11 conspiracy theories. "Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.". According to Webster's 'somewhat means "in some degree or measure : SLIGHTLY" [ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=somewhat ] other dictionaries give similar definitions. I might even agree there is a slight chance that the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory is possible. So in reality 36% believe such theories are possible not they are probable, it would be interesting to see the raw numbers to see how many gave the theory a better than 50-50 chance. The same logic applies to the 16% who "speculated" explosives brought down the towers, how many of them thought such a scenario was "somewhat likely" and how many "very likely"? Leading questions are actually statements disguised as questions, and make respondents feel that only one response is legitimate. For example: "Don't you agree that the look and feel of user interfaces should not fall under copyright protection?"

The quote function has gone haywire again. (Andy why does this happen?) Sid's comments in bold There you go again using Holocaust revisionist rhetoric. That's a big revisionist line 'victims at concentration camps only started dying towards the end the war when supplies became scarce', you forgot the part about blaming the Allies for bombing German supply lines. Prisoners in German concentration camps long before the end of the war. My father's father died after he was forced to sleep outside in the winter of 1938 in Dachau, I guess by your logic the Nazis didn't kill him the cold did and his death was just another "tragedy" of the war. LOL to refute the charge that you are a Holocaust revisionist you cite something from the IHR perhaps the world's most infamous revisionist site, though ironically the author was Jewish. From what I understand most of what he wrote is accurate. Congratulation you may have found one of the few case where conditions at Allied camps approached those of Nazi ones. Can you cite any examples of such camps run by the Western Allies? I think most people would agree that the behavior of the guards and directors of those camps was criminal but that their status as recently freed concentration camp survivors qualifies as extenuating circumstances. Nothing in the authors claims indicate actual mistreatment of Axis prisoners and he (she?) failed to back his (her?) claims. Also note the date Aug. 4 was three months after the end of hostilities in Europe. Yeah, your right don't want to give Nazi's a bad name they did make great cars after all. I don't know Sid the more you try to explain your position the worse you sound. When have I ever indicated that the Allies behavior was "near-perfect"? "Unmitigated evil" however is pretty good description of the Nazi concentration camp / genocide program ?????? Back to your history books Sid. Hitler had made his expansionist goals including taking over France, Eastern Europe and finally the USSR back in Mein Kampf. His illegal build up of the Germany military and take overs of Austria and Czechoslovakia showed that he meant business. Britain and France signed mutual defense treaties with Poland, Hitler and the whole world knew what the consequences of his unprovoked attack of Poland would be. Let's not also forget that except for a few small skirmishes in 1939 actually hostilities were initiated by the Nazi's not the French. An act of war doesn't necessarily justify invasion and occupation of the offending country. One of the reasons for the Six-Day War was Egypt's closure of the Strait of Tiran to Israeli ships. Israeli's critics say that country should only have used sufficient force to reopen the Strait, Britain did not invade Argentina after it invaded the Falklands. True but Iraq violated the treaty it had signed at the end of the 1st Gulf War (not that this justified the invasion) I think very few people would share you twisted take on that or even did back then. Can you cite any French collaborators who used that as their rationale? .How about that the regime that preceded the occupation brutally oppressed them, if they are Shiites or Kurds or members of other ethnic groups? How about that the occupiers are trying at least to replace a brutal dictatorship with a democracy? How about that the preceding regime was at least partially responsible for the invasion by refusing to fully cooperate with the UN inspectors? Damn you got me talking like a Bush supporter now. I agree Guantanamo and 1391, if what is said about it is true, are blights, if you start such threads I might even weigh in on the same side as you. Or chosen not to invade his neighbors, odd that you failed to include that option. Oh, please remember what I said about "the more you try to explain your position the worse you sound" this is another example. Perhaps you should start a new thread with that as its thesis. I guess making "such a silly claim" is not really beyond you. Yes as you should well know since you are such a big fan of Holocaust revisionism. I don't think I ever misquoted you or anybody else nor intentionally misrepresented your or anybody else's views. Nor have I tried to exclude you or anybody else "from mainstream discourse", I after all defended M.C. Piper's right to join this forum. But just as you have a right to express your odious views I have a right to object to them. How generous of you! Sid, get off your friggin high horse, 1391 isn't a death camp nor are most prisons worldwide. Némirovsky's death was more than foreseeable because she was sent to a death camp. Have you really never heard of 'Operation Sea Lion' http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_sealion.htm No Sid you seem rather obsessed with revisionism, before Piper and you showed I rarely broached the subject. I do think it's a mistake to imprison people for stating their beliefs no matter how odious. But I find your use of the word historians (plural) rather curious because as far as I know the only revisionist (imprisoned or not) who can at all lay claim to such a title is David Irving. Since he has no degrees or any other formal training in the subject and has never been in any way associated with a college or university history department many debate whether he deserves such a title. You try to make it sound like there are actual legitimate doubts among historians about what happened during the Holocaust (regarding the claims made by revisionist) but that just ain't the case. I agree with you the Holocaust doesn't justify Israel's slaughter of Lebanese and Palestinians but I haven't seen it cited by the Israeli government. Again by your choice of words "a historical narrative preferred by Zionists and the Anglo-American establishment" makes it sound like there is serious debate about whether or not 10 – 12 million civilians including 5 – 6 million Jews were intentionally murdered in death camps and mass shootings by the Nazi's, there it i

1/ -alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,' I didn't mention "gas chambers". My only reference to delousing was: "Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing." Perhaps you need lessons in English comprehension, Len? Incidentally, do you 'deny' the existence of "delousing chambers" in these camps? If so, I think you may be at odds with almnost every authority on the subject - mainstream or not. Perhaps YOU are the one who needs to improve your reading comprehension, on the Jewish Conspiratol networks thread (where I said I'd reply to you at greater length) I wrote the following "As I mentioned on the other thread this kind of talk is straight out of Holocaust revisionism. The Nazi's did indeed install 'delousing showers' in many (most / all ?) concentration camps. By all accounts I've seen they were extremely ineffective (if effective at all). Their main function probably was to fool victims who were sent to near identical gas chambers. Perhaps Walker can cite a recognized historian who backs his claim that the Nazis "expended" "considerable effort … on delousing" in order to combat typhus ." And indeed it's true that Holocaust revisionists claim that there were no gas chambers only delousing chambers in the camps as you well know because you have cited such garbage yourself. Again, may I suggest reading comprehension lessons? I wrote: "-Némirovsky died in a camp set up with specific intent to commit murder, indeed the extermination of her race, I have seen no credible evidence that the Allies set up camps with the intent to kill anyone (except convicted war criminals). -The Nazi's of course were responsible for crating the subhuman conditions in the camps which led to the prevalence of typhus and similar diseases;" And indeed it's true that Holocaust revisionists claim that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder, you even echoed the idea again later in your reply (see below). LOL OK so you didn't say six you said half a dozen, the two statements were essentially the same. Obviously "war is replete with tragedies of all kinds." But just as obviously Némirovsky death was more than that it was part of an act of genocide. Funny this from the guy who complains about and feigns objection to "odd sexual innuendo" and "smutty language" like "pimping" and "intellectual masturbations" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=71510 You're not nearly as smart as you think you are you wrote "One could argue that by deporting her from France and sending her to a camp, she was ''effectively' murdered - but on that basis any of the 'enemy aliens' detained by the allies were also ''murdered', if they died while in custody."

Jack – You really must learn to keep up, as I already pointed out the Windsor Tower (Torre Windsor) in Madrid was of totally different construction than the WTC in that it was essentially a concrete framed building. The only part of it that was steel framed, the perimeter columns above the 17th floor collapsed.

duplicate post deleted

I don't feel obligated to answer your posts because you 'want' me to. I am putting information out for those on the internet and in the Forum. IMO your main modus operandi is to endlessly jawbone and stall everyone so they have less time to do things and [in your opinion] seem to have weaker arguements. Why don't YOU find the references and facts above? You can declare 'victory' all you want...another of your techniques when somone doesn't answer your ponderous replies of tar and syrup. However, even jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to significantly weaken steel and as anyone can see there were no raging fires - other than perhaps those set by the cutting charges. Your over-dissection of person's arguements is to divert from the larger picture and I won't play your game...maybe others will. I do NOT get the feeling that you are doing a back and forth to get closer to the truth...but to just tire those of us putting out the information and diverting us. The larger picture shows that on 911 a series of improbable events [some impossible!] happened one after the other and we are told to believe them.....the evidence doesn't support most of them, some evidence IMO is clearly indicative of controlled explosions in addition to the planes. Taken as a whole - and most individual pieces when looked at ALSO - do not conform in physics nor logic with the official version and to make the official version 'work' one has to posit that several hundred unlikely events [some of which never happened that way before] went back to back to just-so-happen to give them the New Pearl Harbor they so desperately wanted...... I will post more for all when I have time...not when you demand I do so. If it is just a 'style' difference between you and I, sorry...but I have said how I feel and think it goes beyond style to intent/motive. FYI and others... http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/ Peter, Your and Jack's M.O.s seem to be making also sorts of unsubstantiated claims and then to try to change the subject when legitimate questions are raised. The building six thread is an example Jack couldn't come up with evidence to back his assertions and you brought up irrelevant points such as the Windsor Tower, I debunk those points on another thread but rather than reply to them you bring up another smokescreen. And on this thread you guys can't back your assertions that the beam in the photo in the 1st post was cut with termite or that the photo of the woman by the hole proves that it didn't get hot enough to weaken steel anywhere in the Twin Towers so you brought up the issue of the pulverization of concrete but you have yet to as promised produce calculations showing there wasn't enough energy for that. So now you bring up another totally irrelevant topic the supposed beating of Chris Bollyn. The only evidence for this is Bollyn's own narrative but since he has been less than honest in the past I'm not convinced. FYI I never demanded that you or anybody else reply to me, but that is how debate on forums is supposed to work, a person states there point of view on a controversial subject some will voice agreement and others will raise objections and point out (perceived) problems with that POV and hopefully the person will be able to defend his or her point. Most people will assume that a person who refuses to defend their points (you in this case) doesn't because they can't. "However, even jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to significantly weaken steel and as anyone can see there were no raging fires" Once again you seem to be trying to debunk a theory you don't understand. No one is saying the jet fuel was what brought down the towers. It served a function akin to lighter fluid in a barbeque grill or an arsonist's bottle of accelerant. It ignited the office contents which quite certainly had the potential to burn hot enough to weaken steel. Test have show that home/office fires can reach 1120 C (2050 F) way past the point 1100 F (590 C) at which steel looses 50% of its strength and 1800F (980 C) where it looses 80%. If fire can't weaken steel then why have fire codes require that structural steel be fire proofed? As for your assertion that there were no signs of a raging fire, look at'em and weep. More can be seen here http://www.debunking911.com/fire2.htm Back to the cut beam. Let's consider this photo of a worker cutting a box column at ground zero. How about a close up? Looks sorta familiar doesn't it? Len PS tell what exactly in that plaugepuppy page you find so compelling. EDIT -typos

The first thing I thought when I heard the news was “How convenient for Bush, Blair and Musharef”. Actually that was the third thing I though the first was “$hit! I got a plane to catch Sunday!”, the second was “how long till people start saying the whole thing was made up?”. According to CNN http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12...plot/index.html and the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1842371,00.html and UPI http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...12-070103-3117r and the NY Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/442776p-372939c.html and CBS/AP http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/11/...in1889962.shtml and the Toronto Globe and Mail/AP http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/International and the CBC http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...an-arrests.html and over 25,000 other sources http://tinyurl.com/p8wg the message was coded. I guess you guys just missed that in your exhaustive research!!! Len

Peter / Jack etc, Still waiting for evidence that -the photo of the cut beam was taken before the cleanup process began -the cut could NOT have been made with a cutting torch or similar tool -could have been made with thermite or one of its derivatives Without the above it proves nothing Peter you wrote (in post # 7) "Welding and steel-cutting experts who have viewed this photograph have testified to Professor Jones that this column was not cut with a torch." Can you tell us who those experts are and where we can read there statements? You also wrote in the same post: "Here is another photo of another beam from WTC [no don't know date...] but it was certainly NOT cut by a welder and experts say looks like a thermite or thermate" Who are these "experts" and where can we verify their statements? What it the provenance of the photo how can we (you) be sure it was from the Trade Center? Why would two beams cut using the same method at (around) the same time, from the same (or an almost identical) building, look so different? In post 14 you wrote "On the matter of the fires in the WTC being so hot that they could explain the melting of the beams that supported the building, I submit this piece of evidence....in the photo in the circle is a woman alive and about to die from the collapse....but it is not too hot for her to stand there and hold on to the building in her last minutes alive...." and presented a photo of a person apparently holding a perimeter columns near a hole in one of the towers. Firstly neither the ASCE nor NIST nor the authors of most papers about the collapses ever claimed that the steel had melted only that it had weakened. At least know the theory you are trying to debunk before trying to debunk it. Can you tell us precisely where and when it was taken and its provenance? Which tower was it which floor, which side? What time was it exactly? Did NIST claim that that area of that floor was engulfed in flames at that time? If you had actually read the NIST report you would know they didn't claim, nor did the ASCE or anyone else who studied the collapses claim that all areas of the impact floor were equally hot from the moment of impact till the structures collapsed but rather that certain floors/areas were a lot hotter than others. How do we know there isn't a raging fire 20 – 30 -50 feet away? Have you ever been near a bonfire? It's not very hot only a few feet away. What drove her to stand on the edge of a building hundreds of feet of the ground? In another post you said (something to the effect of) you had been to the towers and they weren't that big, I suggest that your memory is failing you in this case, the floors towers were 208 x 208 feet (63 x 63 meters). Sorry but that photo, like the others, doesn't prove anything! Len

Peter’s latest tactic seems to post extremely long messages by cutting and pasting often without indicating what he feels those sources prove. As for the engineers he cites I’m very familiar with that article. The people cited are stationary engineers i.e. trained maintence workers, in any case I don’t see anything there that supports his case. Nor do many of the other quotes Many that see to are taken out of context http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm . The Paul Isaac quoted never was a real fireman and wasn’t at the trade center when the towers collapsed