Len Colby

Steve Your post is particularly misinformed They were however found scattered all over the place. You seem to be conflating two theories 1) that there really was no plane and that their was a plane but it was shot down. No bodies were found only small bits of human tissue. This and the fragmentation of the plane are consistent with a crash at 500 mph (800 kph) into the ground at a acute angle. The "debris" found "miles away" was mostly paper. I posted a photo of the debris field of an American Eagle crash there was no more plane left either. On Hoffman's site there are plenty of pix of crash sites where there is no recognizable planes either look at the pix of the planes that crashed in apt, buildings in Terhan and Amsterdam. Look at Ron's thread all the witnesses said the plane was in one piece when it crashed "Here are my thoughts on the WTC: The WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 (at least) were brought down by controlled demolition. There are literally hundreds of witness testimonies (many from firefighters) referring to secondary explosions within both towers." Explosion like noises aren't always explosions and explosions aren't always caused by explosives. Steel makes quite a bit of noise when it snaps, elevators plummeted to the bottom of their shafts and transformers can make quite a bang when they explode too. There were reports of explosions at the Torre Windsor fire in Madrid, do you think there were explosives planted in that building as well? Hydro-carbon fires are not sufficient to melt or even weaken steel enough to cause a collapse on the scale suggested. Jet fuel burns at well below the melting or even weakening points of steel. http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm Strange then that not a single qualified expert backs this position. That's because it simply isn't true steel looses 50% of it's strength at 1100 F as your own source correctly notes. At 1800 F it looses about 90 % (1). You and your source debunked a strawman by only considering the jet fuel as a fuel source. NIST and the American Society of Civil Engineers / Structural Engineers Association of NY ASCE / SEAoNY in their reports as well as the vast majority scientific papers and articles about the collapse determined/calculated that the primary fuel source was the flammable contents of the towers. NIST calculated that pockets of the fire reached 1800 F (1000 C) (2). Studies unrelated to the collapse of the towers have determined that home or office fires can reach 1120 C (2050 F) (3) or even 1300 C (2370 F) (4). Another study showed that mattress fires can heat springs to over 2100 F (1148 C) (5). The steel structure of the towers probably would not have been heated to the same temperatures as the flames but the calculated / potential temperatures FAR exceeded the point at which steel begins to fail. If hydrocarbon fires couldn't weaken steel one must wonder why fire codes the world over demand that structural steel be "fireproofed" [ Sources 1) http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...842.html?page=4 2) ibid, NIST report and ASCE / FEMA report 3) http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...ves/default.htm , 4) http://projects.bre.co.uk/FRSdiv/ecsc/ 5) http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf ] The melting/weakening points of steel are calcuated for steel isolated from materials which would conduct the heat away from the point of contact. In a steel lattice heat would be dissipated away from the point of contact and therefore reduce the chances of the heat source reaching the required temperature. True up to a point but without any quantitative calculations backed by scientific studies this tidbit isn't helpful "The steel was also fireproofed and the central building shafts hermetically sealed to prevent the spread of fire." The steel was fireproofed but with fragile materials "spray on" foam on the floor systems (trusses etc) and perimeter columns and drywall in the central core. As was widely reported this fireproofing is believed to have been largely destroyed / damaged in the impact zones. Please cite a source for the claim that "the central building shafts (were) hermetically sealed to prevent the spread of fire" this makes no sense people in the shafts could have suffocated, doors opening would have broken the seal, the elevator shafts most definitely weren't sealed this would have slowed the elevators down. "We saw no raging inferno. Most of the jet fuel ignited outside the buildings on impact. Survivors of the initial impact were able to stand in the holes left by the planes." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html" Obviously the temperatures would not have been uniform through out the towers there are numerous photos that show raging fires NYFD commander said they would not be able to extinguish the fires. "Why was molten metal found in the ruins and basement of the towers 12 weeks after 911? There must have been some incredibly high temperatures involved in the collapse of these towers. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634" Your source does not make any reference to the temperatures being "incredibly" or unusually high or to molten metal being seen or found anywhere. There is NO forensic evidence that molten metal was found anywhere at Ground Zero, although I think blobs of resolidified aluminum were found. Aluminum melts at around 1100 F (660 C) depending on the exact alloy [ http://www.muggyweld.com/melting.html ] a tempreture easily obtained in the debris pile fire. "The sort of temperatures achieved by thermite reactions which cut though steel like a hot knife through butter. The sort of reactions which may be visible in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk...search=thermite" May be but then again may be not there is no evidence this is molten steel "If you refer back to the New Scientist article, it mentions massive UV emissions at ground zero - something also associated with thermite reactions. See http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/pyrotechnics-faq.html" The article DIDN'T say there were "massive UV emissions at ground zero" though it said that they (UV emissions) are associated with fire. You misquoted the article 3 times did you actually read it? "Note also that NS article states that UV absorbing FEF foam was also used on the fires at WTC 7." It also states that the foam when added to water makes heat transfer more efficient which seems to be it's primary function so you statement was misleading. "Add to this explosive 'squibs' preceeding the collapse of each floor…" No qualified experts agree with "inside jobber" claims that the what are probably smoke / dust clouds are in fact 'squibs'. "…the presence of fine dust projected 100s of meters from the WTC and indeed vertically up in to the air during the collapse…" Why the kinetic energy of the collapse of a 1360 foot (450 meter) plus building weighing 500,000 tons (each) is enormous. "There are too many problems with the official theory." Most (if not all) of the "problems" are based on mistakes and false assumptions there are too many holes in and no expert backing for the "inside job" theory. "Everything, that could have gone wrong for the US, with one exception, went wrong. Failed air defences, weak steel, huge collateral damage, ignored intelligence, poor airport security, military drills masking real-world events etc." -Pre 9/11 air defenses were set up to deal with external threats coming into the US and Canada -No one is claimed the steel in the towers was weak -Inside jobbers normally claim that the LACK of greater collateral damage is suspicious -The hijackers are believed to have chosen Portland (were the hijackers of flights 11 and 175 were screened and flew to Logan from), Newark and Dulles because of lax security. Two years after 9/11 a college student was able to smuggle box cutters aboard at least two flights [ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/17/suspicious.baggage/ ] -The government never claimed that the drills 'masked' "real-world events" this is yet another CT strawman. Most of (if not all) the drills were cancelled when the hijackings were reported,. The biggest one was taking place over Alaska and northern Canada so I doubt it would have had any effect on tracking or intercepting flights thousands of miles away. "Then there is the hijackers. It all went very well for them. 19 hijackers(with dodgy entry visas, acquired as a result of more government failure) armed with box-cutters made it onto 4 commercial flights, over-powered the pilots…" -Pre 9/11 the pilots probably assumed their chances or survival were greater by not fighting back casualties from hijackings were normally quite low. Box cutters which are basically heavy duty razor blades mounted in a handle can be quite deadly and in fact it's believed they killed people at the beginning of the hijackings. They also claimed to have bombs "…took control of an aircraft they were ill-equipped to fly, switched off the navigation beacons and then flew and navigated manually to their targets…" What you call the navigation beacon* is really the transponder it only serves to identify a plane and pass information like speed and attitude to flight controllers. It being turned off would in no way have prohibited them from using autopilot at other navigational aides. The most difficult parts of a flight are take off and landing, the planes were a cruise altitude. A dean from the University of Texas with no flight training was allowed by the pilot of a two seat F-15 to fly the plane and take it over the speed of sound [ http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/dorn/jordan_speech.php ] * "navigation beacons" are on the ground and normally are located at or near airports. "…without being intercepted." -As I already pointed out on another thread, the only interception of a plane over the US (as opposed to over the ocean) in the 10 years before 9/11 was that of Payne Stewart. The plane was flying in a straight line with its transponder on in the uncrowded airspace over America's heartland but it took over an hour for a fighter already in the air to intercept it. "By the way, if you add in that all this has resulted in a new foreign policy initiative which was originally outlined by members of the Project for a New American Century and include many current and former (911 era) members of the Bush administration it all gets a little hard to believe" Where exactly did PNAC call for invading Afghanistan, Iraq or any other country? "I tend to view 911 as just one chapter in the long history of Western lies and deception to satisfy foreign policy and resource objectives. We did it in Suez, Panama, Vietnam, we've been doing it in Iran and Iraq since the discovery of oil - the list is endless. Why do we insist on believing everything our governments tell us, when we know they lie to us. We used to think they lied occassionally or a few bad apples like Nixon were the exception, but now we see almost daily revelations of deception and betrayal. Their first course of action is to lie. Blair has just been caught out again. So he lies. Bush denied wire-tapping. Israel denied bombing the family on the beach. They have all been shown to lie. Why is 911 any different?" "Inside job" theories fall apart based on evidence independent of US government claims note that even many JFK assassination researchers aren't buying them.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html and read the other books suggested on the site and then we'll talk. Peter – None of the cases I asked you about are mentioned on the site (OK, OK 1 or 2 are). Telling someone who questions an undocumented assertion you make on a forum to read a bunch of books is not a reasonable response. Can you argue you the point yourself? If so start a new thread, This is totally off topic. Anyone can cut and paste a list from a webpage or copy one from a book. The site mentions the following. Angola 1975-1980s Brazil 1961-1964 Cambodia 1955-1973 Chile 1964-1973 Congo 1960-1964 Cuba 1959-1980s Dominican Republic 1960-1966 East Timor 1975 El Salvador 1980-1994 Greece 1964-1974 Grenada 1979-1984 Guatemala 1953-1954 Guatemala 1962-1980s Haiti 1986-1994 Indonesia 1957-1958 Indonesia 1965 Iran 1953 Laos 1957-1973 Nicaragua 1981-1990 Uruguay 1964-1970 Zaire 1975-1978 Angola 1975 to 1980s Bulgaria 1990 / Albania 1991 Cuba 1959-1980s Ecuador 1960-1963 Haiti 1986-1994 Indonesia 1957-1958 Iraq 1990-1991 Italy 1947-1948 Uruguay 1964-1970 I know the history of most of thee which is why I specificly didn't ask you about them

Isn't it interesting that Colby has been tracking what I have been saying for six years. What dedication to his job! Jack - Typical tactict of someone caught in a lie or without any valid arguments, try to change the subject by questioning the motives of your opponent. The quote contadicts your denial that you never indicated the attack was JFK related. I didn't even know who you were back then. I only heard about you about a year ago. I haven't been keeping tabs on you as should have been obvious since I provided a link to the Webpage that quotes you (typically of course you edited that out of your reply), perhaps Robert Perry "has been tracking what (you) have been saying for six years" but that's his and your problem, I never met or communicated with him.

Since serving in the military is not a right, it stands to reason that it is a privilege--whether you want to join or not. I never had any interest in a military career, hence the college route. What sort of ass backwards logic is that a desire to join is a privilege? Obviously not, it's a question of taste and motivation, as you admit in the 2nd sentence you didn't join because you didn't want to, thus your statement that you "never had the privilege" was a lie. There is nothing inherently wrong with not joining just as long as you are straight about it and don't try to make up misleading semantic excuses. Poor analogy, the question is not about supporting or not supporting having a military but supporting a public policy (i.e. to go war) to risk to the life, limb and sanity of those in the armed forces. Military recruiters typically stake out high schools when looking for soldiers, not colleges. The intelligence agencies are more interested in the college crowd, as are the civil service departments. Do you even live in the States? This stuff is common knowledge. No, I don't live in US anymore but I was born raised and went to college (among other things) there. Yeah they stake out high schools and especially high schools in economically depressed areas where they already have hard enough time finding recruits. Spending a lot of time on college campuses wouldn't make much sense due to the cost (time is money) to benefit ratio due to low number of takers. You don't think they're interested in college types? Then why do they have ROTC etc? Do you really think they'd have turned you down? "Sorry Brendan, we only accept volunteers who don't have college degrees, try the CIA" I see, so anybody who supports a war should sign up for said war. Do I read you right? Talk about a cluttered battlefield. Methinks this only applies to wars you object to. You sorta have a point but then again you don't. I advocate only sending US troop into combat when there is a compelling motive, not whenever it suits the policy goals of a political clique. IIRC none of the pro-war crowd that currently surrounds Bush ever severed in the military during wartime. Rumsfeld signed up for the Navy after the Korean War ended (though he turned 18 in 1950) and he was the only of them to have served in the active military. Poor analogy as pointed out above, and wow you were so proud of it that you really wore it thin! Probably because you're a pacifist, which is objectively pro-insurgent. I'm probably a 'warmonger' by the standards of this forum though I'm a liberal Democrat, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and thought (like Colin Powell) that Bush Sr. should have waited longer before attacking Iraq in the 1st Gulf War. Opposing the war in Iraq is not "objectively pro-insurgent", there wouldn't be any insurgents if that country hadn't been invaded. That invasion has made the US more vulnerable to terrorist attack and LESS safe than before, why do think bin-Laden wanted Bush to win in the 2004 election? It is if dissent is all you bring to the table. It isn't if everything an administration does is worthy of dissent, in any case you have no evidence that is "all" I "bring to the table". The right to dissent is one of the cornerstones of the "American way" that you rightwing types so frequently want to send other into harm's way to defend. I think you're misquoting him. You thought wrong. He actually made two comments along those lines. "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149 May 7, 1918 http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiently or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else." http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/patriotism.htm Now that I'm quoting 1 GOP of "W's" predecessors, I can't resist quoting another "Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish." — George H. W. Bush Wow. Once upon a time Barry was the "extremist" in these circles. Guess he's moving up in the world. Once again you missed the point, it's exactly because Goldwater was an extremist that I quoted him, is enlightening that even he though the guys you support were too extreme. It wouldn't have made much sense for me to have quoted someone like Tom Hayden or Cynthia McKinney.

Never had the privilege. If you really "never had the privilege" we can only conclude you wanted to join, but for some reason they turned you down. You said you studied at UW, a college student from a good school is the kind of volunteer recruiters dream about. So either you have something seriously wrong with you (other than being a right-winger but I don't think that bothers the military) or you were being disingenuous. I imagine the latter is the case. Try to save the PR BS double talk for the job. The problem with being a 'chicken hawk' is that it's a bit hypocritical you advocate frequently sending troops into combat but never volunteered to sever yourself. I never volunteered either but my position is that force should only be used as a last resort and have a very limited definition of "last resort". Just because an American opposes the policies of Bush doesn't make them unpatriotic, IIRC Theodore Roosevelt said something along the lines that unquestionably backing the president is the opposite of patriotism even Barry Goldwater indicated he thought the current crew running the GOP were extremists, I guess he was a closet 'pinko'. Len

Jack that ole won't hunt anymore a matter of fact it's ready to be put to sleep. You constantly ininuate things then ay that you have no theories. Sort of like with the Apollo Hoax where one day you say the mission were faked an on another you angrly deny that you ever said that. Here' what you said 6 years ago: "Nine years ago this month an unsuccessful assassination attempt was made on me, putting me in the hospital for 22 days. There is no proof that it was connected to the JFK case, but it was very suspicious. It could be interpreted that an attempt was made to "set up" another JFK researcher as a patsy; the would-be killer stole my car and abandoned it about 100 yards from the workplace of another researcher. I find that too odd to be coincidence, in a city as big as Fort Worth. Some of these stalkers may do it just for "fun". They probably also paint graffiti in public places. They may not be paid by the CIA, but their activities put them in the cover-up camp." Jack White - Internet posting July 4, 2000 http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm While it’s true you never said the post above or this thread that it’s 100% certain that’s why you were attacked you obviously want the reader to reach that conclusion.

I am not really sure why that happens. I normally compose longer posts with a word processor and use ‘Arial’ font (standard for this forum) and the same font size through out. Sometime when I post my message it gets reformatted a bit, which is due to a glitch in the forum’s software. The only time I intentionally use different fonts / colors is when the “wrap in quote” function properly and I do so to differentiate between my comments and those of the person (people) I’m quoting. Len

Jack, the manual though sickening was fascinating thank for the link. However several aspects of your attack don't fit the manual's M.O. From your own account your attacker arrived unarmed, naked and without means of escape. The manual stressed the need for planning, certainty of death and for the assassin to escape. Unless he got lucky he would had to have rummaged around a bit to find the ice pick, I don't think a knitting basket would be the 1st place an assassin would go looking for a weapon of opportunity the kitchen or garage (or basement or where ever you kept your tools) would have been far more likely locations. And if hadn't gotten your car keys he would have had to escape on foot naked or wearing nothing but your shorts which would have his capture by "the enemy" in this case the police rather high. If your attacker was an assassin he and/or his handlers violated all three principles. Years ago you indicated that you though that this was an attempt to "set up" Gary Mack how exactly would that have worked? I assume your wife knew Garry at least would have been able tell police that he wasn't your attacker. Even if he had been successful and killed or gone unseen by your wife how would this have implicated Gary? According to Robert Perry your attacker demanded cash and your car keys and crashed into a retaining wall. [ http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm ]. You don't happen to have any news clippings or police reports about the case that you could post? Can Jack or anyone on this forum cite any other case of naked murderers? Barring of course indidents were the killer was crazy, a member of a tribal group, the (a) sexual partner of the victim or where the attack occurred at a nudist colony? Escaping naked would have made him very conspicuous; wearing your shorts would negate the advantage of the "absence of clothing description" and would have made it easier to ID the him. Since apparently no clothing or abandoned vehicles (cars, motorcycles, bikes etc) were found we must assume he walked to your house naked, this would have seriously compromise the "mission" because despite the early hour there was a good chance he would have been spotted by someone who would have call the cops or been able to identify him. Jack it sounds to me like you think he was a pro military or CIA type. I imagine in this case he would have cut your phone line(s), used a gun and been successful. It seems hard to believe a athletic trained killer could have botched killing a 65 year-old man and his wife while they slept. The CIA manual indicated guns were problematic a) in places were they were difficult to obtain, illegal or their possession incriminating I don't think that would have been the case or used by someone with improper training. Jack, were you working on anything especially important at the time? Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with Dawn and that you wouldn't have been a target. Your attack was obviously very traumatic and despite our differences I'm glad you survived. I imagine it is more gratifying to think you had been targeted for assassination than that you nearly died because a nut job broke into your house but IMHO the latter is more likely than the former. Len

Note that I didn't criticize Jack for using an image from the webfairy. He asked if we thought it was "Real or fake" I said why I thought it was fake. Her being an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier was the reason I least emphasized. Jack replied: "Unfortunately several good websites mix in other research about Zionism which prejudices some against them. I was not aware that the Webfairy site was one of these, but I know of at least three others. This, however, should not detract from their often excellent research." The webfairy is anti-Zionist but that isn't what I criticized her for. What I found objectionable are webpages like the one excepted below, entitled "Duh! The Jews!" which was written by leading "Inside Job" proponent, Holocaust denier and Scholars for 9/11 Truth member Eric Hufxxxx which she hosts on her site: In another article on the same page he suggested, as Hitler did decades earlier, that American Jews manipulated the US into WW1 in exchange for the Balfour Declaration and wrote "The Nazis decided to exterminate the Jews. This turned out to be the greatest thing that has ever happened to the Jews." The webfairy like Hufxxxx recently dropped the Holocaust denial/revisionism sections from their sites they probably realized that it was bad for business. This is NOT the 1st time Jack has conflated being a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier with being anti-Israel. On another thread I wrote: "4 - Why do you quote neo-Nazi sites like AFP do you find them credible? What about their claims that the Holocaust was a hoax, do you find those credible too? AFP is published by Willis Carto try googling his name." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5089&view=findpost&p=48224 Jack replied: "Calling Carto a neo-nazi makes no sense. His publication* exposed the role of the CIA in the JFK assassination." * The Spotlight, predecessor to the American Free Press (AFP) I replied with an article about Carto excerpted below: That sentence was the only reference to Israel in an 1880 word article. In the next message I posted a link to 36 page report about another white supremacist which discussed Carto's Holocaust denial and ties to neo-Nazi / white supremacist groups. Jack replied: "Now I get it. Anyone who is anti-Israel is a nazi." No I don't think Jack is anti-Semitic, a Nazi or a Holocaust denier but I think the above indicates that he is not the careful researcher that he purports to be. While it's true that one can find good information from bad sources the computer animation that appeared on the wbfairy's site could easily have been faked which it seems pretty obviously have been. Call me crazy but I give less credence to information on sites that back ideas like "the Holocaust was a hoax", "The Jews are responsible for 9/11" and "no planes hit the WTC". I would for example be skeptical of info from a "creationist" site for the same reason. Len

Peter Please elaborate on the following Illegal, Immoral, Imperialist tampering, invasions, overthrows, assassinations by US since WW2 [very incomplete list] 1. China 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid? 20 4. The Philippines 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony 38 5. Korea 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be? 44 6. Albania 1949-1953: The proper English spy 54 7. Eastern Europe 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor 56 8. Germany 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism 60 12. Syria 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government 84 13. The Middle East 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America 88 14. Indonesia 1957-1958: War and pornography 98 15. Western Europe 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts 103 16. British Guiana 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia 107 17. Soviet Union late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing 113 18. Italy 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism 40. Australia 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust 244 48. Libya 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match 280 51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching Communists what democracy is all about 314 52. Iraq 1990-1991: Desert holocaust 320 53. Afghanistan 1979-1992: America's Jihad 338 56. Afghanistan

The quote function isn't working Pat Brendan me It was a typo. I meant to write "won the no-bid." Uuuuuh how exactly do you "win" a no bid? That the contract wa a no bid wa the whole point Clark is a Dem activist/candidate and O'Neil had his ego/feelings hurt when he was rightly bounced for doing a crappy job. I think he actually meant Richard Clarke, but how do you explain the Downing St Memo? Yes, I'm sure the death-cult extremists who slammed airplanes into our buildings, or blew up resorts in Bali, or blew up innocent train passengers in London and Bombay had Halliburton uppermost in their minds. How great it must be to be a terrorist these days. The very Westerners you're trying to kill make excuse after excuse for your murderous behavior. It's the ultimate "get out of jail free" card. This is a war for civilization. WAKE UP. The invasion of Iraq was a huge boost for the Islamic extremists. Supposedly the CIA concluded bin Laden wanted Bush to win in 2004 thus his "kiss of death" endorsement of Kerry [ http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/070306.html ]. Whether or not the report is accurate or not obviously bin-Laden was smart enough to know that endorsing Kerry would lose him votes. I see, so FDR and Churchill were just as bad as Hitler. Fighting real evil makes you evil. Gothca. No he was obviously argueing the opposite. I take it you don't have any West Coast Japanese ancestors. Or history books. I'm also pretty sure FDR ordered the execution of German saboteurs, sans trial. I take it you don't have a dictionary, find one and look up the definition of "need". The internment of the Japanese was not necessary or do you want to argue the US would have lost the war otherwise. As for the supposed "execution of German saboteurs, sans trial" please provide a citation. Even IF this were true I doubt it would have been necessary either. Len I don't think the quetion was so much that he made money but how, i.e. that he used his power and influence for personal gain at the expense of others blood and money. This not proper capitalism but rather an abuse of it. How would you feel if you were locked out of getting state and federal contracts because they were being awarded at inflated prices to a company associated with a politician?

Tom Flocco is a total joke and I thought no one took him seriously any more. In the article about Olsen he reported that she was arrested on the Polish-Austrian border with counterfeit Itatian Lyra. What this self declared intelligence expert seemed not to know was that Poland and Austria don't share a border (they are over 100 miles apart) and that the Lira (with an 'i') went out of circulation years earlier with the introduction of the Euro. He quickly changed it to the German-Austrian border but last time I looked the part about her having fake notes of an extinct currency was still there.He has made several references to the non existent "American-French Alliance" at one point claiming its agents got into a shootout with Mossad agents on a NYC subway car and shootout with MI-6 agents on a Chicago subway. Other claims he has made were that: Hunter S. Thompson was running a kiddie sex ring for pedophile congressmen, that Bushes Sr. and Jr. and Michael Harari were seen personally tampering with John-John's plane shortly before it crashed, and that Harriet Miers was a deep cover foreign operative. All these stories are based on information from his secret "intelligence insider" contacts. In this article for a change he named his sources but is there any confirmation these guys are what he purports them to be?. According to their site Queen Elizabeth is the head of a "satanist cabal". This story makes no sense why would this shoot out have occurred in the Capitol? How could it be possible to cover up a shootout, including deaths, there before multiple witnesses and have not a word about it get reported*? Many CTists think he is some sort of poison pill disinfo agent sent to discredit CTs and CTists. I think he's just a raving lunatic. Did you really think there might be some truth to this Bill or did you post it as a joke? Len *ditto a shootout with deaths on the NYC subway

I pretty much agree with you Steve except on few points "I think that the suicide pilots were much more highly trained than we have been led to believe, the kind of training taught in the military." At best there is reason to suspect this in only one case, that of 'Hani' Hanjour or whoever flew that 757 into the Pentagon. Crashing into a 208 foot (63 meter) wide sky scraper or a field is not particularly difficult. The flight computers of modern planes can autonomously handle most if not all aspects of flight between take off and landing (and aide in those parts) the planes were hijacked at cruise altitude. Even in the case of flight 77 only the last few seconds were at all complicated and I quoted several pilots and a Boeing engineer who said it wouldn't have been that difficult. So far only 1 qualified expert (Wittenberg) has said the Pentagon flight path would have been difficult to fly but his claim that a 757 couldn't have flown it has been pretty well debunked. "the invasion of Afganistan, and later Iraq had been the Neo Cons intention all along, 911 or no 911" In the case of Iraq I agree but not in the case of Afghanistan. Yes they had contingency plans but that's different from planning to got to war. The US presumably have contingency plans to invade many countries if the situation arises, I would be surprised if they didn't have a contingency plan to invade North Korea but would surprised if they ever did. I haven't looked that closely at this issue so would like to see your evidence. As to foreknowledge it is now obvious that signs were missed but haven't seen any "smoking gun" that those signs were INTENTIONALLY ignored in order to have a casus belli. Analogously in 1939 – 40 the French missed signs that the Germans would invade through the Low Countries just like that did in WWI, the Israelis missed signs of an impending attack in 1973 and the British missed signs the Argentines would invade the Falklands in 1982. I would like to see your evidence for involvement by the Saudi government in the attacks though involvement by prominent Saudis wouldn't surprise me, ditto regarding Pakistan. Neither building "exploded" despite the fact they both were hit by debris from the collapsing towers No need for him to "brace" himself "for several salvos by the disinformation provocateurs" because you seem to be behaving yourself on this thread. Note that he disagrees with 90% of your theories. Len

Another quetion is why Jack appears to be so obsessed with this subject, this is what, the 3rd thread he has started regarding the suspension and reinstatement of Gary Mack'? "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Sir Winston Churchill

Jack I didn't attack anyone except "the webfairy" and frankly she deserved it. There was nothing 'nutty' about my coments. Interesting that you now say basiclly what i said, it doesn't correspond to any other videos. Holocaust denial has nothing to do with being anit-Zionist this is the 2nd time that you have conflated these very seperate issues. Len

Shall I find an ax murderer with your viewpoint and post his CV to discredit you? What kind of backhanded slanderous technique is this now Len, or whatever / whomever you are? That someone who is a bit nutty also believes in something does not discredit someone elses well considered sane evaluation of the same event. It was not wise for Jack to use something from that site, but he was getting a photo.... From a multitude of sources and person all around the world the official story of 911 holds NO water and there have been so many false-flag covert operations and conspiracies in the last 60 years [and before] only the blind can't see the value in a most jaundiced eye on the 'official' versions of anything beyond the time of day. Time for the nation and world to see this or perish soon at the hands of the hidden puppeteers.....and that is why I have NO patience for your false-flag skepticism IMHO. I don't really get your point are you saying its not legitimate to question the reliability of a source? What if I cited the CIA or PNAC? I mention her views to discredit the photo not Jack's views. Finding an ax murderer who shared my views wouldn't be relevant but if I cited him as a source questioning his reliability would be. Photos and videos as you undoubtably and Jack especially know can easily be faked. He asked if we thought it was real or not and I said why I though it was fake. I gave another namely that what is shown doesn't appear in other videos "From a multitude of sources and person all around the world the official story of 911 holds NO water" The World populationis about 6.5 billion there is no idea so lunatic that you can't get at leat 1 - 2 %of the population to believe it, that would still give you 65 - 130 million people who believe 9/11 was an "inside job" inevitably some of those people will be college professors and a handful former government officials. What the truth movement still lacks is people with relevant expertise to back their views. The only member of the trurh movement with credetials revelvant to his claims I know of is retired airline pilot Russ Whittenberg but he is contradicted by several experts including other airline pilots. Len

What exactly does this have to do with the subject of this thread. Not quite it been 5 month and as I always point out he said it would take "some time". Where is your formal claim which you promised for us soon it been 6 months ago? Jack, Peter and Fetzer all sugested that I'm not really in Brazil, I didn't bring it up. PETER - What do your long rambling posts have to do with the subject of this thread? I never disputed that the CIA over threw Allende which they obviously did, Kissinger even admitted this and i have already stated that I believe Bush faked the intelligence on Iraq to get us into war and that I think the chances that JFK and MLK jr. died as the result of conspiracies was quite high. To be honest I only skimmed your posts you need to learn to be more succinct you mention BCCI and Iran/Contra and other topics that I've never commented on. I'm curios you call yourself a “professional JFK researcher” is that really how you make your living? Len

WOW another "article" that doesn't cite any sources! This one was needlessly long as well. Vialls who as far as I know was Australian decribed himself as a 'journalist' and 'private investigator' I've never seen it claimed that was any kind of engineer let alone an aeronautical one. He did not claim these credentials when he wrote about the 747 that exploded over Lockerbie. http://www.vialls.com/archives/trigger1.html Note that he begged for money on that page just like he begged for money on all the pages on his site, since aeronautical engineers earn high salaries this would be quite odd. Vialls like every other CT who wrote about this couldn't cite any credible VERIFIABLE sources. Though it seems Boeing researched such a system there is no evidence it was implemented. The only article I could find on the subject says the system wasn't implemented (see link in previous post) and Boeing denied it was implemented. A Boeing engineer told me privately it didn't go beyond the research stage. Von Buelow was never "Secretary of Defence" (sic) he held the post of Minister of Science and Technology until Oct. 1982 just about the time 767s were being introduced and before 757s were released. Lufthansa didn't acquire any 767s till 1994 and never operated 757s http://airfleets.net/flottecie/Lufthansa.htm . Their subsidiary Condor only acquired those models in the early 90's http://airfleets.net/flottecie/Condor.htm It is interesting that even other CTists don't find Vialls and Von Buelow credible. ??? No I'll leave such idiocy to you. There was no Axis conspiracy to fight WWII Hitler never hid his intentions.As to Allied conspiracy are you refering to Pearl harbor CTs? WWII started over 2 years before that. The war started in 1939 not 1938. Your tone is mocking as if I was denying that the World was round a bit arrogant for someone who hasn't offered ant credible evidence to support his theories Len

I already reseached this BS because it came up on another forum. Mr. Heikkila who isn't a pilot* just made this up. Mr. Myers who attests to its veracity is a private pilot only rated to fly single engine planes and thus he is not especially qualified to what a 757 is or isn't capable of any more that someone who holds an ordinary drivers license would be specially qualified to talk about the capabilities of Formula 1 racer or a tractor-trailer. Don't talk my word for it check the FAA database https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/default.asp I think the guy made the whole thing up, note that he doesn't cite a single source. Some of his errors. "767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL" BS Boeing ran tests in which they remote controlled a specially retrofit 727 note that he said ONLY 757 and 767 that had this capability. I have never heard of them running such tests on 757s or 767s let alone that they installed such capability on all models. If this were true he should have been able to cite a source. "They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck." More BS Airbus sets software limits on planes Boeing doesn't, but even Airbuses are capable of 2.5 G's An MD-11 pilot wrote the follow regarding Heikkila's claims: Ray Hudson, Principal Engineer, Flight Control Systems for Boeing wrote the following to Jeff Rense Though his employer's name is not cited in the 'letter', as per Boeing company policy, his employement with the company can be confirmed here. He started working for them in the early 60's http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/september/i_milestones1.html and here http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Security_Issues/gunsgunsguns.html Boeing 757's and 767's can exceed 1.5g See also figure 7 which shows passenger jets capable of reaching 3 g's http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_03/fo/fo01/fig7.html <H3 style="MARGIN: auto 0in"> </H3>This lengthy article discusses a crash avoidance system, I only skimmed it very briefly it compares 767s pulling up at 1.3 g and 1.5 g it doesn't say explicitly that the plane can exceed 1.5 g but it seems implicit http://www.mit.edu/~jkkuchar/GPWS.pdf "Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank. The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. " More BS officially only 2 CVR's were revovered. That of flight 93 was played for the family members and at the trial. The flight 77 recorder was reported found but to badly damaged to play NOT blank. This doesn't match the claim that 3 black boxes were found at Ground Zero either. "I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist" I doubt it, if a guy like that was part of the "truth" movement he would be more well known. The only references I found searching with Google and Dogpile to him being associated with the NSA were copies of the above 'article'

Since Jack lost the argument on this thread and didn't have anything worthwhile on a second one he posted tis on the other thread Reversing the burden off proof is a classic crackpot tatic, Jack can you cite any evidence that a 757 couldn't have performed such a manovor. See if you can do better than canabis.com! This has already been contradicted by experts cited in this thread. I'll add a few more: A Dulles ATC told ABC News "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. (You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe.") http://web.archive.org/web/20040614170116/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html In other words a 757 CAN be flown in that matter it's just not safe. The part of the quote in parentesis is normally left out by the "truth" movement because it undermines their case There was also this excerpt from a leading aviation magazine already quoted on another thread: [/size] And Jack that map is not from any official source, it actually shows an incorrect flight path. Len

To avert further 'hijacking' of this thread I'm only replying here to relevant points. I started a new thread to respond to the rest of Peter and Jack's paranoid lunacy. No this thread was started to look at a very specific aspect of the "inside job" conspiracy theory there are several other threads more appropriate for you to expound your beliefs. You are in effect hijacking this thread, maybe I should send in the ghosts of the passengers of flights 11, 175 and 77 to "beat" (you) to death with their carry on baggage" Sounds sorta like the one that gotta away. Evidence you can't or for what ever reason don't produce is worthless. Such claims always lead me to believe the supposed evidence doesn't really exist or is inconclusive, my bet is that in this case it's the former rather than the latter, prove me wrong. It's true (as I recently discovered) that Boeing was able to remotely control a specially altered 727 to take off and land just before 9/11. So presumably it could have been possible to retrofit other Boeing models but the questions such as how the hijack plane's could have been retrofit with anybody noticing and how communications would have been shut off remain. The article also indicates the system could be overridden. It also seems odd that would have announced this if the technology had been used on 9/11. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/specia...nt/1069559.html Classic diversionary tactic, when you don't have any evidence to back your side of an argument (in this case the feasibility of remote control of 757s and 767s) change the subject! Peter also tried to do this. Jack these issues have already been dealt with in another thread, I'll reply to you there. Now if you have any evidence that the hijack planes on 9/11 could have been remote controlled I'd love to hear it, see if you can site cites more authoritative than cannabis.com!

To avert further hijacking of another thread* I decided to start this one. * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7035 Bravo, Peter! An excellent expose of one of the forum provocaterurs. Now do the same for all the others here. Some are assigned to JFK, some to Apollo, some to 911, some to the Zapruder Hoax. They spend full time defending official govt stories and secrets. Some of them seem assigned to follow Jack White around the internet and make vicious attacks on me. Check the forum strings and you will see they seldom post except in reply to Jack White research. It makes them stand out like sore thumbs. Better procedure would be to appear to be actual researchers to establish what the agency calls "bonafides". Instead, their every posting is to oppose and insult me. Some apparently use "agency" names instead of real names. Some have posted under two different names. I believe that (like LHO), some names are shared by different persons. Why would ANYONE spend FULL TIME defending wrongdoing? Their activities make no sense to anyone seeking the truth. As you say, why not just ignore researchers as they would "flat-earthers" if they are ordinary people? Only idiots or paid provocateurs would support the Warren Report. It makes no sense for ordinary people to do it so zealously. It is possible that all operate out of the same Langley office. It is nothing new to me. The first one was before the internet. His name was Roy Pope (no, not that Roy Pope) and he admitted to being a "former" CIA agent. He made long-distance phone calls to me from all over the world in the 70s, talking for hours about the MC rifle. He had a great voice over the phone, like a radio announcer. Several years later, Mary Ferrell brought him to one of my slide lectures, and he turned out to be short, chubby and bald...I was disappointed that he did not look like James Bond...and he fell asleep during the slide show. He claimed to be a private detective, and claimed an association with Gerry Patrick Hemming. The "other" Roy Pope was a former agent also. He founded the National Enquirer". Jack There's a full moon which perhaps that explains the recent out break of paranoia on this forum. Nothing in these posts really merits a response but I had some time to kill and to be honest though laughably absurd they annoyed me. From what I've read the word for 'stranger' also means 'enemy' in many tribal languages, in Portuguese the word for foreigner 'estrangeiro' is almost the same as the word for strange 'estranho' which can also mean strange (i.e. eccentric or crazy) person they come from the same verb which can mean "to be spooked by" or "to find repulsive", this it seems stems from human nature to distrust people who are different. In the jungle such an instinct probably aids survival. Unfortunately even in "civilized" societies some people have not evolved beyond this primitive instinct and that includes distrusting those who hold opposing views. I don't believe in theories that Jack and Peter believe in and say why on this forum, this leads them to suspect my motives and suspect that I'm some sort of 'spook'. Fetzer and Healy have also suggested this as did an old lady who I used to live near, her son told me just got out of the psych ward (I confess I put something in her drink). This is not the first time Jack has leveled such a charge against me but as his post made clear Jack seems to suspect that all those who disagree with him are spies of some sort, he even seems to think there are several "agents" assigned full time to cast doubt on his "research", he even suspects some balding, overweight, narcoleptic who was obsessed with him and the M.C.! Odd how delusions of grandeur so often accompany paranoia, I guess it makes sense 'lots of people are out to get me, I must be important / on to something big' as I have already pointed out Fetzer stated 1) he was the most accomplished faculty member that he knew of 2) a book he edited was, "perhaps the best book ever published on the death of JFK" and 3) a conference he organized "may have been the most important small conference on any subject in history" [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858 ]. People like these (White, Lemkin, Fetzer) remind me of John Nash (of "A Beautiful Mind" fame) and 'Jack D. Ripper', the air force general from "Dr. Strangelove". Peter wrote: **"You are all over this Forum spreading doubt on analysis into the machinery behind the curtain of the Wizards of OZ"** Actually with few exceptions my posts have been restricted to 1) The Wellstone case (but not much recently since Fetzer gave up trying to defend his debunked thesis, 2) 9/11 and 3) the "Z-film", note that most JFK researchers reject the thesis that it was altered. I have stated my reasons for not believing the aforementioned CTs which basically boils down to that upon closer examination none of the "evidence" in support of them holds up. I spend / spent time debunking the first 2 because I believe the association of paranoid stupidity with progressives ultimately plays into the hands of reactionary forces and the latter because casting doubt on some of the most important evidence is anyway to ultimately figure out what happened to JFK. Jack and many other members are similarly "all over" the forum. **"I'm mad as hell. Someone stole my country and stole all I owned [after the late night phone threats and various dirty tricks in court and my life] - I think you may know who they are"** Wow classic paranoid fantasy, despite your insinuations I have no %#@*&$ what you're talking about care to elaborate? **"May she also when old enough find out about the US guided coup d'etat in Brazil, if that is where you really are"** Your paranoid insinuations are beginning to wear thin and wear on my patience. I believe that John and Andy can verify my location via my IP address (number) if either of them is reading this I request they confirm that I'm in Brazil. Peter if you PM me your phone number I'll call you collect which will also confirm my location. I'm am friends with people who were persecuted during the military dictatorship and find your insinuation that I'm in cahoots with the people responsible for the coup d'etat offensive. My wife and I explained the dictatorship to our eldest daughter and will explain it to her younger sister (the one in the photo) when she's old enough to understand. Just in the interest of historical accuracy the last coup in Brazil (1964), like the earlier ones, wasn't "US guided" in the sense that many other coups were (Guatemla, Iran etc). The impetus originated with the military and other reactionary sectors of Brazilian society. The US certainly lent a "helping hand" though and even tried to get the Uruguayans to arrest democratically elected leaders who stopped off in that country on their way to exile elsewhere, there were US warships in port of my city that day. ***"the USA …as it…has been headed since WW2"** I don't know Peter, back in the early 40's African Americans and other minorities were relegated to 3rd class citizenship, people in general were sexually repressed, few women had a chance to be anything other than housewives, homosexuals were forced to live in the closet, most men and many women consumed a carcinogenic drug (tobacco), the media questioned the actions of the government even less than today, the infant mortality rate was much higher and life expectancy much lower than today, the mob ran several major cities, all forms of birth control were banned, liberals quite rightly belittled Reagan when he too expressed nostalgia for the 'good old days' Jack wrote: **"Some of them seem assigned to follow Jack White around the internet and make vicious attacks on me. Check the forum strings and you will see they seldom post except in reply to Jack White research."** From what I understand referring to oneself in the third person is a sign of 1) autism [ http://www.behavioradvisor.com/Autism.html ], 2) multiple personality / disassociative disorder [ http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section15/chapter188/188d.jsp ] or 3) an overblown ego. "Instead, their every posting is to oppose and insult me. Some apparently use "agency" names instead of real names. Some have posted under two different names. I believe that (like LHO), some names are shared by different persons… It is possible that all operate out of the same Langley office." If every one really is out to get your not paranoid!!! That's right you're too clever for us to get anything past you, all the people who debunk you on this and other forums are CIA agents! Ahhhh Jack, you don't happen to have any evidence to back up your accusations / insinuations? Come on out with it, if believe other members of this forum are spooks let's here some names and the evidence you have. ** "Why would ANYONE spend FULL TIME defending wrongdoing?" ** Jack you miss the whole point; no one is defending wrong doing, we're disputing who's responsible. And who's spending full time? Let me guess you've done another "time-motion study" and counted all of our keystrokes and can show it is mathematically impossible that we aren't working 24/7 solely to cast doubt on all the important discoveries you've made. ** "Only idiots or paid provocateurs would support the Warren Report." ** ??? What are you talking about Jack? Who's been defending the Warren Report on this forum? ** "The "other" Roy Pope was a former agent also. He founded the National Enquirer" ** 'The Enquirer' was founded by Generoso Pope Jr. his nickname was 'Gene' not 'Roy' [ http://www.ketupa.net/ammedia.htm ]

I am not now, nor have I ever been an employee of the US or any other government, intelligence agency or PR firm they hired, Mr. McCarthy eeeer Lemkin. The JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations are not germane to this thread nor is Watergate or the erosion of democracy in the US, nor even is "Loose Change" unless they provided evidence that 757s or 767s could be remote controlled. If you have evidence of such capability present it here. If not and you wish to discuss other issues I suggest you do so in more appropriate threads. If you want to debate the veracity of the claims made by the makers of "Loose Change" or other LIHOP or MIHOP theorists feel free (in appropriate threads). I am not afraid of the truth, in the case of 9/11 however the claims made by the CTists have little if any merit. Since you brought them up I'll state that I believe the probabilities that JFK and MLK were killed as the result of conspiracies is quite high (though I think the evidence the Z – film was altered is close to zero). I also agree with you that the current administration has as part of its agenda the weakening of democracy in the US. It is my belief that nonsense accusations against them only play into their (Bush's and Rove's) hands because they 1) distract from their real as opposed to imagined crimes and abuses and 2) make moderates LESS likely to take such issues as rigging of the elections, war profiteering, manipulation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq etc seriously. So I ask you, 'are you now or have you ever worked for an intelligence agency, the RNC, Carl Rove, the Bush family or any of their hired PR firms?' Len PS – Did you even look at the links I provided?

That would be incorrect. When the asphalt was removed from the street down to the original base - there was only about an inch or less of asphalt that had been on the street. Bill Miller Miller states an untruth, as usual. The attached photo, taken from inside the drain, shows a buildup of asphalt of about three or four inches, incicated by the arrow. Jack Here is a comparison of the 1963 drain with 2001. The asphalt buildup greatly reduced the height of the opening. Why believe Miller when photos show the difference? Jack Jack I realize you have no comtol over the quality over images taken a few decades ago but couldn't you track down a shaper photo of the drain back in the day? Also I fail to understand why you a profesional photographer who lives about 30 miles from DP can't post a higher resolution photo of the drain as it appears today.

Fetzer and the facts never the twain shall meet To read about his “top 10 reasons why there were no hijackers” and reality read this blog entry. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/uncle-fetzers-top-ten-reasons-why.html You can watch him here Point #10 was debunked long ago (1) Fetzer, as we come to expect didn’t do his homework. Point #3 Fetzer seems to have pulled out of his hat (I was going to suggest he pulled it out of a part of his anatomy he suggested Tink pulled stuff from but I have more tact (2)). No one, at least not the government, ever claimed the CVR tape of flight 93 picked up the passengers planning to use the beverage cart as a battering ram. Something he could have verified by looking at the official transcript which has been available from various sources since the Moussaoui trial (3), I guess checking to make sure you have your facts straight before shooting your mouth off is something that Fetzer thinks he’s exempt from since he is a “scholar”, PhD and perhaps the World’s most highly accomplished college professor (4). It is tempting to suggest that Fetzer was intentionally lying about point #3 but it’s hard to imagine even “Uncle Fetzer” would be so stupid as to intentionally make a statement that is so easily proven false. Len 1) http://www.911myths.com/html/cnn_passenger_lists.html , http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_manifests.html 2) The ever charming ‘scholar’ wrote “Thompson just pulls this stuff out his ass” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaims...NK/message/2560 3) http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/moussaouitranscript.pdf 4) Fetzer actually made this claim. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858 funny thing for a prof. at a forth rate school to make.