Len Colby

I hadn't seen Wittenberg's claims before. He is listed on the FAA's Airmen Registration Database and he is indeed the well qualified pilot he claims to be, there are how ever many other similarly qualified pilots who whole heartedly disagree with him. You can search the database here: https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/default.asp One journalist who suspects Bush may have had foreknowledge interviewed airline pilots who don't think hitting the Pentagon is much of a challenge: Patrick Smith a pilot who is a columnist for Salon also believes Hanjour could have done it, He was able to find airline pilots who shared that assessment: You need a Salon subscription or free "site pass" to read this and the article cited below. The above is quoted here, www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html People have debated whether of the use of PC simulators could have helped the hijack pilots one British Airways pilot thinks they could according to another Salon columnist, Joshua Tompkins. So several pilots and as I will show below at least a couple of Hanjour's instructors think he could have done it but Wittenberg disagrees. I would think if the turn and approach were as impossible as he and other CTists make out many pilots from around the world would say something but so far only one airline pilot in good standing has and that is rather telling. Wittenberg is a pilot but he is also right-wing extremist. In 1988 he attended the fifteenth annual Conservative Political Action Conference. David Corn covered the event for the Nation: " "…These people are guilty of murder," Wittenberg said, apparently referring to gays in general...The only thing worse than a Communist is a person who practices an alternative life style," said Russ Wittenberg, a delegate from Arizona..." http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zqGzU...russ+wittenberg In 2000 he was chairman of the Buchanan for President campaign in Arizona [ www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/ Speeches/RPAZ-photos/photo-album.html ] and was one of his electors http://press.azsos.gov/Election/2000/Gener...nvass2000GE.pdf. Recently he complained that Habitat for Humanity, the non-profit group which builds homes for low – middle income families financed by no-interest loans "would bring slums to" his city. http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2005/2...hEditorial.html Echoing ultra-right paranoia spelled out in APFN and the American Free Press (successor to the Spotlight) "Russ Wittenberg says America has turned into a police state with martial law on the immediate horizon."* I'm no fan of Bush but the militia types have been talking about martial law being imminent for decades. People to the RIGHT of Bush make me uneasy. * http://www.illuminati-news.com/inside-job.htm The fact that on top of this he is associated with a Holocaust denier (Hufscmidt) isn't comforting. Might his judgment be clouded by his extremist political views? To me his credibility is further damaged by his adherence to the crackpot "a missile hit the Pentagon" theory. But he doesn't even claim to be an airline pilot and there are no Joel Harels listed in the FAA database in the US, UK or Canada. This calls his integrity into question. Try contacting him and ask him to explain this discrepancy. In any case there are thousands of people with pilots licensees; I'm looking specifically for people who have experience flying 757's or other jetliners. 1) I've never heard of Harel before. Accepting the word of an anonymous source from a known writer or publication is one thing but accepting it from someone with no track record esp. since he seems to have falsely claimed to be a pilot 'is a ballgame of another color'. How do we know Harel didn't make it up? How do we know if the person who e-mailed him really is a pilot? 2) He didn't say it's impossible which contradicts Wittenberg. It's not ironic unlike many 9/11 "truth" sites which often very selectively quote their sources to boost their claims and not provide links back to the original source debunking sites tend to tell both sides of the story. Obviously I provided the link with the intent that people read the page. The author fairly provides information both pro and con. Obviously the author shares my view. Obviously "Mr. Hogan's" insinuation that I was being misleading is false. That makes it sound like she doesn't believe Hanjour could have done it but her feelings are quite the opposite as is made clear by the article from the Washington Post quoted below. Note that according to the author she didn't think he was unable to fly small planes at all (as CTists would have you think) but rather that he couldn't fly airliners safely as also indicated by the article cited by Mike above. This shows that Hanjour wanted to learn to fly 757's years before 9/11 how does that fit into the theory that he didn't fly the 757 that flew into the Pentagon or that no 757 hit it? This also shows that not only did he train on PC 757 flight simulators but 'real' simulators as well. Fults said "They had good instructors" perhaps they were good enough to have give Hanjour enough skill to do what he did. Assesment of his abilities varied: I haven't seen any of his flight instructors say that Hanjour couldn't have done it. True but the overwhelming majority of experts and witnesses say a 757 hit the Pentagon and that Hanjour could have been the pilot. I agree the Commission did a poor job in many respects, for example they downplayed the warning signs that were missed. As to whether the Pentagon was hit by a plane or missile there is no reasonable doubt this. It is confirmed not only by witnesses but by the American Society of Civil Engineers and photos of debris. There is no reliable evidence indicating that a missile or anything other than a 757. I haven't seen any witness statements to that effect and the Purdue University study confirmed the ASCE's finding that the hole in the outer was consistent with what we'd expect. The "a missile hit the Pentagon theory" has been effectively debunked by 9/11 CTists like Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html and aviation experts http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml Many 9/11 "inside job" theorists complain about how little debris was found at the 9/11 crash sites. Consider this crash site of an ATR-72, American Eagle flight 4184, which hit a wet soybean field at about 435 MPH and a 52 degree angle (*1) and thus with much LESS force of impact that the more massive 757's (*2) which crashed at over 500 MPH head on one of them into a bomb proofed wall. 1) http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19941031-1 2) http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=42 ATR-72's have a maximum take-off weight of 48,500 lbs Crash site and debris http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w941031.htm An ATR-72 like the one that crashed http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Atr-72.bristol.2.750pix.jpg Len

Mike – I didn't start this "xxxx fight" and if you so want it's over. I acknowledged my mistakes; do you have the courage to admit to yours? If you want to address the points I made instead of slinging mud feel free. Peace, Len

Actually "if the reader clicks that link, he/she will see" Mr. Hogan's claim is totally bogus and the quote appears in the last paragraph. The text on that page has less than 840 words it's not hard to find, my 10 year-old daughter found it. Obviously Mr. Hogan has no business criticizing anybody else's research. Unfortunately that site seems to have gone off line. The file can still be found on "the Wayback Machine" Internet archive. See page 41 http://web.archive.org/web/20041025163207/http://www.cadets.net/pac/aircad/trg/CASC/ac_books.pdf I don't know if Mr. Hogan knew about the archive but if he did he should have tried it. I highly recommend it. The speed limit is also mentioned in these documents/pages http://wildlifedamage.unl.edu/handbook/Chapters/pdf/Eschefelder.pdf pg. 3 http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221530 http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/190960-1.html http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:tu5SmxFr3REJ:www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx%3Fitemid%3D2179%26ModuleId%3D2420%26Tabid%3D256 pg. 3 http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:kAL4KFwPO2MJ:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760013063_1976013063.pdf You can plug in higher temps. It won't change the out come that much. For example the speed of sound at 15 F is 729 mph that's only 2% faster that the 715 for which I calculated. At 50 F (I don't believe such a high temperature would be possible at that altitude over NY in September) it's 756 6% faster. That link as should have been obvious was referring to the quote immediately BEFORE the link: From my previous post: The "one paragraph there" is what I quoted. Mr. Hogan people normally put links and footnotes AFTER not BEFORE the information and quotes they document. "610 mph" was the result of a simple calculation I thought too obvious to include (see context in original post) 715 mph x 0.85 = 607.75 mph. "19 minutes" was also a simple calculation involving division and multiplication 194 (miles) / 610 (mph) = 0.32 (hours) x 60 = 19.2 minutes. Mr. Hogan commercial aircraft are not military thus they are civilian. As Matthew pointed out more clearly NORAD was not set up to deal with internal threats. I have two sources 1) the same paragraph from Popular Mechanics that Mr. Hogan couldn't find 2) An article from "Plane & Pilot" magazine confirming the PM story at least for the year prior 9/11: There is further backing to support the idea that fighters were not always scrambled to intercept civilian flights straying from norms: So before 9/11 fighters were not scrambled when planes flew "near or in restricted or prohibited airspace" so I doubt they would be for anything short of a hijacking which hadn't happened for decades prior to 9/11 (see below) Then I'm sure you will have no problems citing such incidents. Just in case you didn't know it the last time a plane diverted it's course due to a hijacking in the US before 9/11 was in 1988 and I don't think it was intercepted [ http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=SEH〈=en&page=8 not counting one case in 1996 in which a Madrid – Havana flight was diverted to Miami, I saw no references to it being intercepted.]. I have no information "possible hijackings" that turned out to be false alarms being intercepted in the US pre-9/11. I left out the above link inadvertently. I presume you have heard of Google, Yahoo and other search engines? With all the time you spent trying to debunk my post you could have found the article in about 5 seconds. That's doing something called 'research'. Do you understand the difference between ABOVE and BELOW Mr. Hogan? I referenced the CBS article after (i.e. below) my reference to "the above timeline" a few lines above that is a timeline the first word of which is 'timeline'. I have since edited that to be less confusing. I agree you post was very tediuos. There are published books and websites many of them full of footnotes that assert: the Holocaust was a hoax, the Moon landings were a hoax, the Zapruder film was a hoax, the pyramids and Nazca lines were made by aliens, The world is controlled by the Illuminati, Queen Elizabeth is the Worlds biggest drug dealer, the Twin Towers had reinforced concrete cores, global warming will cause the World to explode and that sex between adults and young children should be permitted. Simply repeating someone's assertion isn't enough if Mr. Ahmed has any hard evidence cite it. Without that his opinion and your assessment of it are meaningless. Since your reply had more error and more serious errors than my original post you disparaging my research is like the "1st little pig" criticizing the "2nd little pig" for building a shoddy house. Flight 93 crashed far short of it's target. According to the official version it would have been intercepted before it reached Washington, according to many CTists it WAS shot down. Either way it does help you case. Flight 77 is the only flight that reasonably COULD have been intercepted. The question is was that failure due to a conspiracy or a combination of errors due not being prepared for events like those that unfolded on 9/11 and incompetence. If you want to prove the former offer some evidence. Let's not forget that the only intercept of a civilian aircraft a decade prior to 9/11 took 81 minutes from the first sign of trouble and about 77 minutes from NORAD being notified. Flight 77 – Crashed at 9:37 First sign of trouble – 8:54 plane begins to go off course. Elapsed time: 43 minutes Authorities notified – "shortly after 9:00… For instance, at 9:08, Indianapolis contacts Air Force Search and Rescue at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia" Elapsed time: 29 - 36 minutes. Apparently unaware of what happened in NY till about 9:20, the controllers though the plane had crashed. The FAA was only notified at 9:24 though a regional office had been called a few minutes earlier ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007/ ) Elapsed time: 13 minutes Complicating factors compared to Payne Stewart's plane: 1) Was flying an erratic course. 2) Transponder was turned off. 3) According to Matthew the fighter was already in the air. [source for the above info about flight 93 unless otherwise noted is the 9/11 Timeline] There is more evidence in addition to the cases cited in my previous post that even after 9/11 intercepts weren't always so easy "...another federal official said that two years ago [in 2002], military jets could identify and intercept only about 40 percent of intruders in training drills." [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35440-2004Jul7_2.html ] Len

Well this is might be the first time ever but "White" actually said something that makes sense. Peter please reformat you post so that the reader can distinguish between Evan's comments and yours. Len

Could the fighters from Otis have intercepted flights 11 and 175? If they had would they have shot them down? That of course depends on three factors. 1) What's the least amount of time they could have reached the towers 2) what time they took off. AND 3) if a shootdown order would have been given. WHAT'S THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME THEY COULD HAVE REACHED THE TOWERS? According to airnav.com it's 167.6 nautical miles from OTIS AFB to the Port Authority Downtown Manhattan/Wall St Heliport the closest airport to the Trade Center [ http://www.airnav.com/airport/KFMH - Enter KJRB in the search box near the middle of the right margin of the page]. 167.6 nautical miles = 194.4 statue miles. The fighters were capable of supersonic speeds but "Rules in effect … on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts" [ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y ] The speed of sound in air varies depending on temperature and pressure. The fighters would have flown at least 10,000 feet because below that altitude there is a 250 KAIS (290 mph) speed limit [ http://web.archive.org/web/20041025163207/...SC/ac_books.pdf - pg. 41]. According to the NOAA 9000 feet above JFK and Logan the temperature is -2, at 12000 it is -8 over JFK and one degree colder over 'Beantown' [ http://aviationweather.gov/products/nws/winds/?area=boston&fint=06&lvl=lo ] I would assume those temps. to be Fahrenheit because that is what's used on other pages on the site. At ground level the high temp. in NY today will be 64 F according to the same site [ http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ifps/MapClick.php?CityName=New+York&state=NY&site=OKX ] which is about the temp. on 9/11. So we can assume the temperature at 10,000 between Otis an NYC to have been about -4 F. The speed of sound is 715 mph at that temperature at sea level [ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe.html ] but would have been lower than that because it decrees at lower air pressure and higher humidity [ if anyone know how to calculate for these don't be shy]. According to the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology "Subsonic flight extends from zero (hovering) to a speed approximately 85% of sonic speed corresponding to the ambient temperature. At higher vehicle velocities the local velocity of air passing over the vehicle surface may exceed sonic speed, and true subsonic flight no longer exists." [ http://www.accessscience.com/Encyclopedia/...ameset.html?doi ] so the planes would have been limited to 610 mph or less. At that speed it would take 19 minutes to cover the distance from Otis to the WTC. I think we can safely assume they would loose at least a minute climbing to 10,000 feet and accelerating to 610 mph and descending to 1000 and decelerating to 290 mph so best case scenario they could have gotten there in 20 minutes. WHAT TIME THEY TOOK OFF To have intercepted flight 11 the fighters would had to have taken off at 8:26 and to intercept flight 175 at 8:43 which struck the towers at 8:46 and 9:03. Is it reasonable to expect such a quick scramble time? There was only one intercept of a civilian aircraft over the US in the 10 years preceding 9/11. That was Payne Stewart's and it took 81 minutes from the time the air traffic controller was unable to contact the pilot. NORAD was set up to stop intruders coming into US and Canadian airspace not those already in it. [see Popular Mechanics article linked above] Let's consider two similar events that happened AFTER 9/11 when we would expect response times to be faster. On June 19, 2002 "Two U.S. Air National Guard F-16s were not able to intercept a small plane that violated restricted air space around Washington until more than 10 minutes after the Cessna 182 passed near the White House", the pilot it turns out was lost but if he had been a suicide bomber he could have hit any number of targets such as the White House, Pentagon or Capital. How long did it take to scramble the fighters? "Timeline: 7:59 p.m. Cessna enters "restricted" air space 8:03 p.m. FAA notifies NORAD 8:04 p.m. Cessna enters "prohibited" air space 8:06 p.m. Two F-16s get orders to scramble 8:06 p.m. Cessna passes White House "within a few miles" 8:17 p.m. F-16s take off from Andrews AFB Intercept occurs "a few minutes later." http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/20/plane.intercept/ CTists will complain that the above timeline is based on information from a "Senior administration official" but similar accounts were given by other news outlets such as CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/19/national/main512816.shtml, the NY Times, Washington Pos and AP [ http://standdown.net/cessna182flewtooclosetothewhitehouse.htm#evacuated ]. So it took 18 minutes from when the plane entered "restricted" air space and 14 minutes from NORAD being notified and 11 minutes from when the scramble order was given for the fighters to take off. On 9/11 the fighters took off at 8:52 which was: 6 minutes after getting the official order (8:46) , 12 minutes after getting an unofficial order (8:40) 15 minutes from the time NORAD was notified (8:37) and 32 minutes after the controllers at Logan concluded the plane had been hijacked (8:20) [ http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa11 ]. In other words the times are comprable, it only took a minute less to scramble fighters to intercept a plane flying towards several potential targets in D.C. 9 months AFTER 9/11 than it did that morning to intercept a hijacked plane that no one could have been expected to be used as a giant guided missile. Also there was an incident in Tampa in January 2002 that showed that even after 9/11 fighters can not be scrambled so quickly. A teenager stole a Cessna from a flight school at 4:50 PM which informed the local FAA. It and crashed into a bank building at 5:05 but NORAD was not informed until 5:13 and the fighters took off at 5:21. It took 8 minutes for the fighters to take off. [ http://news.tbo.com/news/MGA5NIP4HAD.html ] Even if the fighters from Otis had taken off that fast and flown directly towards the Trade Center at the highest permitted speed they would not have gotten there in time to intercept flight 175. WOULD A SHOOT DOWN ORDER HAVE BEEN GIVEN? Even if they had gotten to the Twin Towers before flight 175. it's doubtful they would have been given a shoot down order. At that time few people knew the whole story, millions of people knew the North Tower had been struck by a plane but only those watching CNN knew that it was a passenger jet but few if any of those people knew that two passenger jets had been hijacked and only a handful of those knew that one of those planes had disappeared from radar in the vicinity of the towers. It is doubtful that anyone giving orders to the pilots had the authority to order a shoot down or knew all of the above. Even if they would not have know how few people were onboard the plane nor how many people would die because it hit the South Tower (only a few people with structural engineering, controlled demolition or firefighting backgrounds said they expected collapses.[/font] So much for the stand down. LOL Len Note - edited to fix some errors pointed out by Mr. Hogan.

What are you getting at Ron? What do you mean what am I getting at? Do you see a plane that size in the video or not? I don't. I think I must be confused Ron. I get the impression you are comparing a frame from a computer animated simulation of the Pentagon crash with blurry out of focus frames from a surveillance camera meant to capture license plate numbers. But I must be mistaken a smart guy like you wouldn't make such a silly comparison. I don't plan to play question and answer on 9/11 here. But it's interesting to me that you can ask questions that have such obvious answers. You must really enjoy wasting your own time. Why would they switch the 757 for a missile? How about, to be sure the target got hit, instead of depending on a great aviator like Hani Hanjour to even find the place? You said you believe they had the capability to remote control two Boeing passenger jets into much smaller targets, why not use the same technology to guide another into the Pentagon? Finding the Pentagon would not be difficult all Hanjour had to do was program the autopilot to fly the plane to Washington National Airport (I refuse to uses its new name LOL). It's coordinates can easily be found on the Internet [ http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDCA ] The Pentagon is very close to the airport. The photo below is from Google Earth at the beginning of the red dash line (bottom right) is a runway.. http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/Pentagon_Flight_Path.jpg Each wall is 921 feet long thus the end of the runway is 3000 - 3500 feet from the Pentagon. Obviously once the plane was close to the airport the "Puzzle Palace" would be plainly visible. Or he could even have set the coordinates for the target itself. Hanjour was not as bad a pilot as made out to be: he had a commercial pilot's license and about 600 flight hours and had trained on a Pan Am 737 simulator and 757/767 PC simulators. http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html Exactly. Which tells me that whatever kind of aircraft hit those towers were under remote control. The conspirators on something like 9/11 depending on the likes of Mohamed Atta and his boys to get the job done would be like the CIA or whoever conspiring to assassinate JFK and depending on Lee Harvey Oswald to do it. Ridiculous. Each tower was 206 feet wide, they were not exactly hard targets to hit. Runways are only 150 feet wide (see airnav link above). Like Hanjour, Atta and Shehhi had commercial pilot's licenses and trained on simulator to fly large jets (see link above). Obviously if they could land planes well enough to get private pilot let alone commercial licenses (There are only three types: private, commercial and air transport. You can fly small numbers of passengers with a commercial license.) they could hit a building 40% wider that a runway let alone one as big as the Pentagon. Ron find me ONE airline pilot in good standing (not the nut who got fired from Continental in the 80's after failing psychological exams) who says Atta, Shehhi and Hanjour weren't good enough to have done what that did.

Ron, its not just you. I also don't see a large plane and more likely a thin white missle. But why is the whole video not released! [obviously because it shows something we are not allowed to see]. To those who have not yet may I suggest you download from the internet Loose Change 911 - 2nd edition http://www.loosechange911.com/ -A well done hour documentary on 911. EVEN if the conclusions in it are not correct [though I fear they likely are] the questions it raises are SO disturbing we all must address this issue and fast - or we may not even be allowed to in the near future. Peter What "whole video"? How do you explain the dozens of witnesses who saw a large pessenger jet hit the Pentagon? Can you come up with a rational theory as to why the plotters would switch the 757 for a missile? They were able to hit the Twin Towers which were about a quater the width. What happened to the Plane it's not that easy to land and destroy one without being noticed. I fail to understand how anyone smart enough to use a toaster would be impressed by Loose Change it's even being debunked by people with in the so called "9/11 truth movement". Len What are you getting at Ron?

My sources tell me it's Dan Quayle.

Jack as has been pointed out ad infinitum Zavada made no promises as to when he would submit his latest "dissertation" debunking your nonsense (he already wrote two). Quite to the contrary in fact, he said it would take him "some time". Contrast this with your "sidekick" who promised submit his "formal claim soon" back January. "Rollie", as has been pointed out already, is in poor health. As has also been explained to you repeatedly he already explained why he concluded years ago that the film is an "in camera original" not a copy for technical reasons such as grain structure, tonal range and color balance. As the inventor of the film Zapruder used that day is a very definitely an authoritative source. Interestingly Robert Groden reached the same conclusion. An "in camera original" means that the frames of the Z-film photographed live events NOT photo stills or projected frames. Since this conclusion precludes alteration there was no need for him to analyze supposed content alteration. Most if not all of the claimed anomalies in TGZFH have long been debunked. Zavada wrote: I recommend that anyone interested in whether or not the Z-film was altered, esp. Jim and Shanet read the full report. The only response from Fetzer's camp was the passage below from Costella which didn't refute Zavada's main points. Len Jack to never fail to bring a smile to my face. Thanks!

Ron you should have posted that 26 days earlier LOL I don't know what that essay is supposed to prove. He keeps on saying that 9/11 was obviously an inside job with out offering any proof. May be you could quote the passesges you think are most significant from the article. The bit about hijackers being trained by the gov't was delt with here http://www.911myths.com/html/trained.html Len

John, I read through the thread again and your statement is simply incorrect he answered most if not all your questions. Perhaps you weren’t satisfied with his answers but he replied. Even if what you said were true he is under no obligation to answer all questions asked of him and you don’t have an inalienable right to have all your questions answered - this is an Internet forum not an interrogation or cross examination. I would add that since you insulted him in you 1st post he initially was rather polite with you. Apparently you’ve been asking him questions / disputing his research on other forums for months. I can up to a point understand your frustration, James Fetzer didn’t answer or give straight answers to many questions I (and others) asked him about his book on the Wellstone crash, I didn’t however start new threads with questions for him about that case. You first recourse should have been to ask the above question on the main thread and only then if he refused to answer started a new thread. Your sarcasm is based on a strawman and thus unwarranted; I never suggested that you or anybody else didn’t have the right to ask Dan or anybody else any questions. I objected to starting a new thread with a question for esp. after you hadn’t asked him on the appropriate thread. No see above, your arrogance (IMAO) as always is unwarranted. Why do you have to interject Z-film issues into near every thread I post on, are you obsessed with me? LOL. Dave, bringing up that Zavada hasn’t submitted his debunking of your nonsense yet always backfires on you because I always point out that you publicly promised to post your “formal claim SOON” about 6 weeks BEFORE Zavada privately said he would submit his “dissertation” and said it would “take some time”. This reminds me of the famous Will Rodges quote “There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading; The few who learn by observation; The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.”, if he’d met someone like you he would’ve a forth type “those who repeatedly pee on electric fences to see if they get shocked every time”. Probably true, but since I’m not disputing anything he said about those cases it’s irrelevant. Perhaps some day you’ll say something on this forum that is both true and relevant. Ever think about taking your own advise?

John Hunt, Dan made it clear he doesn't want to answer questions on multiple threads, why can't you respect that? Are you going to start a new thread every time you think of a new question for him? On the other thread you started your rationale was that you didn't think he wasn't giving you a straight answer. What's your excuse this time? John Simkin, I think this thread should be locked (or deleted) and the other one be moved to the RFK or Books section, where it would be more appropriate. Just a suggestion. Len

It is well known that the Pakistani regime had close ties to and backed the Taliban and it wouldn't be surprised if some factions backed Al-Queda as well however I haven't seen conclusive evidence linking Gen Mahamood to the money. According to your source the cooperative research site "The identity of this moneyman "Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi" is in dispute... India claims that Pakistani ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed orders Saeed to send the hijackers the money at this time." http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...ok=mahmoodAhmed I read elsewhere (I'll try to find the link) that the WSJ and AFP based their stories on the Times of India report. It could well be true but seeing as to the adversarial relationship between India and Pakistan and the US's approximation with Pakistan (which I'm sure didn't make the Indians very happy) a report based on information from Indian intelligence is suspect. According to Wikipedia the Times tends to tow the government line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_India Even if it's true it doesn't prove much the ISI's proximity to the Taliban isn't news. Bush had to use a lot of carrot and stick to get Pakistan to back the invasion of Afganistan. War indeed makes strange bedfellows (In WW II the Finns got help from the Nazi's, the US allied itself with the USSR) ISI ties to the CIA between the Soviet pull out from Afganistan and 9/11 are harder to prove.

It is interesting to note that Atta’s own father who initially insisted that his son was still alive after 9-11 and had been set up later basically admitted that Atta was involved. Even the infamous Carlos the Jackel seems to believe that bin-Ladden was responsible for 9-11. As to Atta and the others visiting strip clubs and doing coke apparently they were members of a sect called Al Takfir wal Hijra which permitted such behavior to “blend in”. http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,182746,00.html http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200603u/guantanamo http://www.cageprisoners.com/download.php?download=394 from a lawyer for Guantanamo detainees http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/interviews/fandy.html http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Apr-04/020404.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/12/cp.00.html

Dan, you are forgiven, but rest assured that I do not posess a "collective intelligence" indeed some assert that I barely posess one at all..I still find this weak though, I mean he certainly didnt claim this at the time, what he says in the Time interview sounds like bravado, said in a very different time (Chapman-Lennon) and place from 1968...Regards, Steve. Steve, I don't get your comparison of Sirhan to LHO. Oswald denied he was involved from the moment he was areested till he was killed two days later, Sirham proudly declared his guilt until a few years ago. Len

Dan, Sorry if I'm asking you a question you probably addressed in your book but I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Noguchi determined that RFK was shot at point blank range but no witnesses (that I know of) put Sirhan close enough. Len PS – John shouldn't this thread be moved to the "History Books" or "RFK" sections?

Shanet, your analysis of the 25th Amendment is completely erroneous, the part you are referring to, section 4, reads as follows [my comments in brackets]: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [i.e. – the full cabinet] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide [Congress has never designated such a body], transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. It should be pointed out that the VP and a majority of the members of the cabinet would have to declare that the president was incapacitated. It is extremely unlikely that they would do so in a situation when the president wasn't legitimately incapacitated for several reasons: 1) They were chosen by the president and presumably were people he confided in. Although some VPs were chosen as part of marriages of convenience this is not the case of the cabinet members. At the time the amendment was ratified there were 12 cabinet members, the plotters would need 7 of them to sign the declaration. 2) For a conspiracy to work the group carrying it out has to trust each other and have common interests. The only common link among the cabinet members is that they were appointed by and serve under the president you think they might plot to depose. The VP would have an obvious motive, what would be in it for the cabinet members who would risk life imprisonment or political ruin for doing so? 3) Although it's no guarantee that no shady characters become cabinet members that they have to be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate and have there live investigated by the press and president's advisors makes this unlikely and the chances that 50% + 1 of them would be coup plotters is hard to imagine. Also such a plot wouldn't work for other reasons: 1) All the president would have to do to return to office is to sign a declaration that he (or she) wasn't incapacitated. This is I believe the biggest hole in your "theory". In a situation where the VP and cabinet disputed the president's claim that he wasn't incapacitated the question would be settled by congress and a 2/3 vote by both houses would be necessary to keep the president from returning to power. 2) In the extremely unlikely situation that the VP and cabinet tried to remove an able president, such a coup is unlikely to be accepted by the American public. Although Clinton committed perjury many congressmen and senators who voted for his removal were hurt politically by this vote, although FDR and his New Deal were very popular his attempt to "pack the (Supreme) court" was a political disaster. The situation would not be sustainable. So the plotters would have to actually incapacitate the president to the point that congress and the American people would agree he (or she) truly wasn't "able to discharge the powers and duties of his office". They would have drug/poison him either to induce a permanent coma or leave him crazy (I don't know if such a drug exists). But any group capable of and willing to do that would probably just kill him it would be easier and less risky. Easier, less risky and more effective, a VP who succeeded a dead president would become president in his own right and thus have much more of a mandate than an 'acting president'; this would be especially true if the president was known to have been assassinated. JFK's 'martyrdom' helped LBJ pass legislation and get reelected. 4 VP's suceeded dead president's in the 20th century (TR, Coolidge, Truman and LBJ) all four were elected president in the next election. (None of the 19th century sucessors ran for pesident) The 25th amendment was introduced, passed and ratified while LBJ was president but that proves little. The amendment was introduced by Birch Bayh. Liberal Bayh saved Ted Kennedy's life in a 1964 plane crash and was the also the principal framer of the 26th amendment (lowering the voting age to 18), the ERA (the Equal Rights Amendment) and Title IX (prohibiting sexual discrimination in sports and education). It was passed by a two-thirds (at least) majority in both houses of congress and both houses of the legislatures of (at least) three quarters of the states. Were the thousands of legislators across the country who voted to pass and ratify the amendment "in on" the conspiracy? "The rules for a Presidential succession" weren't "radically re-written". The main focus of the amendment was to provide for the nomination of a vice-president when there was a vacancy. The part of the of the amendment you object to was ratified because it was necessary, on at least six previous occasions the president was incapacitated for extended periods of time and there was no mechanism to declare an acting president leaving the country effectively leaderless. 1841 – William Henry Harrison caught pneumonia during his inauguration speech he was never well enough to serve as president and died 32 later. 1850 – Zachary Taylor fell ill after consuming cherries and milk on July 4 and succumbed to cholera (or gastroenteritis depending on who you believe). He lay incapacitated for 5 days before dying. 1881 – William Garfield was shot July 2 but he did not die until September 19, 80 days later. 1901 – William McKinnley was shot September 6 but only died September 14. 1920 – 1 - Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke on October 2, 1919 leaving him incapacitated this was hidden from the American public and his VP, it is believed his wife and close advisors were in charge until William Harding succeeded him on March 4, 1921(five months later). 1923 – Harding died August 2 after being ill for several days. By the 1960's the US was enmeshed in a "cold war" with the Soviet Bloc especially after the Cuban Missile crisis it was obvious that extended periods without an acting president could be perilous, Soviet hard liners had recently forced Khrushchev from power. Theoretically a president could lapse into a coma on the day of his inauguration and be kept alive indefinitely on life support. Without the 25th amendment the country would be without an acting president until the inauguration of his successor 4 years later. I don't follow your analysis that the 25th amendment some how is evidence of LBJ, Hoover and Dillion et. al.'s guilt. They might well have been the culprits but they had little to do with the amendment and it is in no way indicative of their guilt. JFK was already dead the amendment was not of use to them. How exactly did the amendment "give cover to the events of November, 1963". You indicated, as much as I could follow you that you thought some plot to incapacitate JFK existed, do you have any evidence in support of this theory? I have seen similar interpretations of section four of the amendment, mostly on sites that froth on about the Illuminati and Area 51. What I haven't seen is a historian, political scientist or legal scholar give the idea credit and for good reason, it's obviously wrong to anybody who knows what they are talking about. I am also curious about your claim that you were threatened with legal action over 25th Amendment/ JFK Assassination essay above, who threatened to sue you most (if not all) the people you cited had died. Wasn't it Gratz who threatened to sue you after you accused him of involvement in the attempt on Wallace?[/size] Len

I agree you and David should set higher standards for yourselves. Hardly, it's only "suspect" by a small number of die-hard true believers. There is no evidence to back these claims. Theories of z-film alteration are rejected by most serious JFK researchers. Thus far no one with film making expertise has said they believe such theories or even believe they are possible. The inventor of Kodakcrome II (Zavada), the author of the book Healy cites (Fielding) and the filmmaker most knowledgeable about the assassination (Oliver Stone) have all said alteration ala Livingstone and Fetzer wasn't possible at the time. Foul language? LOL 'spurious' isn't a dirty word, insults have used by both sides, just declaring the film is false doesn’t make it so, try coming up with credible evidence of falsification.

....Let me address one such example concerning Costella's alteration claim. Costella writes, "Film experts believe that a real film of the assassination was quickly altered on the evening of the assassination, using machines that could create Hollywood-style special effects (like Mary Poppins, created in 1964)." For one thing - there are no film experts that I am aware of that claim the Zapruder film was altered. ... I wondered about that myself, perhaps Costella was referring to himself in the royal we as a "film expert". After all Fetzer declared that he was "the leading technical expert on the Zapruder film" and that he had a "specialty in optics". David, Jack, Fetzer care to tell us exactly who these "film experts" are? He didn't bring it up Shanet did. He was debunking Shanet's spurious claim about the jail

I never said I was the "interface" between Zavada and Fielding and this forum though I did offer to post anything they wrote regarding the Z film if they decided not to join. Since you promised your “formal claim” "soon" back in mid January and Zavada said in late February he would write a dissertation but said specifically it would take him some time you have no grounds to question his “delay”. Zavada has serious health problems. Submit your “claim” and a few months later you’ll have the right to ask about Zavada’s dissertation. Moron, dunce? LOL Isn’t that like a mutt calling a Siamese a dog! Insults from the likes of you are a compliment. I’ve got no problems with high school teachers* but when a recognized crime scene expert with a specialization in blood splatter says a teacher is wrong about blood splatter I’ll go with the professional crime scene expert every time, esp. if common sense indicates the teacher made a stupid blunder and that high school teacher is John Costella for reasons stated above. Now that we’re on the subject tell us Dave, don’t you think it’s possible the blood splatter was accelerated by the bullet? If not, why not? If so how could your friend the gifted PhD in physics, “expert on how things move” and “leading technical expert on the Zapruder film” have missed something so obvious. My “handlers” now Fetzer, Jack (White), the crazy old lady down the street and YOU have accused me of being a spy of some sort, that’s some club you belong too. Hopefully you won’t get to Costella’s point and start suspecting your own wife! Of Jack’s and believe that the naked man who stole your car and crashed it into a retaining wall shortly thereafter was a “would be” assassin! http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm Len PS “your posting to” or “you’re posting to” LOL * Except when they try to push themselves off as experts on subjects they have little knowledge.

Which Costello are you talking about, Lou, Frank or Elvis? LOL! John Costella makes me think of comedy too but more along the lines of Jarry and Ionesco than slapstick. The blood spray argument was throughly debunked in the forum by some one who, unlike the high school science teacher, knew what she was talking about. It's hard to believe anyone esp. a person with a PhD in physics couldn't figure out that blood splatter would be accelerated by a high velocity bullet! How could the Australian DoD hire this guy? Shanet is that concept to hard to comprehend?

To be honest I know very little even though Jack and Fetzer and the crazy old lady down the street have accused me of being a CIA agent. I do know a little bit about Costella though: 1) he believes that the 6th Floor Museum's very low-fi web cam is part of nefariuos plot to keep researchers in Dealy Plaza under survelence 2) he believes the rain sensors in DP are really listening devices and are part of the same mefarious plot, * 3) he suspects that the teacher who substituted for him at Mentone Grammer is a CIA agent, 4) he suspected that his (now) ex-wire was a CIA agent, 5) he believes that the CIA (or some other intelligence agency) sabotaged his shirts, electric razor, digital camera and memory card while the were in checked baggage in order to undermine his presntation at Fetzer's conference in Duluth. 6) ** This leads me to conclude he is a paranoid nut. As to number 5) above all he had to do was but a new shirt and razor to resolve the first two, something that could have done in a few minutes esp.since he had a local contact (Fetzer). I also wonder what kind of idiot would put a digital camera, let alone a memory card with images he needed for a presentation the next day into checked baggage. I also know until his new job he was working as a grammer school science and math teacher being perhaps the world's most under employeed science PhD. This leads me to conclude that although he might be quite brilliant when it comes to science he is clueless regarding practicle matters. I also know he wrote a spurious chapter for American Assassination speculating about particle weapons. This leads me to conclude he has problems with thinking rationally. Also sound like the kind of stuff a particle physicist working for the Dept. of Defense would research. If I were a general I would be worried that he might "spill the beans". A 9/11 CT who worked at Sadia Nat. Labs and is now part of ST9/11 said he probably would have lost his clearence if he had publicly questioned 9/11 while working there. For all of the above reasons I doubt he would get security clearence. Len PS - I'm not nervious, if I was I wouldn't have metioned Fetzer's claim here. If the Aussies gave Costella clearence that reflects negitively on them more than it does positively on him. * it should be pointed out that for this to be true the Dallas parks dept would have to be "in on it" the risks of involving more people would NOT be worth the benefit of being able to hear what people a saying in the plaza. I'm sure it the CIA wanted to plant listening devices in DP they could do so without the benefit of rain sensors or risks of involving the parks dept. **PPS - EDITED TO ADD - Costella also believes the Moon landings were faked!

Jack you genius I'm self employeed as you could have seen if you'd had enough brains to click on the link for my bio which has been at the bottom of all posts since I joined the forum. Don't kid yourself your lunacy is so off the mark I doubt any intelligence agency cares about you if they even know who you are. The CIA probably thinks that people like you help their cause because you bring discredit upon their critics. For what ever it's worth Fetzer is now claiming that Costella works for the Australian Dept. of Defense. I doubt they would give him security clearence let alone a job and all the secrecy is suspicious. I wonder if the job is like those held by Walter Mitty and John Nash. But if it's true by your own logic he is longer credible.

Still waiting for an answer as to what Costella's new job is. Len Edit - typo

So David when exactly can we expect to see your "formal claim" which you said you would make "soon" back in January?