Jack White Posted October 21, 2006 Author Share Posted October 21, 2006 The corporate media and the government are following the simple principle of "don't ask, don't tell" about such videotapes. This principle applies to any number of things about 9/11. The principle is easily applied in sheepfolds like today's America. ...maybe...It takes time to clone Rosemary Woods. Seriously though, the bigger question IMO is why the 'press' and 'congress', nay even the public are not up in arms crying out for them...along with all the other evidence [audio tapes, documents, NORAD info, closed door interviews with W and his gang on events, et al.] Hey, but for that matter they haven't yet come 'clean' with all the evidence and infomation on 11/22/63....so there seems to be a backlog on honesty, disclosure and dare I say - TRUTH!...maybe they will 'catch up' before the world ends...or maybe they will just leave it to what's-his-name who is supposed to be comin' back..... As an atheist [and not from a christian heritage even] that is just baloney to me...but if I read that 'guys' philosophy correctly....if he did return those now thinking they are his flock would be quite surprised to find his philosophy was very radical and not in any way what most who claim to follow his philosophy subscribe to now....but that is another topic..... Peter, I am not an atheist, but I agree with what you say. True Christianity teaches that there will be FALSE PROPHETS who "come in his name" who are to be rejected. W and his hypocritical crowd are the epitome of FALSE PROPHETS. Most of history's wars have been waged in the name of religion of one sort or another. The "war on terror" is really a war on Islam. The false prophets carefully avoid the term "crusade" which was another "Christian" attempt to destroy Islam. Every warring faction avers that "God is on our side." Jack I hope I didn't offend in any way. I have known many real and wonderful Christians... at the Christic Insitutute ....in my peace and justice work....I'm in awe of the Berrigans, and many others of that ilk, and many I've just met in normal life.... In fact - all real faithful-to-the-origins-of and good and open-hearted believers in all religions have the same ideals: peace, justice, compassion, empathy, altruism, honesty, openness, concern for the least powerful and most needy among us, sharing, concentration on moral/spiritual/ethical rather than material things, etc. Strange how those around W and the religious philosophy of those supporting him mostly believe in the exact opposite of each and every one of those things! I may agree it is a war on Islam [and also upon the American people and psyche], but if the oil and geo-strategic counties had Janes or Hundus living in them, it would be a war on them. I like the philosophy of Joseph Campbell who wrote Hero of a Thousand Faces about how all religions were just telling the same truths and morality in their own version. And when MLK spoke he sure struck me as a believer/practicioner in/of a wonderful faith....and appealing philosophy/morality. Same for the Native Americans, the Tibetan Buddhists, and many others..... Many athiests are very MORAL people. They have given religious philosophies great study in order to form their own philosophy. Paradoxically, some "peculiar" doctrines of most organized religions are what cause some to become athiests instead of adopting the positive and moral doctrinal aspects of the faith . Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Speaking as a teacher of history and a determined (despite the crappy contents of this forum) educationalist it would be gratifying if any you guys knew how to analyse or even, heaven forefend, evaluate a source or historical interpretation in terms of its reliability, usefulness or validity. As a group your current areas of expertise would appear to be trading insults and the superfluous invention of yet more deeply paranoid and on a worrying number of occassions deeply racist conspiracy theories. Neither "condition" (I choose my words with care) forwards the collective understanding of anything one iota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 (edited) [1] http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 [1] http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html [1] http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family...pf_200tech.html [1] http://www.saltire.com/applets/triangles/tri1s2a.htm set 'side AC' to 58, 'angle BAC' to 48 and 'side BCA' to 90. C = is the camera position. [1] http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-main.asp [1] http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt no mention of them [1] http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites say somethig is true doesn't constitute evidence. Sorry that was an editing error. Instead of making a slight alteration to my post I erased everything except the footnotes!Did the VDoT camera capture whatever hit the Pentagon? That depends on a few factors 1] Did the camera's field of view (FOV) intersect the flight path? Jack claims it did and offers a low resolution image and claims it's from the camera without documenting this claim. A USAF officer worked at the Pentagon 1999 – 2005 wrote "As I recall you can see part of one of the parking lots" with the camera.[1] 2] What was the angle of view of the camera? And what was its downward angle? 3] How tall was the camera pole? According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall[2]. How high was the "plane" off the ground? Jack says 20 feet. 4] How far were the poles from each other? Jack says they were only "a few feet apart" 5] How many FPS (frames per second) and at what 'shutter' speed was the camera capturing at? 2, 3 and 4 are important because the 757 could have flown below the camera's field of view. 28 mm lenses are the widest in 35mm photography before serious distortion sets in. According to this site [3] such lenses have 46 degree vertical angle of view. Obviously the video camera wasn't a 35mm film camera but the same rules of optics would apply. 46 degrees would be 23 degrees above and 23 degrees below center. If the camera was tilted down at 10 degrees we would have a downward angle of 33 degrees (or we could have a less wide angle lens and a steeper tilt such as a 35mm equivalent at 15 degrees). Jack said the poles were "with in a few feet of each other". If the light pole was 10 feet from the TV pole and the fuselage 47 feet from the light pole (each wing is 56.25 feet long[4]) the fuselage obviously would have been 57 feet from the camera pole (there is evidence the wing clipped the pole[5]). In this scenario from that distance the camera would have captured at most something 37 feet below it[6] and Jack told us the plane was 20 feet off the ground which would be 40 feet below the camera (60 – 20). Perhaps the tail or the far wingtip would have briefly passed through the FOV or there might have been and indistinguishable blur at the bottom of the screen. 2, 4 and 5 are important because even if the plane passed through the camera's FOV it might not have been captured. According to the plane's FDR it was traveling at 530 MPH at time of impact[7] which is equal to 777 feet per second. A 757 is 155 feet long. The Pentagon cameras captured at 1 fps. Even if the VDoT cameras captured at 4 or 5 fps the plane might not have been captured and even if it had would have been nothing but a blur. Jack claims there were "hundreds" of surveillance cameras that should have captured the plane but a map from the VDoT only shows 1 or 2 candidates[8]. Jack claims the crash would have been seen real time by workers from that agency but a report about what they did and saw that day makes no mention of them seeing it on their screens but two of them seeing the actual plane from the "Smart Traffic Center" which was close to the crash site.[9] "Why isn't there more video?", the USAF officer from the Pentagon wrote, "Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be surprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment. Given the limited number of entrances to the facility (all highly controlled areas), cameras are generally only needed in high traffic areas like vehicle control points (such as the one this video came from)."[10] [1] http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=74...p;postcount=173 [2] http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=15307&st=0 [3] http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html [4] http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family...pf_200tech.html - (wingspan) 124' 10" – (exterior body width) 12' 4" = 112' 6"/2 = 56" 3" [5] http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=15307&st=0 [6] http://www.saltire.com/applets/triangles/tri1s2a.htm set 'side AC' to 57, 'angle BAC' to 33 and 'side BCA' to 90. The triangle appears upside down A = is the camera position, C = the center of the field of view 57 feet from the camera and B = the bottom of the FOV on the same axis. [7] http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA77.pdf [8] http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-main.asp [9] http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt [10] http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=74...p;postcount=173 Edited October 22, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 (edited) Sorry that was and (sic) editting (sic) error. Instead of making a slight alteration to my post I erased everything except the footnotes! Here's a link that might be useful: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proofreading I know, I know..... you're always in a hurry. Did the VDoT camera capture whatever hit the Pentagon? That depends on a few factors 1] Did the camera’s field of view (FOV) intersect the flight path? Jack claims it did and offers a low resolution image and claims it’s from the camera without documenting this claim. A USAF officer worked at the Pentagon 1999 – 2005 wrote “As I recall you can see part of one of the parking lots” with the camera.[1] 2] What was the angle of view of the camera? And what was its downward angle? 3] How tall was the camera pole? According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall[2]. How high was the “plane” off the ground? Jack says 20 feet. 4] How far were the poles from each other? Jack says they were only “a few feet apart” 5] How many FPS (frames per second) and at what ‘shutter’ speed was the camera capturing at? 2, 3 and 4 are important because the 757 could have flown below the camera’s field of view. 28 mm lenses are the widest in 35mm photography before serious distortion sets in. According to this site [3] such lenses have 46 degree vertical angle of view. Obviously the video camera wasn’t a 35mm film camera but the same rules of optics would apply. 46 degrees would be 23 degrees above and 23 degrees below center. If the camera was tilted down at 10 degrees we would have a downward angle of 33 degrees (or we could have a less wide angle lens and a steeper tilt such as a 35mm equivalent at 15 degrees). Jack said the poles were “with in a few feet of each other”. If the light pole was 10 feet from the TV pole and the fuselage 47 feet from the light pole (each wing is 56.25 feet long[4]) the fuselage obviously would have been 57 feet from the camera pole (there is evidence the wing clipped the pole[5]). In this scenario from that distance the camera would have captured at most something 37 feet below it[6] and Jack told us the plane was 20 feet off the ground which would be 40 feet below the camera (60 – 20). Perhaps the tail or the far wingtip would have briefly passed through the FOV or there might have been and indistinguishable blur at the bottom of the screen. 2, 4 and 5 are important because even if the plane passed through the camera’s FOV it might not have been captured. According to the plane’s FDR it was traveling at 530 MPH at time of impact[7] which is equal to 777 feet per second. A 757 is 155 feet long. The Pentagon cameras captured at 1 fps. Even if the VDoT cameras captured at 4 or 5 fps the plane might not have been captured and even if it had would have been nothing but a blur. Jack claims there were “hundreds” of surveillance cameras that should have captured the plane but a map from the VDoT only shows 1 or 2 candidates[8]. Jack claims the crash would have been seen real time by workers from that agency but a report about what they did and saw that day makes no mention of them seeing it on their screens but two of them seeing the actual plane from the “Smart Traffic Center” which was close to the crash site.[9] “Why isn't there more video?”, the USAF officer from the Pentagon wrote, “Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be surprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment. Given the limited number of entrances to the facility (all highly controlled areas), cameras are generally only needed in high traffic areas like vehicle control points (such as the one this video came from).”[10] You might want to check the links you provided in the text of your post shown above. No wonder your posts look the way that they do. Edited October 22, 2006 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 If a Boeing 757 actually flew according to the OFFICIAL THEORY, it is possible to accurately determine the flight path of such an event. There were lightpoles at each end of a small bridge, and it is alleged that the wingtips knocked down the two poles. The locations of the poles are known; the wingspan of the plane is known; the impact hole in the wall of the Pentagon is known. The altitude of the plane is known to be about fifteen feet above ground, as that is about where the poles were struck. Using the two poles and the impact hole, a triangle can be drawn (more exactly than I have done in this demonstration). Bisecting the angle establishes the path of the "fuselage" of the plane. As can be seen, the videocam of VDoT is about 45 feet ABOVE the wings of the plane, so the camera and any videotape would be LOOKING DOWN on the "plane" as it passed underneath. If such a tape exists showing the "plane" in plain sight below the camera and hitting the building, you can bet the govt would have shown it to dispell "conspiracy theories". Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 (edited) Sorry that was and (sic) editting (sic) error. Instead of making a slight alteration to my post I erased everything except the footnotes! Here's a link that might be useful: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proofreading I know, I know..... you're always in a hurry. Did the VDoT camera capture whatever hit the Pentagon? .... You might want to check the links you provided in the text of your post shown above. No wonder your posts look the way that they do. Yeah I made two typos (now corrected) by working as my unpaid proofreaders you and Sid are doing me a favor thanks! Hey I'd rather make a substantive post with a few typos/spelling errors than to make perfectly spelled post devoid of substance, you only seem capable of the latter. I imagine if you could actually find anything else wrong with the post you would have said so. Once again you seem to have nothing of substance to say. Oh and all my actual links work you research genius, no clicking on the actual numbers doesn't that seems to be due to a limitation/glitch on the forum's software - perhaps you should take it up Andy or the folks at Invision. I presume most forum members are capable of scrolling down to the bottom of the post. There are several spelling and gramatical errors in Jack's post above, they in no way reflect on the validity or lack there of of his claims but to be consistent you should point them out and criticize him. Len Edited October 22, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Hey I'd rather make a substantive post with a few typos/spelling errors than to make perfectly spelled post devoid of substance, you only seem capable of the latter. I'm sure you would. Why not try putting something substantial in your posts? I imagine if you could actually find anything else wrong with the post you would have said so. You imagine wrong. Oh and all my actual links work you research genius, no clicking on the actual numbers doesn't that seems to be due to a limitation/glitch on the forum's software - perhaps you should take it up Andy or the folks at Invision. I presume most forum members are capable of scrolling down to the bottom of the post. I seem to be the only one to have looked at your links. You certainly didn't. You seem to have difficulty in accepting constructive criticism, your only retort is name-calling. If you presume that most Forum members are capable of scrolling down, why include citations in the text that don't work and then whine when it is brought to your attention? There are several spelling and gramatical errors in Jack's post above, they in no way reflect on the validity or lack there of of his claims but to be consistent you should point them out and criticize him. First blaming me, then Andy and Invision, and then using Jack White to excuse your sloppiness and laziness speaks volumes about you. On another thread, you told Mark Stapleton that you performed a search for the word straw and added: "Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged." The same could be said for proofreading your own posts. Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites say somethig is true doesn't constitute evidence. As usual, it appears you don't like to take your own advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Fine points, Michael. My favorite is Len's regular claim that posting links to a bunch of websites proves nothing. So what does Len do when debating other members? He posts links to a bunch of websites! Time for reassignment, Len. You're falling apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Peter- Anything to back that up? I'm sure you did all the requisite research to create the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 It would also be nice to know if this day "stood out" pre 911 for the amount of Military drills. For all I know this was nothing out of the ordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Peter- Anything to back that up? I'm sure you did all the requisite research to create the list. You know what...I can...but I don't think I am any greater obligation to prove it than for you to prove they weren't - or for you to prove LHO was the lone assassin...or that my country wasn't stolen over and over by the oligarchs and is now just a shell of empty words and foul deeds. You and the other reflex defense of the official version folk [shall I name ya] think the 'norm' is the official version and all has to be proven and documented to the enth degree otherwise. I put out the information not to convice you as you are wed to a nation naked without clothes IMO [if it ain't your job here...wanna say what your job is?]. You just are here to cast doubt...but you can't cause me nor most others to doubt we have been had....in EVERY war and covert op [bar NONE] since the Second World War and including 911 and Dallas the prime example. I put it out for those who can still think on their own. They [or you] can put those names into a search engine and find out the facts - just enter the names and 911. The burden of proof IMO is on the fascists who have taken over the nation and all it represents. I didn’t expect any documentation to be forthcoming. Peter follows the usual MO of crackpot theorists he makes a claim offers ZERO evidence to back it up and claims it’s up to others to prove he is wrong thus saddling them with the near impossible task of proving a negative, he believes it’s up to other members of the forum to do the research to back his claims. He reference to LHO is silly, IIRC Steve in response to a question said he used to believe that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy but now thinks LHO acted alone. Asking him to document this would be like asking someone who in response to a question says they are a Christian to produce evidence that Jesus was the son of God. Steve never stated that LHO definitely acted alone and I’m sure IF he did he would produce evidence to back his theory. At least a good part of those exercises really were on going on 9/11 (perhaps all were) but what I’ve never seen is a rational explanation of how they furthered the conspiracy. There is no evidence that they slowed response times. Operation Northern Vigilance was being conducted over Alaska and northern Canada (hence the name) and was called off as soon as NORAD got word of the hijackings. There were AWACS over Florida and DC because the president was in the former for his famous school visit and was scheduled to return to the latter, this is SOP when the president travels. Another question is what exactly this has to do with the Trade Center? Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 (edited) ME: Hey I'd rather make a substantive post with a few typos/spelling errors than to make perfectly spelled post devoid of substance, you only seem capable of the latter Mike: I'm sure you would. Why not try putting something substantial in your posts? IMHO I did. Jack claimed that the VDoT camera definitely should have captured the attack I produced evidence to show that ain't necessarily so. Perhaps you should try, I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you such as when you took stabs at Jack and David Healy but at least they make posts that further debate on the subject of the thread ME: I imagine if you could actually find anything else wrong with the post you would have said so. Mike: You imagine wrong. Unconvincing cop out reply Me: Oh and all my actual links work you research genius, no clicking on the actual numbers doesn't that seems to be due to a limitation/glitch on the forum's software - perhaps you should take it up Andy or the folks at Invision. I presume most forum members are capable of scrolling down to the bottom of the post. Mike: I seem to be the only one to have looked at your links. You certainly didn't. You seem to have difficulty in accepting constructive criticism, your only retort is name-calling. Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm. "If you presume that most Forum members are capable of scrolling down, why include citations in the text that don't work and then whine when it is brought to your attention?" I wrote the post using MS Word and used the "insert footnote" function because it is less time consuming and I don't have renumber the notes if I edit the text. I didn't whine I offered an explanation There are several spelling and grammatical errors in Jack's post above, they in no way reflect on the validity or lack there of, of his claims but to be consistent you should point them out and criticize him. First blaming me, then Andy and Invision, and then using Jack White to excuse your sloppiness and laziness speaks volumes about you. I never blamed you nor Andy nor Invision, nor did I use Jack to "excuse" anything. I pointed out Jack's errors to show that you operate by a double standard. You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others. "On another thread, you told Mark Stapleton that you performed a search for the word straw and added: "Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged." The same could be said for proofreading your own posts." True but it's not uncommon for people on this forums to make small errors in their posts, odd that you should only comment about mine. My reply to Mark was in response to him seeming to imply that counting the number of times I used the phrase "straw man" was an onerous task. Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence. As usual, it appears you don't like to take your own advice. Fine points, Michael.My favorite is Len's regular claim that posting links to a bunch of websites proves nothing. So what does Len do when debating other members? He posts links to a bunch of websites! Time for reassignment, Len. You're falling apart. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson in Self Reliance 1841 and he never even met Mike, Mark and Peter! What prescience! But I guess the likes of them existed back then too. I was obviously referring to non authoritative sites that don't back their claims. I wrote: Google has thousand of sources on ILLUMINATI, SKULL AND BONES, BUSHES, MASONS, THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT, NEW WORLD ORDER.excerpted and paraphrased from a typical one: ... LOL – This is too effing funny for words! Jack thinks that something's existence can be proven by the number of Google hits it gets; is he really that detached from reality? I suggest he google "loch ness monster", Bigfoot, "frosty the showman". "abominable snowman" and 'WMD's +iraq' and see how many hits he gets. The fact that so many sites have similar information only proves that they copy each other note that they don't cite any evidence other than other similar sites and obscure books that don't cite any evidence either except for…. […] Great stuff, Lee. Great stuff to bad his sources couldn't cite any evidence to support their claims (Mark): "p.s. to Len and the members of the debunkers association--just because you didn't read about an event in the paper or see it on Fox News doesn't mean it didn't occur." The Strawman from OZ strikes again, when did I ever say something has to be on Fox News? I like to see evidence of something before I believe it exists. All that believers in the illuminati can cite are sources that can not document their claims. About thirty years ago a New World Order think tank produced a secret report for the president regarding world population control.It was called GLOBAL 2000. It called for reductions in undesirable (non-white) populations througheugenics methods like: 1. Famines in underdeveloped (black) countries 2. Man-made disese epidemics (AIDS) in black populations 3. Drugs in black populations 4. "Limited" small continuing wars targeting ethnic groups (moslems) These eugenics goals coincide with belief of Bonesmen. Google BUSH, EUGENICS, GLOBAL 2000, SKULL AND BONES, AIDS, AFRICA, ETC. Check current events for news of Famines, AIDS, Drugs, Arab wars. All were goals to be achieved by the year 2000. Jack LOL Jack you're keeping me in stitches!! Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence. I made such comment 3 times all in the same thread a couple of days apart hardly a regular claim. Let's look at the sources I cited. Footnote(s): 1 and 10. – Primary source an Internet posting by someone who worked at the Pentagon for 6 years including on 9/11. I did not say that what he said was true only that he made those claims. 2 and 5 – Primary source posting from an Internet researcher he backed with photographic evidence. I cited two of his claims 1)"According to one researcher it (the camera pole) was 60 feet tall" note that 'JohnDoeX' the "no planer" debating the researcher I cited accepted this as correct and Jack has as well. 2) "there is evidence the wing clipped the pole" once again I did not say that my source was correct. 3 – This is related to the angle of view of a photographic lens, this is not something that is disputed the same information can be found in numerous books on the subject. The information came from an extensive photography site run by a Portuguese photographer. Other sites such as this one [ http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ] run by a photographer and software developer provide the exact same information. 4 - Primary source – I assume we can trust Boeing to give us the correct demotions for its planes, as with the angles of view of lenses this is not something that is disputed and can be confirmed at numerous other sources including "inside job" sites 6 – The geometry of triangles, this is secondary (or possibly even primary) school math once again not something disputed. The site is that of a software company that develops technical and math programs, the odds of them getting something so basic wrong are slim. 7 - Primary source, I didn't say the plane was definitely at 530 MPH only that was its speed based on the FDR. My source in this case was the NTSB's report of the data recorder's readings. 8 – Primary source. I think we can trust the Virginia Department of Transportation's map of the traffic cameras in Arlington, Virginia as to the correct location of its traffic cameras in that city. 9 – Primary source. VDoT workers from the traffic center were interviewed for an article in the department's newsletter. The article was reproduced in an extensive website dedicated to highway and other transportation infrastructure in Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia and neighboring states. The sites cited by Lee and referred to back Jack on the other hand offer no documentation for their claims are normally written by people with no direct knowledge of the claims they make. If a Boeing 757 actually flew according to the OFFICIAL THEORY,it is possible to accurately determine the flight path of such an event. There were lightpoles at each end of a small bridge, and it is alleged that the wingtips knocked down the two poles. Jack Jack's supposed VDoT video camera still does not show the crash site which was to the south (right*) of the area show. If one pays attention they can see that the windows near the right edge of the photo are different than the others that is because they are from the center portion of the wall. As can clearly be seen in this satellite image taken on September 12, 2001 the impact point was well to the south (left in the picture below) of the center. (*to the right in Jack's image) http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/16_Pentagon_after_800.jpg A higher resolution (1.5 MB) copy of the same image can be seen here http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/06_Pentagon_after.jpg Another problem is that even IF the camera now shows or at some point after the attacks showed where the plane struck there is no guarantee that it did so on the morning of September 11. According to the VDoT "In the same area, the blast from the plane's impact damaged the lenses of one of VDOT's traffic monitoring cameras and knocked the camera sideways." [http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt ] and some who claims to have contacted and visited them confirmed that the camera's housing was damaged and had to be repaired [ http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=15307&st=0 ]. It is also quite possible that the camera was replace or realigned in the last 5 years. If one looks at the actual webcam broadcast* or a still (from this morning, see below) they will see it appears that perhaps now (unlike in Jack's photo) it shows the impact area but once again that is no guarantee it did so 5 years ago. One can also see that its frame rate is about one frame every 2.5 seconds making unlikely that it would have captured an image of what ever struck the Pentagon. The NTSB said the plane was flying at 777 feet per second it would have flown almost 2000 feet in that time period. Also as can be seen in the still below the camera's "shutter" speed is insufficient to show unblurred images of cars presumably traveling at around 60 mph let alone a plane traveling at 9 times that speed. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Pentagoncam3.jpg *[ http://vdot.trafficland.com/trafficvideo.php?system=vdot&token=159f9cd136642f8ecf69f68f8daec3d3&webid=740&random=0.04545012928774861 , if the link doesn't work try http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-main.asp select Arlington from the scroll down menu over the map and then click the "Traffic Cameras" button on the left the Pentagon camera is the 1st one ABOVE 395 {the blue line} near where it says 'District Of Columbia'] "If such a tape exists showing the "plane" in plain sight below the camera and hitting the building, you can bet the govt would have shown it to dispell "conspiracy theories"." There is reasonable cause to doubt the camera registered the impact, one question Jack hasn't addressed is if it is so easy to fake such images, all they would need to produce are one or two blurry still images, why haven't they haven't done so? Edited October 24, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 (edited) 3] How tall was the camera pole? According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall. This is what he actually said: "I was told the mast was 60 feet but have not found secondary documentation on that." Len's researcher is apparently someone named Russell Pickering who posted on a 9/11 forum. What are his credentials? Len doesn't say. The above is typical of Len's research style and how he likes to put his spin on things. This coming from someone who is always challenging other people's sources whenever he doesn't like what they have to say. Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm Here is what I said: "You might want to check the links you provided in the text of your post shown above. No wonder your posts look the way that they do." That is your excuse for not proofreading your posts? That my comment was sarcastic? Did that comment license you to initiate name calling? I didn't whine I offered an explanation. Of course you whined. What was the explanation you offered? That it was somehow the fault of the forum's software? That Jack White and everyone else makes errors too? That it is Microsoft's fault? Is this what you meant when you said words to the effect that "Unlike others, I admit when I'm wrong?" Perhaps you should try (producing evidence), I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you.... Is this the real reason why you don't proofread your posts? You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others. This is about as simple as I can make it. It's clear that Jack (and others) proofread their posts to make sure the content is accurate and easy to follow. It's equally clear that you don't. Jack White is a careful and meticulous researcher. You are sloppy, careless, and lazy. Furthermore, I didn't make a big deal about your "typos" as you refer to them. I pointed out that your links didn't work. You're the one that wanted to make a big deal out of it, posting all sorts of convoluted excuses and blaming others. You're the one that initiated the name calling. At the beginning of this post I gave one example of your style of research. I could cite countless others, but I learned early on with you its a waste of time. At least I took the time to read your links. I wonder how many others did? Edited October 23, 2006 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share Posted October 23, 2006 (edited) 3] How tall was the camera pole? According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall. This is what he actually said: "I was told the mast was 60 feet but have not found secondary documentation on that." Len's researcher is apparently someone named Russell Pickering who posted on a 9/11 forum. What are his credentials? Len doesn't say. The above is typical of Len's research style and how he likes to put his spin on things. This coming from someone who is always challenging other people's sources whenever he doesn't like what they have to say. Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm Here is what I said: "You might want to check the links you provided in the text of your post shown above. No wonder your posts look the way that they do." That is your excuse for not proofreading your posts? That my comment was sarcastic? Did that comment license you to initiate name calling? I didn't whine I offered an explanation. Of course you whined. What was the explanation you offered? That it was somehow the fault of the forum's software? That Jack White and everyone else makes errors too? That it is Microsoft's fault? Is this what you meant when you said words to the effect that "Unlike others, I admit when I'm wrong?" Perhaps you should try (producing evidence), I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you.... Is this the real reason why you don't proofread your posts? You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others. This is about as simple as I can make it. It's clear that Jack (and others) proofread their posts to make sure the content is accurate and easy to follow. It's equally clear that you don't. Jack White is a careful and meticulous researcher. You are sloppy, careless, and lazy. Furthermore, I didn't make a big deal about your "typos" as you refer to them. I pointed out that your links didn't work. You're the one that wanted to make a big deal out of it, posting all sorts of convoluted excuses and blaming others. You're the one that initiated the name calling. At the beginning of this post I gave one example of your style of research. I could cite countless others, but I learned early on with you its a waste of time. At least I took the time to read your links. I wonder how many others did? 3] How tall was the camera pole? According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall. This is what he actually said: "I was told the mast was 60 feet but have not found secondary documentation on that." Len's researcher is apparently someone named Russell Pickering who posted on a 9/11 forum. What are his credentials? Len doesn't say. The above is typical of Len's research style and how he likes to put his spin on things. This coming from someone who is always challenging other people's sources whenever he doesn't like what they have to say. Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm Here is what I said: "You might want to check the links you provided in the text of your post shown above. No wonder your posts look the way that they do." That is your excuse for not proofreading your posts? That my comment was sarcastic? Did that comment license you to initiate name calling? I didn't whine I offered an explanation. Of course you whined. What was the explanation you offered? That it was somehow the fault of the forum's software? That Jack White and everyone else makes errors too? That it is Microsoft's fault? Is this what you meant when you said words to the effect that "Unlike others, I admit when I'm wrong?" Perhaps you should try (producing evidence), I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you.... Is this the real reason why you don't proofread your posts? You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others. This is about as simple as I can make it. It's clear that Jack (and others) proofread their posts to make sure the content is accurate and easy to follow. It's equally clear that you don't. Jack White is a careful and meticulous researcher. You are sloppy, careless, and lazy. Furthermore, I didn't make a big deal about your "typos" as you refer to them. I pointed out that your links didn't work. You're the one that wanted to make a big deal out of it, posting all sorts of convoluted excuses and blaming others. You're the one that initiated the name calling. At the beginning of this post I gave one example of your style of research. I could cite countless others, but I learned early on with you its a waste of time. At least I took the time to read your links. I wonder how many others did? Russell Pickering is a former fireman who has a mostly good 911 website and a very good collection of fire related Pentagon photos. He and I had several interesting email exchanges, but he quit when I asked numerous questions he could not answer. I agree with much of his website, but he is TO WILLING TO ACCEPT "OFFICIAL INFORMATION" in some cases where it clearly is spurious. Jack 3] How tall was the camera pole? According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall. This is what he actually said: "I was told the mast was 60 feet but have not found secondary documentation on that." Len's researcher is apparently someone named Russell Pickering who posted on a 9/11 forum. What are his credentials? Len doesn't say. The above is typical of Len's research style and how he likes to put his spin on things. This coming from someone who is always challenging other people's sources whenever he doesn't like what they have to say. Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm Here is what I said: "You might want to check the links you provided in the text of your post shown above. No wonder your posts look the way that they do." That is your excuse for not proofreading your posts? That my comment was sarcastic? Did that comment license you to initiate name calling? I didn't whine I offered an explanation. Of course you whined. What was the explanation you offered? That it was somehow the fault of the forum's software? That Jack White and everyone else makes errors too? That it is Microsoft's fault? Is this what you meant when you said words to the effect that "Unlike others, I admit when I'm wrong?" Perhaps you should try (producing evidence), I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you.... Is this the real reason why you don't proofread your posts? You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others. This is about as simple as I can make it. It's clear that Jack (and others) proofread their posts to make sure the content is accurate and easy to follow. It's equally clear that you don't. Jack White is a careful and meticulous researcher. You are sloppy, careless, and lazy. Furthermore, I didn't make a big deal about your "typos" as you refer to them. I pointed out that your links didn't work. You're the one that wanted to make a big deal out of it, posting all sorts of convoluted excuses and blaming others. You're the one that initiated the name calling. At the beginning of this post I gave one example of your style of research. I could cite countless others, but I learned early on with you its a waste of time. At least I took the time to read your links. I wonder how many others did? 3] How tall was the camera pole? According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall. This is what he actually said: "I was told the mast was 60 feet but have not found secondary documentation on that." Len's researcher is apparently someone named Russell Pickering who posted on a 9/11 forum. What are his credentials? Len doesn't say. The above is typical of Len's research style and how he likes to put his spin on things. This coming from someone who is always challenging other people's sources whenever he doesn't like what they have to say. Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm Here is what I said: "You might want to check the links you provided in the text of your post shown above. No wonder your posts look the way that they do." That is your excuse for not proofreading your posts? That my comment was sarcastic? Did that comment license you to initiate name calling? I didn't whine I offered an explanation. Of course you whined. What was the explanation you offered? That it was somehow the fault of the forum's software? That Jack White and everyone else makes errors too? That it is Microsoft's fault? Is this what you meant when you said words to the effect that "Unlike others, I admit when I'm wrong?" Perhaps you should try (producing evidence), I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you.... Is this the real reason why you don't proofread your posts? You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others. This is about as simple as I can make it. It's clear that Jack (and others) proofread their posts to make sure the content is accurate and easy to follow. It's equally clear that you don't. Jack White is a careful and meticulous researcher. You are sloppy, careless, and lazy. Furthermore, I didn't make a big deal about your "typos" as you refer to them. I pointed out that your links didn't work. You're the one that wanted to make a big deal out of it, posting all sorts of convoluted excuses and blaming others. You're the one that initiated the name calling. At the beginning of this post I gave one example of your style of research. I could cite countless others, but I learned early on with you its a waste of time. At least I took the time to read your links. I wonder how many others did? Russell Pickering is a former fireman who has a mostly good 911 website and a very good collection of fire related Pentagon photos. He and I had several interesting email exchanges, but he quit when I asked numerous questions he could not answer. I agree with much of his website, but he is TOO WILLING TO ACCEPT "OFFICIAL INFORMATION" in some cases where it clearly is spurious. My ESTIMATE of APPROXIMATELY 60 feet for the video pole was based on other known estimates of measurements in the photos, such as car heights, etc. I have never stated as a fact that the pole is sixty feet tall. Jack Edited October 23, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Jack White is a careful and meticulous researcher. ROTFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now