Kevin M. West

I don't admit it, it begins to move when the view is obstructed. How can you claim it wasn't touched? Did you calculate the distance to the astronaut and to the flag to show it was out of reach?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but executive orders are NOT laws. The first time someone is unjustly effected by this there will be a million lawyers waiting to take the case, all the way to the supreme court, if necessary.

Wow, Jack will even appeal to authority when the authority is irrelevant to the subject at hand!

I disagree, there are more than enough nutjobs on the internet already, the government has no need to seed this kind of disinformation.

Jack, do you even understand the arguments that people like Judy make? Or are you just so impressed by a PhD that you instantly believe anything they say? Take a look at all of your posts in this thread again, every one is just an appeal to authority, you don't discuss their theories at all.

The image of the sun is overexposed to the point that it blew out entire columns of pixels, and you want us to believe that the camera could pick up letters in the middle of the brightest part? And that detail so subtle would survive jpeg compression?

My apologies if I misinterpreted you, but your choice of the phrase "grilled till he got his story straight" leads to that conclusion. When someone is grilled like that, their testimony becomes less useful. You want to know what they remember, not how they can bend their memories to be consistant. When they do that, you don't know if they're changing the inaccurate part to match the accurate parts, or vice versa.

And then you'd be here accusing them of coercing him into telling the story they wanted to hear. Eyewitness testimony is NEVER fully consistant, everyone sees and remembers things differently. A real investigation doesn't try to get everyone to tell identical stories, it try's to find the commonalities between their stories and figure out which parts are accurate and can be verified.

No, I'm pretty sure he can't.

I said large office buildings, referring to things anywhere near the size of WTC7. Not small damaged buildings that they simply pulled over or incomplete construction that was vacant and already partially collapsed.

The difference is, we know why they crashed on 9/11, we didn't know why 800 crashed. That's the purpose of the reconstruction they do with aircraft wreckage, to determine the cause of the crash. It isn't done when the cause is known.

Can you give a single example of an emergency demolition of a structure anywhere near the size of a large office building?

I never thought the day would come, but I actually agree with Jack on something. Except the 'in their own footprint' part, it's actually common for CDs to be setup to fall in a specific direction. But that's a minor detail really.

Do you happen to know how tall any of those structures were?

Aren't those two statements contradictory? You can't appeal to authority while that authority remains anonymous, unless they make statements that can be verified. Just saying an anonymous astronomer agrees with you is an incredibly lame way to try to support your argument.

I don't believe for a second that the astronomer looked at that picture and agreed it was wrong. Astronomers know a thing or two about imaging, it's what they do for a living. You sure it wasn't an astrologist? We covered this already: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9982

They were packed together in parking lots, fire spreads. How is it that this magical EMP weapon set cars on fire blocks away and didn't burn down every building in the area also, or fry every computer for miles, or stop my cell phone from working that morning? The answer is simple, some debris landed in some parking lots, most of the cars just got out of a commute, and the engines were still hot. I've seen the pictures Jack, don't assume I haven't seen Judy's work. Did you not see the other thread where I destroyed her billiard ball nonsense? I'm still waiting for you to answer that.

Not knowing jack about car fires reflects badly on your's, Jack. They spread in strange ways, sometimes only the front of the car burns, sometimes only the back, sometimes, just the top, etc. Talk to a firefighter about it. Please, show some proof that a single engine block melted.

Of course they can be, but it requires rebuilding the control system of the plane. It's not something that can be done to a comercial airliner without anyone (eg, the airline mechanics) noticing, and without the plane in question being out of service for a while. Add the airline management, security, and maintenance crews to the list of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy if you believe the planes were remote control.

Wow, that guy draws some amazing conclusions from a couple pics of burnt cars. He's wrong of course. For example where he claims the van partially shielded the truck, it's clear that neither of those vehicles was damaged in the location they were photographed, but were moved there afterwards. Or the car with it's engine bay on fire, where the fire stops just short of the front door. The undamaged front tire is clear evidence that this fire just started, and what a coincidence, the spot where it stopped spreading is the engine firewall. My guess is the hot engine parked on the piles of paper was a bad combination. Or the firetruck where he leaps to the conclusion that the mirror and window frames were warped by a massive EMP, ignoring the more obvious reason that the front end of the truck was hit by debris. Also, minor nitpick, a gigawatt is a thousand million watts, not a million million watts, but that doesn't matter since he's shown no proof of even a single watt of EMP. So I guess you're right Jack, Judy is not alone, there are other people out there who draw illogical conclusions without really thinking it through.

Ah there you go again Jack. You show no evidence of even reading, let alone understanding the very simple argument that I made, and instead of telling me why you think it's wrong, you go straight for the ad-homs. Credentials are not necessary, her argument is so wrong you don't even need to do the math to show it. Her comparison uses billiard balls as the floors of the towers. In her graphs, the every floor falls all the way to the ground with no interference, under only the influence of gravity. They show no signs of slowing down when they hit the floors below them, and no sign of speeding up when being impacted from above. But it gets worse! She has the floors hitting the ground in reverse order! First the top floor, then the second from the top, then the third, etc. Every single floor passes completely though every floor under it (magically, with no transfer of momentum) and hits the ground in exactly the reverse order. The building would completely invert itself, with the basement on top of the rubble pile, and the roof at the bottom, if it fell like her graphs show. Her billiard balls don't match reality in any way whatsoever.

Shouldn't need to provide any for Jack, since many of his studies are on those flawed images. Funny he can agree with a guy who claims they were all good images.

I'm guessing because there weren't a lot of pilots ready to volunteer for the job.

Yes, but the electronic auto-pilot systems in the 757 and 767 are coupled to mechanical controls, not fly-by-wire systems. The pilot can physically grab the yolk and fly the plane even with the auto-pilot engaged, he'll just have to use more force to override it. No amount of reprogramming will allow the mechanically connected, non-fly-by-wire controls to be disabled. The plane's control systems would have to be completely rebuilt, and the mechanics who maintain the plane would have to be paid off to not notice it.

I'm sorry, but like it or not, Judy's billiard ball analogy is complete nonsense. Please, tell me why I'm wrong if you think I am. Her graphs show each ball start from 0 velocity and proceed to fall independantly, under the influence of gravity alone. There is absolutely 0 momentum transfer from the ball above to the ball below. By her logic, somehow each floor would have to pass right through the one below it as if it wasn't even there, without affecting it in any way other than releasing it from it's support. This doesn't match reality in any way whatsoever. In reality, the falling mass was accelerating due to gravity, and gaining mass with each additional floor it encountered. This gave it more momentum with each additional floor, and made each additional floor fail faster than the one before it, as it was stuck from above my more and faster moving debris.