Dave Greer

Faking The Beijing Olympics Footprint fireworks faked Olympic Child Singing Star Revealed As Fake In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't really matter a great deal. So why am I left with a sour taste in my mouth? Shame, because at the time I was hugely impressed with the opening ceremony as a spectacle (although the Bird's Nest designer thought the total opposite). Now I feel thoroughly bemused, whereas previously I felt astonished. What else wasn't as it seemed at the time?

Ron, you're a very bad man. "Lampooning Bush" should be a presentation sport at the next Olympics (you may laugh, but Art Competitions were held in London in the 1948 Olympics). I prefer this image. He was clearly getting revenge after being spanked by this rather stern looking woman. She looks vaguely familiar, but I can't quite place her.

Maggie IMO an image hosting account is easier to use than the built-in "Attach" function, since it displays images in posts, and you can add more than one image to a post. There are several such sites which are free to register at, I use Photobucket which is ideal for my purposes, there are others such as Imageshack or Flickr. Photobucket is handy because it allows you to create your own folder system, and it allows you to click on a link that allows you to automatically copy and paste the correct code when writing a post on the Education Forum, without having to add the tags. If you need some advise/help setting this and using it, PM me. Cheers

I've figured out what the problem is. The corner highlighted by Jack is indeed at the intersection of Church and Murray, but it's diagonally opposite from where the engine parts were found. The engine was found at the northeast corner: Jack has highlighted the southwest corner. If Jack doesn't believe me about the location of the engine, he can ask Judy Wood where she thinks it landed. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dew..._engineDrop.jpg Shame, I thought we had a genuine mystery there for a minute! Just to make it a little easier to visualise...

I've figured out what the problem is. The corner highlighted by Jack is indeed at the intersection of Church and Murray, but it's diagonally opposite from where the engine parts were found. The engine was found at the northeast corner: Jack has highlighted the southwest corner. If Jack doesn't believe me about the location of the engine, he can ask Judy Wood where she thinks it landed. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dew..._engineDrop.jpg Shame, I thought we had a genuine mystery there for a minute!

Given that Len Colby either hails from or lives in Brazil, I suspect it's probably an alias he uses on that site. The first person on the "advisory board" is called Shagster, which I doubt is his real name (I may be wrong).

Jack I think you've identified the corner of Church and Murray correctly. Here's the view looking North along Church, which seems to correspond to the photo. It would be interesting to see a higher resolution version of that snippet, to try and see exactly what is roped off by the yellow tape, and it might even be possible to see the time on the man's watch.

Hopefully the images below will lay the matter to rest, permanently. Firstly, this image (already shown), shows the north side of WTC6 as viewed from West Broadway. The south tower has collapsed, the north tower is visible behind WTC6. There is zero damage visible on this part of WTC6. Secondly, a sequence of 4 still images taken from a tall apartment block at Battery Park. They are all before the South tower collapsed. No fires, no hoses spraying WTC6, no visible damage. Thirdly, and hopefully the one that finally settles the issue. You can see the original image here.

Jack, I posted the image which I found on another site. I never claimed the building on the left is WTC6, I agree it is WTC5. Here's how I described the image:- Here's a composite image showing WTC6 (above the pedestrian bridge), taken AFTER the south tower collapsed, and BEFORE the north tower collapsed. No sign of any fires, debris damage or broken windows. The view is south along West Broadway, WTC7 is visible in the right foreground. How is this possible if your claim that the building has exploded is correct? The whole point of posting that image was to show a view of the building after the south tower collapse, but before the north tower collapsed. This image shows no fire damage, albeit the view is from West Broadway looking at the north side of WTC6, rather than the west side.

I think you're right about the mis-identification of that particular part of WTC6, so withdraw my study showing a comparison with the Bill Biggart photo. A better comparison is the montage I posted earlier when compared to the Bill Biggart image, which I believe do show the same section of WTC6. Does that section of WTC6 looks like it exploded prior to the collapses? Do there appear to be as many broken/burnt windows in the montage as there are in the Bill Biggart image? Do you have a link to the image you used in your study? The site you got it from may show other images of WTC6 showing more detail.

Jack Even MORE evidence that your claim that WTC6 exploded pre-collapse is contrary to the evidence. This montage from a video linked earlier shows almost all the relevant facade of WTC6, after both towers had collapsed. Does the number of broken windows equate with your study? Doesn't look like it to me. The jig is indeed up!

Here's a closer examination of the windows that Jack claims are proof that WTC6 exploded before it was damaged by the collapses. The images used are theone in Jack's study, and stills from video of WTC6 found at this site: http://911.yweb.sk/download/video/wtc7/videos

Jack, your claims about WTC6 "exploding" are getting more and more bizarre. WTC6 was definitely NOT white, unless someone decided to whitewash it prior to 911. Again viewed from the plaza, WTC6 is the smaller building, bottom left (WTC7 is behind it). Here's a composite image showing WTC6 (above the pedestrian bridge), taken AFTER the south tower collapsed, and BEFORE the north tower collapsed. No sign of any fires, debris damage or broken windows. The view is south along West Broadway, WTC7 is visible in the right foreground. How is this possible if your claim that the building has exploded is correct?

I actually agree with Craig here. the Market is doing EXACTLY what its supposed to do. Market is as market does.

I should have mentioned that objects anchored into the earth (buildings, trees, light poles) SHARE THE MASS OF THE EARTH with their own. Thus a METAL auto traveling at 60 mph can hit a WOODEN tree and be demolished, because the tree is borrowing some mass from the earth, to which it is connected, and thus its "mass" is greater than the car. Jack Perhaps you could explain how a B25, of far less mass (and kinetic energy) than the 767s, could knock a gaping 20'x20' hole through the wall of the Empire State Building, fling wreckage through and out of the far side of the building, and through the roof of another building on the far side? It had kinetic energy around 1-2% that of the 767s.

Given the huge amount of kinetic energy in the plane, I don't have an issue with those images. A B25 bomber punched a 20'x20' hole through the Empire State building in 1945, an engine penetrated the far side, crashed through a roof of another beyond on the far side an started a fire in that building. The 767 that crashed into the South Tower had 60-100x as much kinetic energy, and that doesn't take into account the difference in explosive energy of the fuel loads (the B25 was almost empty).

I don't even think it's not visible in the blue image. I think it's visible to thr LHS of the left-most (South) tower. If we had the links to the video feeds it would settle the issue.

More strawmen. When did I say the plane didn't break up? When did I say the plane didn't explode? Wow, I made a typo. Why do you have so much trouble admitting your own errors? I'm as close to 100% sure as it is possible to be 100% sure about anything.

Jack I agreed with the author of your previous article that kerosene would not melt steel, because that is not what happened. I agree that the amount of fuel involved with an aircraft strike would not consume a building 1/4 mile high, because that is not what happened. MOST of the fuel may well have exploded outside the building itself. However, if a passenger jet struck either tower, I would expect to see major damage around the face that was hit that corresponds with the size/shape of the jet (which is what we see), I'd expect to see huge fireballs outside the building caused by the exploding jet fuel (which is what we see). Since elevator shafts run the height of the building, and to other lobbies, I would not be surprised if other areas were damaged by burning fuel or debris falling down the shafts (which is what we see - damage to the lobby). I'd expect the burning jet fuel to set fire to office equipment and consumables, to enable the fires to continue to burn once the kerosene had all burned off (which is what we see). I'd expect to see lots of black smoke from incomplete combustion due to reduced oxygen levels (which is what we see). I'd expect the relevant video and photographic evidence to provide supporting evidence that a plane struck both buildings (which it does). Evidence for this happening to the North tower is limited, but there is a wealth of evidence from many different sources that shows a jet crashing into the south face of the south tower. The only ones where we don't see this happening is where the viewpoint means that the plane is obscured for part of it's journey by other buildings. For example, look at your latest study. There is an object in mid-air to the left of the south tower that is very probably the plane, being viewed from a slightly different angle. For you to be right, every single video and photo of the plane crashing into the South Tower must have been faked or altered. How can this be possible, since there are countless sources not only from different news groups, but also many independent and amateur photos and videos that would have to be tracked down, falsified, and the people who were aware of the material somehow silenced. The chances of this happening are vanishingly small. What I can't see is the fireproofing being dislodged from steel beams, simply because the video footage can't see that level of detail. However, since it's basically a foam that's sprayed on and sets, I don't think it's surprising that in the areas where the plane struck, much of that fireproofing would have been damaged or destroyed. I don't find it surprising that fires burned at temperatures of 400-800 celsius, with hotspots reaching as high as 1000 celsius. If steel is being exposed to temperatures that high, I can research how much it's going ot be weakened, as much as 90%. If structural elements lose that much strength, I don't find it surprising that there was a catastrophic failure in each building. The exact nature of that failure is beyond my ken to prove or disprove. NIST states it wasn't a pancake collapse, who am I to know otherwise. I can't test anything stated in the NIST report, but I can look at their conclusions, how they analysed the evidence, what assumptions they made. I can try and find anomalies that aren't explained by the evidence. In the case of WTC 1 and 2 I haven't found any yet. (The NIST report isn't available on WTC 7 so I can't really comment on its conclusions.) So on the one hand, I've got plenty of hard evidence that is in agreement with the conclusions of the NIST report that both towers were struck by jets. On the other hand, there are your studies and your belief that planes didn't strike the buildings. Since I can falsify your studies (and others) to my own satisfaction, all I'm left with is a lot of evidence supporting the fact that planes struck the buildings, and zero evidence that they didn't. There are other theories, for example many people believe that explosives or thermite was used to bring the towers down after the planes struck. I can't falsify these theories, so I have to leave them as a possibility. My own opinion is that it's exceedingly unlikely, but since I can't falsify it, I don't rule it out 100%. My belief that the towers weren't brought down by explosives certainly isn't proof that they weren't. I'm 100% certain that planes truck both towers, regardless of whether there was a subsequent controlled demolition, due to the overwhelimg body of evidence that supports it.

My own words: NEITHER. Jack Neither melted NOR weakened? Well, at least you agree with the NIST report that the steel didn't melt. I find it puzzling that anyone would claim there was no weakening of the steel, regardless of whether they subscribe to the controlled demolition theory or not. Do you have any evidence to support the theory that there was no weakening of any steel beams? Is there any evidence that proves all the fire protection foam remained intact after the planes hit? Or do you subscribe to the theory that no planes hit the towers?

This is a strawman argument that has been exposed a LONG time ago. The author is absolutely correct. Kerosene does NOT "melt" steel, i.e. it does not liquefy it. However, the temperatures created in a building fire started by kerosene are sufficient to dramatically reduce the tensile strength of steel, WITHOUT melting it. As Colby would say, please cite your references. Your statement is anti-scientific. A wood fire will not melt steel, or even cast iron...which Ben Franklin used to invent his famous wood burning stove. My mother used her cast iron skillet to cook breakfast every morning and it never melted. You hope nobody will notice a convenient untruth. Tell us why JET ENGINES do not melt from the heat of the kerosene they burn. Jack Jack, read my post again. I'm AGREEING with the author of the article you posted that a kerosene fire does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel. However, nowhere in the NIST report does it state that steel was melted. It does, however, state that the fires burned at temperatures up to 1000 celsius, at which point steel loses 90% of its tensile strength, WITHOUT melting. Since you demand references, here's the relevant portion from the NIST Report FAQ published August 2006. 7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? OR 7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers? In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. That's why the article you posted employs a long-refuted strawman argument. The "official version", i.e. the NIST report, does NOT state that steel beams melted: quite the opposite, as pointed out above. I don't know when the author wrote that article, but if he reads the relevant sections of the NIST report, he'll realise that he actually AGREES with that part of the official version (i.e. steel beams were NOT melted). The NIST report is a work of fiction. Jack Jack, I'm confused. Please help me out. You post an article by Edward Mitchell who claims that steel can not melt due to kerosene fires. I point out that this is in agreement with the NIST report that steel did NOT melt. You claim the NIST report is a work of fiction. All of it, or some of it? If some, which parts? Please tell me in your own words, were any of the steel beams in either WTC1 or 2 heated sufficiently to MELT them, rather than weaken them?

This is a strawman argument that has been exposed a LONG time ago. The author is absolutely correct. Kerosene does NOT "melt" steel, i.e. it does not liquefy it. However, the temperatures created in a building fire started by kerosene are sufficient to dramatically reduce the tensile strength of steel, WITHOUT melting it. As Colby would say, please cite your references. Your statement is anti-scientific. A wood fire will not melt steel, or even cast iron...which Ben Franklin used to invent his famous wood burning stove. My mother used her cast iron skillet to cook breakfast every morning and it never melted. You hope nobody will notice a convenient untruth. Tell us why JET ENGINES do not melt from the heat of the kerosene they burn. Jack Jack, read my post again. I'm AGREEING with the author of the article you posted that a kerosene fire does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel. However, nowhere in the NIST report does it state that steel was melted. It does, however, state that the fires burned at temperatures up to 1000 celsius, at which point steel loses 90% of its tensile strength, WITHOUT melting. Since you demand references, here's the relevant portion from the NIST Report FAQ published August 2006. 7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? OR 7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers? In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. That's why the article you posted employs a long-refuted strawman argument. The "official version", i.e. the NIST report, does NOT state that steel beams melted: quite the opposite, as pointed out above. I don't know when the author wrote that article, but if he reads the relevant sections of the NIST report, he'll realise that he actually AGREES with that part of the official version (i.e. steel beams were NOT melted).

This is a strawman argument that has been exposed a LONG time ago. The author is absolutely correct. Kerosene does NOT "melt" steel, i.e. it does not liquefy it. However, the temperatures created in a building fire started by kerosene are sufficient to dramatically reduce the tensile strength of steel, WITHOUT melting it.

Strange. I thought we were looking at whether some photos were concordant with the official 9/11 version or not. Apparently, the burning issue now is the specific design of modern emergency tents.

This isn't a fight. Peter posted a photo which he claims doesn't fit with the official version that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon: I'm asking him to explain why. So much is posted about 911 that I think it's important to filter out the "noise". Once that's done, only the really important stuff will be left. IMO the photo of a decontamination tent being moved into position on the Pentagon lawn is noise. Just like your claim that Hurricane Erin wasn't mentioned prior to 911 is noise. Get rid of the gravel, and you might just discover a nugget or two. Keep pouring the gravel on, and claiming it to be priceless, and the nuggets will forever be obscured under a mountain of dirt.