Why Don't We Admit Our Mistakes?

[Dawn Meredith]

Why can’t we admit we made a mistake when we make one?

This is an important question. The main problem is psychological. In most situations, if we make a mistake and this is pointed out, we are willing to be corrected. However, JFK researchers, when publishing their information on the case, they are immediately faced with hostile critics. When mistakes are pointed out, instead of questioning their research, they immediately question the good faith of the critic. The issue then becomes one about the character, history, etc. of the researcher and critic than the original statement. The situation becomes worse because each figure in the debate usually has loyal followers. These people also become involved in what by this time has become a hostile debate. By this stage, it has become psychologically impossible to retract what has already been said.

It is not true that all researchers fall into this category. Larry Hancock, for example, has spent many hours on this forum defending the material published in his book. As far as I can remember, he has never attracted very much criticism (one member did claim he was a CIA disinformation agent but no one took him seriously).

However, Larry relies on documented information. Much of the hostile debate focuses on film and photographic evidence. This material is open to a variety of different interpretations. Personally, I rarely read the threads on this issue. It has no interest to me at all. I am already convinced that there was more than one gunman. It is far more important to find out who was behind the conspiracy than where individual gunman were standing.

The other source of conflict concerns confessions and denials from people who may or may not be connected to the assassination. Some researchers believe characters such as Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Judyth Vary Baker, etc. whereas others seriously doubt their testimony. These people are often the source of hostile debate.

A third factor concerns the identity of the individual/group behind the conspiracy to kill JFK. This is usually tied up closely to the political views of the researcher. Therefore, someone who believes the CIA was involved in the conspiracy, are likely to be very hostile to any researcher who claims to provide evidence that Castro organized the killing of JFK.

"...Some researchers believe characters such as Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Judyth Vary Baker, etc. whereas others seriously doubt their testimony.

Thank you John for your vote of confidence. I have never supported those stories. I have always tried to reference everthing I have had to say on this subject to the best of my ability. However, I was called a xxxx and foul things were said about me on your forum and I was cursed out on this forum... go back and take a look at some of the curse words used on me.., and it was said that there were no documents as Plumlee referenced. Sometime later, even years later, those references of mine, as to documents, were declassified and released. They, or some, and there are more to come, have now surfaced and proves what I said years ago... recent example the Mc Allister Hotel in Miami, Beckley St. Apartment house, MF's web site ,ect. as to past references. I tried to get to you and others.(just one of many)

However I will just continue to be one of your "Characters", and let my story and basckground be interwoven with the likes of GPH and the lot. Again thanks for the information. I now know where I stand in your thoughts. Been there before.

If you want me off this forum... just say so..... But do not lump me in with those stories.. I am the first to admit that years ago I got sucked into a big mess of special interest people who only wanted to use my background to fit their theories... and a flood of secret emails were sent over the years to defuse me and discredit what I have had to say because it not not fit into their projects or stroked their egos in the right manner. Some of these issues have never been address in my behalf nor corrected when proven I was right ... there were documents which supported my position as I said then, released now. Its no use... You can't overturn a negative or prove one.

As I said IF you want me off you forum just say so. And I'm gone. I will no longer whip a dead hourse.

John:

I am disappointed that you lump Tosh in with "characters". He has provided much documentation, other documentation that he needs is held by Walt Brown, who has been too busy to dig through the files that were held by Jay Harrison (a friend of Tosh's since the 50's and a friend of mine from 1997 until his death in May 2005).

Recent threads were adding to his bona fides.

Dawn

[Jack White]

Some people "do not admit their mistakes" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MISTAKEN.

For instance, I KNOW that a Boeing jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, because there

is no genuine evidence of aircraft wreckage on the outside of the building, and

the small hole in the wall is too small for the entire plane to go inside the building.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that no cellphone calls were made from "hijacked" airliners on 911, because

many experts have said that was impossible. It is possible to provide indisputable

evidence of any calls made. That has never been done. I will not admit I am wrong unless

indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an

undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There are multitudinous proofs of this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I could go on and on. Nobody should be bullied into accepting lies.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

I could go on and on. Nobody should be bullied into accepting lies.

Jack

Is this why you have roamed off of JFKResearch.com???

[David G. Healy]

I could go on and on. Nobody should be bullied into accepting lies.

Jack

Is this why you have roamed off of JFKResearch.com???

why you roamed off of Lancer.com????

[Jack White]

I find it very interesting that Tosh says he was at the Pentagon on 9-11, and that his

wife works there.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Please don't let this go off-track to a 9-11 specific debate; there are plenty of threads in the Political Conspiracies section in which that can be discussed.

Jack - please see here.

Thanks all.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Jack White]

Please don't let this go off-track to a 9-11 specific debate; there are plenty of threads in the Political Conspiracies section in which that can be discussed.

Jack - please see here.

Thanks all.

Tosh has called me a pile of s---, so I will post anything I please to counter his

misinformation.

Why do you censure me instead of him? I thought name-calling was prohibited.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Please don't let this go off-track to a 9-11 specific debate; there are plenty of threads in the Political Conspiracies section in which that can be discussed.

Jack - please see here.

Thanks all.

Tosh has called me a pile of s---, so I will post anything I please to counter his

misinformation.

Why do you censure me instead of him? I thought name-calling was prohibited.

Jack

My apologies Jack - I did not see the acronym he used.

Tosh - please do NOT use that term. I realise you have used an acronym, but I think it is in common usage and should not be posted here. In any case, Jack has taken umbrage at it. There are many acceptable terms you can use to express your feelings; please use them instead.

Thank you.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[John Simkin]

Why can’t we admit we made a mistake when we make one?

The other source of conflict concerns confessions and denials from people who may or may not be connected to the assassination. Some researchers believe characters such as Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Judyth Vary Baker, etc. whereas others seriously doubt their testimony. These people are often the source of hostile debate.

"...Some researchers believe characters such as Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Judyth Vary Baker, etc. whereas others seriously doubt their testimony.

Thank you John for your vote of confidence. I have never supported those stories. I have always tried to reference everthing I have had to say on this subject to the best of my ability.

Tosh, it was a mistake to put you in the same sentence as Gerry Hemming, James Files, and Judyth Vary Baker. I did not mean to imply that I do not consider you an unreliable witness although I can see why you thought this from the way I expressed myself. I have criticised the evidence provided by Hemming, Files and Baker on this forum but I have not done that in your case. I apologise unreservedly for my poor use of words.

[Jack White]

Please don't let this go off-track to a 9-11 specific debate; there are plenty of threads in the Political Conspiracies section in which that can be discussed.

Jack - please see here.

Thanks all.

Tosh has called me a pile of s---, so I will post anything I please to counter his

misinformation.

Why do you censure me instead of him? I thought name-calling was prohibited.

Jack

My apologies Jack - I did not see the acronym he used.

Josiah - please do NOT use that term. I realise you have used an acronym, but I think it is in common usage and should not be posted here. In any case, Jack has taken umbrage at it. There are many acceptable terms you can use to express your feelings; please use them instead.

Thank you.

It was not Tink, it was Tosh. Please read more carefully.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What kind of an "investigator" has his hat handed to him on another forum,

then comes here to start a new thread acting as though he had prevailed?

(1) phony? (2) fraud? (3) fake? (4) all of the above? Take your choice. If he

is serious about admitting mistakes, then he is the right person to 'fess up!

RE: Fwd: [jfk-research] Re: How about a couple of answers fromFetzer? (7 of 19)

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:29:18 +1100 [02/18/2008 12:29:18 AM CST]

From: John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, 'gumshoe882000' <josiah@direcway.com>

Cc: jwjfk@flash.net

Reply-To: costella@bigpond.com

Subject: RE: Fwd: [jfk-research]Re: How about a couple of answers fromFetzer?

Tink,

I am sure Jim or you will remind me what the philosophy term is for ignoring

all of the evidence and asserting that the contrary is true, on the hope

that a tired reader will believe your assertion without reading the details.

You have not shown, in any way, that the photographic evidence disproves

anything -- but you assert that it does. Voila! What ham-fisted sleight of

hand.

Let's strip the bloviation out. The Plaza films (Nix, Z) show Chaney

braking, never passing the back of the limo. The limo accelerates off and

catches up to the lead car, with the films (Z, Nix, Bell, Daniel) leaving no

possibility of Chaney getting between them before they are astride each

other as they go under the triple underpass.

You then claim that a later photo shows Chaney waltzing around a corner at

low speed, with his colleagues, up ahead of the limo and lead car. This is

an identification that those who know debate to this day -- I don't have any

answer one way or the other on this; but let's say you are right. You then

claim that Chaney dematerialising in Dealey Plaza, and rematerialising near

the Stemmons Freeway taking the corner at a leisurely pace with his mates,

proves that the films are authentic? How on earth do you come to this

conclusion?

The eyewitnesses describe Chaney going ahead of the limo, to tell Curry that

JFK has had his head blown off, before the lead car gets to the triple

underpass. That makes sense -- the Plaza films show the two cars astride as

they come through the triple underpass, where all witnesses agree that there

was yelling between the two cars to get to a hospital. After that, there was

no need to motor ahead to tell Curry the news.

So where else could the Chaney incident have happened? Everyone involved who

specified a location said it happened while still in Dealey Plaza. Your own

set of interlocking films establishes it to be the only place it could have

happened. So why do you insist that it happened much later? If you're going

to ignore the evidence, why not have it happening near Parkland -- or, for

that matter, during JFK's Miami motorcade?

I have no idea what you're smoking these days, Tink, but I sure hope no

important PI cases require your investigative skills.

John

Dr. John P. Costella

jpcostella@hotmail.com

costella@bigpond.com

john.costella@gmail.com

skype: john.costella

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella

-----Original Message-----

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]

Sent: Monday, 18 February 2008 4:44 PM

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com; gumshoe882000

Cc: jwjfk@flash.net; jpcostella@hotmail.com; jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Fwd: [jfk-research] Re: How about a couple of answers

fromFetzer?

A bit of straight, blunt talk:

Why are you obsessed with me? I am one part of a research group that

includes David W. Mantik, John P. Costella, Jack White, and others,

in the past including Robert Livingston and Charles Crenshaw. When I

write and identify different questions as having come from different

sources, as in this instance, why don't you reply to John Costella,

Jack White, and me SEPARATELY? Is something wrong with you such that

you cannot distinguish between us? This appears to be a serious kind

of sickness. Have you considered therapy? Frankly, it bothers me.

Now John's question may have been somewhat naive in this instance

because it was based upon Jack's description of what you had said,

which may have been incomplete. So what? You can answer John's

question without confounding John and me. Children less than one

year old are able to discriminate between different persons. Why

are you--a white male over the age of 70 and a Yale graduate, to

boot--chronically unable to do so? And if this is a deliberate

confusion, what does it tell us about your integrity and mind?

John has unearthed definitive evidence that the films do not show

what they would have to show if they were accurate, given a mass

of testimony from Chief Curry, Forrest Sorrels, Winston Lawson,

Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, and Marrion Baker, even if you leave

Stavis Ellis to one side. (It astounds me how casually you can

dismiss the testimony of someone who was not only there but was

leading the motorcade.) Why have you not responded to this post,

which, of course, I introduced into the discussion some time ago:

FROM JOHN COSTELLA:

An excellent resource showing a clear, slowed-down version of the Nix film

was something I originally saved from WAY back (when I first came into this

case). It was compiled by one or another member of Tink's Gang, and was

designed to show precisely that the three films (Z, Nix and Muchmore) are

all synchronised frame-for-frame.

I have it up at

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../ThreeFilms.mov

(QuickTime format)

or

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../ThreeFilms.avi (Windows

format)

Although it does not show the Z ghost panels, you can manually connect it up

with my Clip G around Z-330 (Nix 37). Of course, you can also see the Chaney

cycle wheel in the upper part of the sprocket region (one frame out of sync)

essentially stop relative to the limo, right when the Nix shows him slamming

on the brakes.

Ironically, this clip helps establish that all three films ARE in complete

agreement - and they are all fake.

When you stitch together this clear slow-motion version of the Nix, with the

REST of the Nix and the REST of the Zapruder, then the Bell and Daniel films

(check out the Groden video), then you rule out any Chaney movement until

the limo has well and truly passed the lead car.

John

THAT "John" IS JOHN COSTELLA. I take it you have access to these films,

even if the links are not always working. So why have you not replied to

John (via me, of course, if you like)? I presume it is because it shows--

conclusively, beyond any doubt--that Chaney is not shown in these films

having done what he must have done to reconcile the testimony with the

authenticity of the films. So why not address this REAL ISSUE and find

the internal fortitude to resist attacking me, letting your obsession get

the better of you. I assure you, it is not becoming and it makes you look

just a bit demented. You have given no reasons for thinking we are wrong.

Moreover, when John produces a quote from Forrest Sorrels--which, taken at

face value, settles the matter--why do you avoid its importance with side

issues of secondary importance? We are addressing the film, not what I

may or may not believe took place. You seem to be squirming in a manner

that is actually quite striking. Of course, it is unsurprising that you

do not want to confront the evidence when the evidence refutes you! So I

ask, Are you dismissing Sorrels the same way you have dismissed Ellis?

FROM FORREST SORRELS:

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the

Presidential limousine), November 28, 1963: "I noted that the President's

car had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us.

A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled 'Is

anybody hurt?', to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief

Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had

gotten just about under the underpass when the President's car pulled up

alongside, and at that time Chief Curry's car had started to pick up speed,

and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and Chief Curry broadcast

for the hospital to be ready." [statement: 21H548]

THAT IS FORREST SORRELS. Not John Costella, not Jack White, not Jim Fetzer.

Now it is very clear to me that, when you feel boxed in, you resort to the

tried and true tactic of introducing some inflammatory diversion having no

or scant relevance to the issues under consideration. You do that all the

time. In this instance, instead of conceding that Sorrel's testimony blows

your position out of the water, you ask, What are your views, Jim Fetzer?

My views, in general, are well-known because they are published in three

books. But you have never read any of my books, so how would you know?

One of the purposes of having a research group, of course, is that each of

us brings a different background, training, and competence to the effort, in

this case, to discover the truth about the assassination of JFK. Who doubts

that Jack, John, and David know more about the film than do I? So what? If

that is your point, all the more reason to distinguish us from one another.

This simmering hatred for me transcends your rationality in considering

these

issues. You are intend upon showing that I AM WRONG no matter what, even if

that entails warping the evidence, denying the obvious, making false points.

That this has become your practice has been long evident. Anyone familiar

with my books would be shocked to read the savage reviews you have posted on

amazon.com. No rational person could possibly go to such lengths to create

misleading impressions and distorted representations of three of the most

important scientific studies of the death of JFK ever published--Lifton's

BEST EVIDENCE (1980) being the fourth. So I really think it is time that

you hung up your jock and gave it a rest. You have done your best defending

the indefensible. Your ongoing efforts are only going to further tarnish a

once imposing reputation. Give it a rest, Josiah. All of us deserve it.

Jim

THAT "Jim" IS JIM FETZER. I trust that my answers are reasonably frank.

Quoting gumshoe882000 <josiah@direcway.com>:

[Hide Quoted Text]

> A bit of straight, blunt talk:

>

> (1) You say that "it certainly seems from the Nix, Bell and Daniel

> films that we are seeing Martin trailing along, and that he

> eventually caught up. But on the Simkin forum, you maintain that that

> is actually Chaney." No, you didn't read correctly. I wrote: "the one

> nearest the center of the overpass is B.J. Martin; the one nearest

> the side curb is Chaney."

>

> (2) You criticize me for using the quote from Sorrels at 21H548. That

> was the quote you cherry-picked and used in your press release. I

> just expanded it so a sentence wouldn't be taken out of context.

>

> (3) The long irrelevant quote from Curry affects nothing since he

> doesn't indicate when "the motorcycle officer pulled up behind my

> car."

>

> (4) The reference to Travis Ellis is pretty funny. He says he was on

> a motorcycle in the first group and did a U-turn in the middle of the

> shooting and went back to talk Chaney. Chaney told Ellis that JFK had

> his head shot off. Then Ellis and Chaney both rode to the pilot car

> where Ellis, not Chaney, told the Chief that the President had been

> shot. And just what are we supposed to make of this ridiculous story?

> Even if we believed it, how would it show that Chaney "went ahead of

> the President's car?"

>

> (5) You asked if I believed the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Altgens,

> Bell and McIntire films all to be authentic. Of course.

>

>

> Now a few blunt questions for you:

>

> (1) When you announced this "breakthrough," were you aware of what

> the Altgens, Daniel and McIntire films/photos showed?

>

> (2) Are you prepared to admit that you were wrong? Or are you saying

> that the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Altgens, Daniel and McIntire

> films/photos have been faked up?

>

> How about a few straight answers. Like always, when you get in a bind

> you start piling on irrelevant quotes... Perhaps, to give the

> impression that you have something to say when you don't. If you

> really have something to say, then why not anwer the most obvious

> questions that anyone would have at this point. Since these new

> photos torpedo your claim, are you willing to save it by complaining

> that all the photos are faked up.?

>

Why doesn’t anyone ever admit they made a mistake?

Ordinary discussion moves forward in terms of give and take. A says: “X.” B says: “But A, you forgot about Z. That fact has to change what you said.” A replies: “You know you’re right, B. Z does change things” OR “You are right about Z. But if you recall Q, you have to understand Z in a way which really confirms what I said.” This is the way ordinary discussion moves forward among most adults. The dialogue back and forth actually produces understanding. On a good day it might even be called inquiry.

I wrote a book over forty years ago that dealt with a number of prickly evidentiary matters. Over the last forty years, a lot of new information bearing on those matters has come to light. So obviously on some of them I had to be wrong. Here’s an example and an important one.

When I measured the position of JFK’s head over time I found it moved forward between frames 312 and 313 and then started moving backward. This gave rise to the hypothesis that JFK got hit in the head twice within a split second... first from the back and then from the front. From the beginning this seemed to me to be an amazing coincidence... two bullets arriving at the same place within 1/9th of a second. But it was only a few years ago that a bright fellow named David Wimp came up with another explanation.

Since frame 313 is smeared along a horizontal plane, he thought some of the measured movement might in fact be due to the smear and not to any real movement. He made some very careful measurements on the film and determined that everyone in the limousine (not just JFK) started moving forward around frame 308. JFK starts that way and then he’s bowled over backward and to the left. The others keep going. Since the driver, Bill Greer, turned around to look in the back seat around Z302, Wimp offered the opinion that Greer took his foot off the accelerator for a split second. This decelerated the limousine while the occupants kept going forward. Most importantly, however, he figured out that most of the “movement” I had measured was actually just horizontal smear in frame 313. I read Wimp’s pieces but couldn’t understand completely the mathematics he used . (You can find his articles at: http://www.megaone.com/rwhepler/motion_blu...ion%20Blur.htm) I got in touch with Wimp, and, with Jim Lesar’s permission, invited him to give an illustrated talk at a conference in Washington, D.C. At that conference, I said publicly that I believed I had made a mistake and that Wimp had satisfactorily explained what I had taken to be movement. Things have become a bit more complicated over the last few years and right now I’m very much in a quandary as to what to believe.

I mention this only to put on the table my own bona fides in this matter. I’m sure there are a bunch of other things in Six Seconds that are wrong and I’d be delighted to have them pointed out. But this head movement was really important and Wimp’s analysis impressive.

I’ve noticed on this board and others that no one ever seems to admit they made a mistake. The brouhaha over Professor Fetzer’s “breakthrough” is a case in point. Professor Fetzer announced it with characteristic modesty:

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 — The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes... Fetzer observed.. “This proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough.”

Then Jack White put his imprimatur on it by writing:

"This is perhaps the most important information developed in the past several years..."

[see “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery, ‘Conclusive Evidence,’ Experts Claim” and “The Breakdown of Fetzer’s ‘breakthrough.’”]

It turns out now that the self-accolades were a bit premature. Apparently, Professor Fetzer and his friends weren’t aware of the very clear evidence of the Bell and Daniel films as well as the Altgens and McIntire photos. These additional films and photos match exactly what we see in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. Not only did Officer Chaney fade back at the time of the head shot (as shown in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films) but he’s completely absent in the Bell film and Altgens photo. Even more importantly, he is shown in the Daniel film and McIntire photo some hundreds of feet behind the limousine as it passes the pilot car containing Chief Curry. Either you believe that all these films and photos (Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Bell and Daniel films plus the Altgens and McIntire photos) were all faked up to make Officer Chaney’s advance to the pilot car much slower than it really was, or Fetzer and company made a mistake. Since what Chaney did has very little impact on anything important, if Fetzer and company would simply admit they’d made a mistake one could move on quickly to more important and interesting things.

But they won’t. Since the Altgens, Daniel, Bell and McIntire films/photos have been disclosed, they have produced exactly one new fact. Jack White came up with it.

In a 1969 book, a DPD sergeant riding at the point of the motorcade, claimed that he turned around in the middle of Elm Street while the shooting was going on and rode back to Officer Chaney. Then, together, the sergeant and Chaney rode forward to the pilot car where the sergeant (not Chaney) told Chief Cuffy there had been injuries. Since learning of this story I’ve been trying to figure out what it has to do with the “breakthrough” claim. It too, of course, is falsified by the new film/photo evidence.

Unwilling to admit their mistakes, the claims they make soon become religious postulates around which the faithful gather. The faithful spew insults and unpleasant asides and attack the character of their questioners. And so nothing ever advances.

How different things would be if admitting a mistake was just the regular and expected thing to do when you were shown to be wrong. I haven’t visited this board in some time. I think John Simkin has been trying to put together something worthwhile. I have to go back to New York this weekend to continue work on a case I’ve been working on for the last two years.... the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Sadly, this means I’ll have to tune out again come Sunday because of work load. But I thought I’d just put out this one idea before leaving.

Why can’t we admit we made a mistake when we make one?

[William Plumlee]

Why can’t we admit we made a mistake when we make one?

The other source of conflict concerns confessions and denials from people who may or may not be connected to the assassination. Some researchers believe characters such as Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Judyth Vary Baker, etc. whereas others seriously doubt their testimony. These people are often the source of hostile debate.

"...Some researchers believe characters such as Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Judyth Vary Baker, etc. whereas others seriously doubt their testimony.

Thank you John for your vote of confidence. I have never supported those stories. I have always tried to reference everthing I have had to say on this subject to the best of my ability.

Tosh, it was a mistake to put you in the same sentence as Gerry Hemming, James Files, and Judyth Vary Baker. I did not mean to imply that I do not consider you an unreliable witness although I can see why you thought this from the way I expressed myself. I have criticised the evidence provided by Hemming, Files and Baker on this forum but I have not done that in your case. I apologise unreservedly for my poor use of words.

John.

Thanks. We all make mistakes. God knows I head that list. You take care and forget it. We all have a lot of work to do; and I feel we should ALL rise above personal feelings and focus on the difficult job at hand.

[William Plumlee]

Please don't let this go off-track to a 9-11 specific debate; there are plenty of threads in the Political Conspiracies section in which that can be discussed.

Jack - please see here.

Thanks all.

Tosh has called me a pile of s---, so I will post anything I please to counter his

misinformation.

Why do you censure me instead of him? I thought name-calling was prohibited.

Jack

Jack: Please accept my Apologies for calling YOU a POS. You have not yet got that far in your research, but in my opinion your getting there fast. Perhaps I should have said..., "Your research in this reference is a POS".

However, I have lost a lot of respect for you, because of your position on this matter and others.

How can you say I did not see what I said I saw? What does that say about what you seem to be calling me?

AND too, what has my wife to do with any of this because she works at the Penntagon. Do you see something sinister in that? Are you trying to say something else?

Anyway its not important to me what you think about me or my wife. I will.., to the best of my ability.., try and stay focused on the FACTS and not speculate on anyones theories.

Again I apoligise for turning it personal. I just feel your off your Meds. Hang in there old man you've done good work in the past... lets, together, do some real factual work in the future.

[Denis Pointing]

Tosh,

I don't get it! A fundamental principle of reasoning is that the actual must be possible (meaning that nothing that actually happens can violate the laws of logic or the laws of science, in this case, of physics, engineering, and of aerodynamics. Here are some examples of what I have in mind:

The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail!

The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible, but it was not

The image just above the gate mechanism in the single frame that shows what might be a plane is not only too small to be a Boeing 757 but is trailing white smoke, which is consistent with a missile but not jet engine exhaust.

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at over 500 mph jusy barely above ground level--physically impossible, since the accumulated pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage would have made it impossible to have flown closer to the ground than 60 feet.

If a Boeing 757 had flown just barely above ground to impact on the first floor, then its engines would have plowed massive furrows in the lawn, which is perfectly green, smooth, and uncluttered by any debris in photos taken shortly after impact.

If a Boeing 757 had flown just barely above ground to impact on the first floor, then wing/wind/wake turbulance would have massively disrupted the law, which is perfectly green, smooth, and uncluttered by any debris in photos taken shortly after impact.

If a Boeing 757 had come it at an angle instead, it's right wing would have hit the building first, spinning the plane clockwise and snapping off the tail or creating a massive crater; but there is no crater and the tail is not sitting on the lawn.

A piece of wreckage that was later photographed from more than one location has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1998, and, like the other debris that subsequently appears on the lawn, appears to have been planted.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have analyzed black box data allegedly from the Pentagon plane and discovered that it contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude: it was 300 feet too high to have taken out the lampposts and 100 feet too high to have hit the building itself.

Jack's photo studies of the Pentagon illustrate many of the points I have made here. Indeed, the massive black smoke that intimidated the members of Congress when they looked across the Patomic is coming from a series of enormous dumpsters, not from the building itself.

You should not be faulting Jack. He has done his homework. The question is how you could be making reports about the Pentagon that cannot be true, because no Boeing 757 hit the building, although one may have passed over it. You are violating laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics.

Okay Jack. Let's take just one of the things that you claim to "know" and that I too know a bit about. You write:

"I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this. I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided."

It is true that modern Class A steel frame buildings do not usually collapse. But WTC7 was not your usual Class A steel frame building and 9/11 was not a normal day.

The envisaged footprint of WTC7 was expanded by a third when it was built in the mid-eighties to squeeze out the last square inch of floor space. Since original pilings were already drilled to bedrock though the then existing ConEd substation, the expanded floor size could only be accomplished through the construction of three huge cantilever trusses which carried the expanded load back into the central structure. There was no redundancy in this design. If a major structural member failed, the building would come down. Secondly, there were 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel either in or under the building. Thirdly, "modern" construction techniques meant that wider spans of floors were supported by fewer columns. All this came together in a building that was much more delicate and subject to collapse than your ordinary steel building.

Secondly, you say WTC7 was "undamaged". You're wrong. Photos make clear that WTC7 was damaged by debris (flaming I-beams, facade members, aviation fuel) that hit it after the collapse of the South Tower and a second blow one-half hour later after the collapse of the North Tower. This building was hit substantially and fires started on numerous floors.

Finally, the severing of a twenty-inch water main on Vesey Street by the collapse of the North Tower meant there was no water to fight a high-rise fire in the building. After sending a reconnaissance team into the building to determine whether to try to fight fires in it, Chief Daniel Nigro made the command decision to let fires burn in the building unabated. Fires started in the building at around 10:30 AM and continued unabated until the building collapsed at 5:21 PM. These fires were fed by the 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the building. Video of the collapse shows that it started on a lower floor at the approximate location of Column 79. This is the unanimous opinion of the structural engineers who have studied the collapse. Column 79 lies in a direct line over the most northeast of the three trusses mentioned above.

I'll bet when you decided that you "knew" the building was brought down by "controlled demolitions" you knew nothing of the above. If you choose to know nothing, you can hold any belief you want to hold and call it "knowledge." Then (as with the Fetzer-White-Costella claim concerning Officer Chaney) you can continue to believe it forever, never admitting you made a mistake.

What we are talking about here are the costs of never admitting you're wrong. I'll bet you'll continue never admitting you were wrong about Chaney and never admitting you are wrong about WTC7. Am i right?

quote name='Jack White' date='Feb 24 2008, 01:07 AM' post='138519']

Some people "do not admit their mistakes" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MISTAKEN.

For instance, I KNOW that a Boeing jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, because there

is no genuine evidence of aircraft wreckage on the outside of the building, and

the small hole in the wall is too small for the entire plane to go inside the building.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that no cellphone calls were made from "hijacked" airliners on 911, because

many experts have said that was impossible. It is possible to provide indisputable

evidence of any calls made. That has never been done. I will not admit I am wrong unless

indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an

undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There are multitudinous proofs of this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I could go on and on. Nobody should be bullied into accepting lies.

Jack

Jack I have to disagree. My wife works at the Pentagon for the Joint Chif of Staff J-2. I was there shortly after the crash and I saw the tail and the numbers in all the smoke and confussion AND DEATH. I watched as parts of the airliner was removed and firefighters fought the blaze while many were removing bodies. To tell me I did not see an airliner is a disservice to those who were killed. They were NOT killed my our goverment. I think some want to believe we would do something like that are real sick people. I think their motive is to sell stories and write books and add height to their lack of stature. At a time when we should rally together and stand firm as a solid nation, we have some who like to walk with lies and untruths to perhaps drawn attention to themselves and stroke their own egos.

I had respect for you as a researcher and as an American... that is now gone. I'm sure you do not give a crap what I think... But I am an American and I am damn proud of it. And in my own way I have fought hard for her and her flag. We are not perfect, but we are getting closer and you Sir are a real POS in my opinion.

James;

With respect. I will not be drawn into a debat on this. All I know is what I saw and too, what I saw on the "certified, time logged" radar tapes from Air Traffic Control. I talked to three people who escaped with their lives and spend days in a burn ward. I know what they told me. I talked to a Sargent who pulled people from burning Jet fuel and others who were still in shock days after.., and I know what they told me they saw and did after the impact. And I know what I saw.

Now if you want to call me a xxxx, then that is O.K. by me. I have been there before. I do not care to become involved in a "special interest conspiercy", regardless of the motives.

I do believe in little green men bouncing around in space; laughing their ARSE off at us. Its no wonder they do not want anything to do with earthlings after reading somethings we put in print.

You have a good day and leave me out of this. I did apoliges to Jack for the POS comment. Now I go in peace and I wish you the same. Just log me down as "disinformation" agent and be done with it.

Well how about it Jack and Jill...oops, sorry I meant Jack and Jim, are you ready to admit your mistaken, that after all is what this thread is about, admitting mistakes, or are you saying Tosh Plumlee is a xxxx? No real room for middle ground here...its gotta be one or the other.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Jack White]

Please don't let this go off-track to a 9-11 specific debate; there are plenty of threads in the Political Conspiracies section in which that can be discussed.

Jack - please see here.

Thanks all.

Tosh has called me a pile of s---, so I will post anything I please to counter his

misinformation.

Why do you censure me instead of him? I thought name-calling was prohibited.

Jack

Jack: Please accept my Apologies for calling YOU a POS. You have not yet got that far in your research, but in my opinion your getting there fast. Perhaps I should have said..., "Your research in this reference is a POS".

However, I have lost a lot of respect for you, because of your position on this matter and others.

How can you say I did not see what I said I saw? What does that say about what you seem to be calling me?

AND too, what has my wife to do with any of this because she works at the Penntagon. Do you see something sinister in that? Are you trying to say something else?

Anyway its not important to me what you think about me or my wife. I will.., to the best of my ability.., try and stay focused on the FACTS and not speculate on anyones theories.

Again I apoligise for turning it personal. I just feel your off your Meds. Hang in there old man you've done good work in the past... lets, together, do some real factual work in the future.

The writing style the Tosh here now and the Tosh who was recently reported

killed in a plane crash differ significantly. I am not the only one who has noted

this.

Jack