Dave Greer

Then we'll have to disagree on that. Perhaps it's a matter of perception. You say the tent is much too small to house humans. I look at the photo see straight away that it's capable of housing humans. It also looks similar, if not identical in every respect that matters, to the tents we see in other photos that clearly are big enough for people. You say the eyes being covered is suspicious, but that is only in the image you posted, not in the image I found. http://www.rense.com/general70/tent-1.jpg You say it is being moved toward the Pentagon. I agree. I just can't for the life of me figure out why moving a tent toward the Pentagon is somehow suspicious. Getting back to your original contention, which was that this image "does not fit the official story by any stretch of the imagination", can you detail exactly how the image doesn't fit with the official story? I'm not really interested at this stage in speculation about what might have hit the Pentagon other than a passenger jet, I'd like to know specifically what it is about the image that makes you think it doesn't fit with a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon. (What I'm getting at is, to speculate that a decontamination facility may be due to a "bunker buster", which doesn't fit with the official story, therefore the image is suspect, is just circular reasoning. I'm more interested in what it is in the image that is totally inconsistent with the official claim about a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon). Thanks.

Peter You claim that this image "doesn't fit the official story by any stretch of the imagaination". http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/...-1216928821.gif What do you say about the rather mundane explanation that it is a tent, given the photographic evidence available?

I find it unusual that nobody will address the images in the red circles. I thought sure the UNTRUTHERS would jump all over it, saying that I know nothing about jet landing gears. Jack No mystery I can see Jack. The wheel has obviously been moved (by persons or forces unknown). I suspect the wheel (was) rolled slightly to one side, as shown by the difference in the cracks in the rubber. Which also means that a different part of the metal undercarriage is visible. There is another explanation. The wheel may have been placed by the CIA or other sinister US agency. After the buildings had collapsed, they decided they wanted to place a different wheel, so they came along, removed the first one, added the second one. I think the former explanation is more likely.

Jack Can I ask what is the point of this study? Are you seriously suggesting that there was some kind of conspiracy to cover up Hurricane Erin on 9/11? (I'm assuming you meant Sept 11th 2001, not Nov 11th 1991). Why? Whatever your motives for posting this "study", it's yet another that's well wide of the mark. Check out this weather forecast from around 8:30am on the morning of Sept 11th 2001. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 Why do you say there was a news blackout of the hurricane?

Peter The Pentagon crash image you attached looked as if it depicted the plane crashing into the building at an angle approaching ninety degrees, but that wasn't the case. Does this image adequately explain that particular anomaly? EDIT TO ADD: On top of that, the light poles you mention are on Washington Boulevard, and the helicopters are on the west side of the boulevard, the side away from the Pentagon.

This was effectively addressed in the other thread. Check out Bob and Bri's home video filmed from an apartment in Battery Park. It's high resolution, and includes several close zooms on building six at various stages of the attacks. No evidence at all of fire in the building before the south tower collapsed. http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/video.html I've also previously shown a comparison between 2 of Bill Biggart's photos, showing that what is perceived to be a burn mark MUST be a reflection due to the slight change in angle between the two photos.

Jack The article you link to doesn't provide anything of substance when it comes to the number of cell phone calls made from Flight 93. Most of the calls described aren't specified as being either of cell phone or airphone origin. Only a small part of the very long article you posted even referred to Flight 93. Abbreviated for clarity: The article could mistakenly be construed as though the 9/11 commission are saying that at least ten cell calls were placed from Flight 93, but if you actually read at the Report itself, you'll see that simply is not the case. The quote is NOT from the Report, as a simple search of the online PDF will verify. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf Can you provide anything of substance to back up the claim in this article that ten cell phone calls were made? Even the article you link to says the following:- My bolding.Moving on to the issue of altitude. My bolding. Since the only two calls identified as coming from a cell phone were made at a time when the Flight Data Recorder shows the altitude to be below 6000 feet, altitude is clearly not an issue.

First things first. The information I've read states that only TWO cell phone calls were made from Flight United 93. The other 35 calls were made using GTE airphones. This is from a Wiki site I haven't had time to verify yet, but if those details are incorrect they can easily be refuted. So, 2 cell phone calls to contend with. If possible we need to figure out when those calls were made, and what the altitude of the plane was at the time. Edward Felt is reported as having made a cell phone call to 911 around 09:58. Ceecee Lyles (a flight attendant) called her husband around the same time, 09:58. We need to find out the altitude of the plane at this time. Luckily, you can download a copy of the Flight Recorder Data here. Here's the relevant section for those who don't want to download the whole file. The altitude of the plane at the time those 2 cell phone calls were made was no higher than 6000 feet, a little more than a mile. As for the data you gave about cell phones not being able to make a network connection, I don't know anything about that, but I can do simple maths using the figures you supplied. The aircraft speed at the time is recorded at 300 knots, or approximately 345mph. At that speed the plane will cover approx 1/3 of a mile in the space of 3 seconds, the time you quote as being necessary for a mast to make a connection. I've no idea where the masts are located at that part of Pennsylvania, but if we go with your figure of every 2 to 3 miles, that equates to an approximate time of 20-30 seconds before needing to renegotiate with a different mast. I don't know the length of the two cell phone calls, or the accuracy of the figures you supplied, but I do know that the first cell phone call was disconnected, possibly as the plane passed out of range of a mast. I've yet to see any evidence presented that proves those 2 cell phone calls were impossible with the technology available at the time, and the data currently available.

You didn't read my post. The satellite image Peter posted was taken on Sept 12th, not 11th. The wind direction is a red herring. The problem is that you mis-identified the frame from the CNN footage as being before the south tower collapse. Looking at the entire footage proves that the frame is soon after the south tower collapsed. You should follow Dave Von Kleist's example, admit you mis-identified the frame, withdraw the study, and move on.

Now you're just being ridiculous. You haven't posted any images showing evidence of wind blowing in anything other than a south to south-easterly direction. The satellite image you posted was taken on September 12th, NOT 11th. TIME-OUT! I have a feeling the discussion is getting sidetracked. The reason we started looking at wind direction was in response to this study by Jack. The fundamental problem with Jack's study isn't really the wind direction issue, but the fact that he's failed to correctly identify the image on the left (in terms of time). It is part of a video sequence shot while, and soon after, the south tower was collapsing. This has been proven by seeing the footage in it's entirety. It has also been admitted by the author of "9/11 In Plane Sight" (who was initially a proponent of the "WTC6 exploding" issue) to be taken just after the south tower collapsed. The image on the right was clearly taken while the south tower was collapsing, and slightly before the image on the left. The dust cloud hasn't yet had time to billow up above WTC7. That is why the issue got side-tracked. I should have just posted the above paragraph instead of getting embroiled in a discussion about the wind-direction. The wind-direction is a red herring that I shouldn't have wasted my time chasing.

Peter The satellite image showing smoke blowing off to the south-west was taken on Sept 12th (see link). There are many satellite images taken on 9/11 on the net, here's one taken from the ISS, showing the smoke plume being blown to the south (actually slightly east of south) Other images taken on 11th and subsequent days can be found here. More satellite images here:- http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...spaceflight.jpg http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...files/mixed.jpg http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...es/Terrared.jpg Source I can't find any evidence anywhere of the smoke plume being blown in any direction other than (slightly east of) south on the 11th of September.

Jack That passage refers to the dust cloud which was created when each building collapsed, rather than the pall of smoke from the top of the building while the fires burned. I don't think the dust cloud only went north-west, it spread out in all directions, being channelled through the surrounding streets. The smoke cloud continued to drift southwards, as evidenced by the photos and video taken from NYC, and the satellite images taken on the day. There's no evidence for a sudden and drastic change of wind direction at the height of the towers. Which still leaves the claim about WTC6 exploding as the north tower was hit right where we left it: not only unsupported by any video or photographic evidence, but palpably falsified by the photographic and video evidence.

Jack 911 is a turning point in Human history, with repercussions that will affect us all for who knows how many decades. If the truth movement is right, and the US Government or its agencies are guilty of some kind of complicity in 911, then that needs to be brought to the attention of the world in the form of unimpeachable evidence. Along the road to finding that crucial evidence, many claims will be made that are shown to be false by analysis of the evidence itself. Once that's been done (as has been done with your claims about WTC6), flawed arguments should be consigned to a dusty shelf until such a time as new evidence emerges to support the original claim, and energies should be focussed on other aspects of evidence. If you insist on including the bogus WTC6 claim as part of the canon of evidence, then questions are raised about the validity of the entire canon. In your determination to include your WTC6 claim as part of the canon, you're actually hurting the 911 truth movement, in the same way that Judy Wood's continued espousal of her "death ray" hurts the truth movement, and those insisting on the use of holograms are hurting the truth movement. Dave Vonkleist has the right appoach. He made the same claim you did about WTC6 in his video "911 In Plane Sight", until such a time when the claim was proven to be false, using the same evidence as has been presented on this thread. Now he can direct his energies in a more fruitful direction, rather than wasting his own time and energy chasing a red herring with wild geese. You could do worse than take a leaf out of his book. As for anyone's claims to being an expert, I tend to take such things under advisement and let people's words and actions speak for themselves. Your Apollo and 911 studies have more than adequately confirmed the validity or otherwise of your "expert" status.

There's a change in angle between the 2 photos as evidenced by the relation of WTC7 to WTC1. Here are the 2 images from your study. Here's a plan of the WTC complex, showing the approx location of the smoke cloud, and the approx direction the cameras were pointing in when the 2 photos were taken. Different sides of the smoke cloud are visible depending on the viewpoint of the camera (the cloud is in exactly the same position in both images). Aha...the very response I anticipated. See attached. Jack Jack What do you mean when you say both cameras are pointing South? Do you mean "Due South", or do you mean "in a vaguely southerly direction". The way you've constructed your argument seems to indicate you mean "due South", since otherwise there's plenty of wiggle room for the change in angle between the two photos as I've indicated ("in a vaguley southerly direction" covers a field of at LEAST 90 degrees, or 180 if you're being very generous). Clearly both images cannot be pointing either due South, or indeed in the same direction (other than a very generalised "in a southerly manner"), as shown below.

There's a change in angle between the 2 photos as evidenced by the relation of WTC7 to WTC1. Here are the 2 images from your study. Here's a plan of the WTC complex, showing the approx location of the smoke cloud, and the approx direction the cameras were pointing in when the 2 photos were taken. Different sides of the smoke cloud are visible depending on the viewpoint of the camera (the cloud is in exactly the same position in both images). EDIT Reversed the positions of the 2 maps so they correspond to the photos as shown in Jack's montage.

Hopefully my last posting on the WTC 6 issue. (1) Dave Vonkleist, producer of "truther" video "9-11 In Plane Sight", changes his position on the WTC 6 "explosion" in the light of new evidence (which has also been presented on this thread). http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6swp29fhzlM From the 3:20 mark... Until more evidence is discovered to support the contention of a separate explosion at the world trade center, I think it's safe to assume that this rising plume was the first of many, which were the result of the collapsing south tower, which was hidden from view in this camera angle. (2) Bob and Bri's home video, shot from the location indicated below in Battery Park. Includes several zooms on WTC6, and no evidence of a fire in WTC6, or dust plume, until AFTER the first collapse. http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/video.html

I don't think this one has been addressed yet. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 Look at the time stamp from 39:34 to 39:55. No sign of any smoke in this 21 second clip. Further, what you say is a dust cloud is not in the correct position as you claim. Your red circle is in front of 3WF (labelled WFC 3 in tyhe map below). WTC6 is sandwiched in between WTC1 and WTC7.

Jack There's always the Report button if you believe someone has over-stepped the mark. I don't think your proposal would be workable in practice. Splitting the discussion onto two threads wouldn't prevent name calling, it would just make any semblance of a discussion more difficult to follow. Some important issues have been raised concerning your claim about the "WTC6 dust cloud" video clip, could you address them on the other thread?

Jack Can you explain why there are is no video showing this dust cloud soon after the south tower was struck? The only footage I can find showing these large billowing clouds is immediately after each tower collapses. http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive The only evidence I've seen is the video frame mislabelled "9:04", which is clearly taken after the south tower collapsed. Here's the footage as broadcast on CNN (they didn't show it "live"). http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216 The time-stamp 19:14 (into the clip) shows the same scene that Jack claims was filmed at 9:04 EST, a minute after the south tower was struck. (This equates to a time of 11:54 EDT). I agree with Peter that the time it was shown on CNN is (almost) irrelevant, the time of the event is what is important. So, the only way to judge for yourself is to look at the video around the timestamp I indicated, and decide for yourself whether it was taken just after the south tower was hit, or whether it was taken just after the south tower started collapsing. Sorry Jack, but your claim is wrong. The time-stamp you claim of 9:04 is way off beam.

Jack Can you explain why there are is no video showing this dust cloud soon after the south tower was struck? The only footage I can find showing these large billowing clouds is immediately after each tower collapses. http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive The only evidence I've seen is the video frame mislabelled "9:04", which is clearly taken after the south tower collapsed.

Archive footage from several news channels is available for review from this link. http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive I reviewed the images from ABC and BBC for several minutes after the secondplane struck the south tower. I couldn't see any evidence at all of an explosion coming from WTC6. Jack, can you or anyone else find any corrobarating evidence for your claim that a dust cloud from WTC6 rose above WTC7 almost immediately after the second pplane struck? (Or at any time prior to the collapse, for that matter?)

Here's my comparison of the two Bill Biggart images he took as the south tower collapsed. It's a cropped GIF with the two crops aligned for easier comparison. Look at the area on the building circled in green. The dark/light areas clearly change from one crop to another. This is evidence that what we're seeing is a reflection, not smoke damage (the photos were taken from slightly different positions). I've highlighted a similar effect on the fire engine for comparison. There doesn't appear to be any broken windows, at least none that I can identify. Looking at the second image compared to the first, you can see the reflection of the dust cloud in several windows, as highlighted below. Edited to show images rather than links

My guess (and it is only a guess Ron) is that they are actally reflections. They seem to be present wherever a window is broken, possibly due to deformation of the glass panes and changing the angle of incidence relative to the camera compared to unbroken panes.

You are correct Jack, she didn't produce them herself. But as you say she does endorse them by hosting them on her website. You did, however, introduce the clip by saying "Dr Judy Wood exposes fake 911 videos". Either she didn't bother to research the claims, in which case why host them on her website, or she did research the claim and hoped it would get past the casual viewer. Regardless, the premise of the video itself has been shown to be false, since it is impossible for the plane to have been visible in the clip shown in the bottom left. Did you research the claim yourself, or did you assume it to be correct? Do you agree the claim has been shown to be false (at least the clip I addressed?)

Here's a direct link to Judy Woods video. http://www.livevideo.com/media/playvideo_f...421B4871A5B9BCD Here's a screenshot so we can see what being discussed. Judy Wood asserts that the two video feeds on the left are genuine, the two on the right are fake (tyhe planes have been added in since they aren't visible in the left hand clips). For the time being I'll restrict my analysis to the bottom two images. You can see a more extended version of the bottom left "Chopper 4" feed at the following link. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zQTsiLX3XbA It shows several extra seconds of footage before Judy Woods footage starts. At 00:11, something comes into view (albeit difficult to see due to the distance from the camera, and mpg artefaction. I've highlighted it below in a still.) You can see something (not identifiable as a plane, or anything else), fly towards the south tower. It disappears from view (blocked by the north tower) at about 00:18. The explosion comes out of the near side of the south tower at about 00:21, some three seconds after the "object" disappeared from view. Now look at the Judy Wood "bottom left" video. The explosion comes out of the north side of the south tower approximately 2 seconds after the clip starts. It is impossible to see whatever hit the south tower in her clip because it is occluded by the north tower, as proven by the Youtube Chopper 4 footage. I've summarised this in an animated GIF below. There is a slight drop in quality which makes it even harder to see the "flying object", but you can confirm it's existence and it's flight path, and the timings, by checking the video link above. It seems as if Judy Wood has edited the Chopper 5 footage so that the "flying object" simply was not visible in the clip she claims to be genuine, and is using this as proof that the right hand clip showing a plane from a different angle must be faked. The exact words from her website are:- Really. I'd suggest something else. Judy Wood has been deliberately deceptive in order to try and deceive people who didn't have access to the longer clip. I'd expect little else from someone who claims the towers were destroyed by death rays from CIA satellites.