Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

LOL you beat me to it Kevin. A relevant excerpt

Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.

The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.

So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (http://www.controlled-demolition.com) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.

Dr. Steven I. Dutch PhD (Structural Geology Columbia),

Professor (Fmr. chair) Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

[Jack White]

There has been considerable discussion here and elsewhere about

the CNN "cloud of dust" video showing an explosion at Vesey and

West streets at the time the second tower was struck.

Today I located before and after photos of Building Six and have

made a comparison. The BEFORE photo clearly shows what

WTC6 looked like pre911. The AFTER is clearly different, showing

what appear to be fires in the broken windows, and soot on the

exterior walls above the windows...YET THE NORTH TOWER IS

STILL STANDING IN THE BACKGROUND.

Because of the provocateurs and censorship here, I will not

post the research here. I will likely post it either on

http://drjudywood.com/

or

http://www.911studies.com/

I will advise when the study is posted.

Jack

[Len Colby]

You love playing the victim don't you Jack? Except for complying with the forum rules, which apply to everyone there is no censorship here. One of those rules is of course that you should complain about such issues on the specified thread rather than start new ones like this; the moderator who let this through cut you some slack. It seems you are doing your best not to taken off moderation.

Perhaps you can be more specific and explain how and why exactly “censorship” is preventing from posting your latest study here. My guess is that your photo either shows WTC 6 with a dust cloud behind it that you will claim is WTC 1 or that like the “broken windows” in Peter’s photo the “fires” and “broken widows” will be very much 'in the eye of the beholder'. As for soot or what appears to be soot that could be explained by the fires in both towers and dust from the collapse of WTC 2.

As forprovocateurs you seem to define anyone who debunks your studies as such. I can see why after being shown to have been wrong on the Pentagon impact point and the location of the jet engine part and the drubbing you took last time we debated 6 you would prefer to post on sites where your work won’t face scrutiny.

[Jack White]

As usual Mr. Colby makes unfounded speculations and attacks on my

integrity. I am denying nobody access to my new study when it becomes

public. In fact I urge him to post it on this forum for discussion, since

the forum software prohibits me from doing so. He will be surprised to

see that it is nothing like his absurd speculation.

Jack

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Because of the provocateurs and censorship here, I will not

post the research here. I will likely post it either on

http://drjudywood.com/

or

http://www.911studies.com/

I will advise when the study is posted.

Jack

Jack, this is nonsence, exactly how are you being censored? If you wish, send me your study and I will post it for you.

[Craig Lamson]

As usual Mr. Colby makes unfounded speculations and attacks on my

integrity. I am denying nobody access to my new study when it becomes

public. In fact I urge him to post it on this forum for discussion, since

the forum software prohibits me from doing so. He will be surprised to

see that it is nothing like his absurd speculation.

Jack

Jack has the ability to post his work to this forum via other methods like photobucket if he chooses. The fact that he continues to complain about his inability to post images when he can is quite telling.

[Craig Lamson]

Click on:

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-conte...es/HTRHome.html

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

I have to note with some amusment that the "truthers" going silly about the concrete floors miss this simple piece of common sense.

The concrete floors (not much thicker than the average sidewalk) were poured on a metal 'pan'. Flex or bend the pan and the concrete is going to break quite quickly, and easily.

Perhaps we need a new website as well...hunt some common sense in a truther....

Edited October 16, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

As usual Mr. Colby makes unfounded speculations and attacks on my

integrity.

Perhaps Mr. White will be willing to spell out what parts of my previous post constituted “attacks on [his] integrity”. I’m sure the irony of him complaining about me attacking his integrity is lost on him even though he has repeatedly accused me and others who question his studies of being disinformation agents or even being an accessories to the JFK assassination and repeatedly made false accusations about the integrity of Evan Burton even calling him a xxxx for correctly quoting his position that the Apollo landings had been faked.

I am denying nobody access to my new study when it becomes public.

I never said you were if however you post it to your or Dr. Woods’ site no one will able to comment on it there.

In fact I urge him to post it on this forum for discussion, since the forum software prohibits me from doing so.

1) This isn’t censorship and your claim that it was cheapens the sacrifice of people who actually have been censored.

2) As Craig pointed out and as has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in the past you can easily post images using photo hosts like Photobucket, Snapfish, VillagePhotos etc etc. You can’t simultaneously claim to be a) someone capable of complex photo analysis and incapable of mastering the extremely simple process of using photo hosting sites

3) If you wish to post unaltered images all you have to do is provide their URL’s in the “Post Image” dialogue box.

4) In the past you’ve claimed you can post images from one of your computers but not the other, is anything preventing you from using the former?

5) In the past you’ve had Bernice and Peter post stuff on your behalf, is anything preventing you from doing so again?

6) You have my e-mail if you want to send me a copy of your study although there is no reason for doing so I will post it.

He will be surprised to see that it is nothing like his absurd speculation.

Considering 1) your track record and 2) the fact that there are several images showing 6 intact up to the collapse of 1 my speculation wasn’t absurd. If your image is as advertised I’d like to see it.

Also don’t forget to include the source of the image, since you claim you “discovered” it yesterday the ‘I don’t keep logs, I don’t remember where I found it’ excuse won’t wash. I hope for your sake its provenance is beyond question because you previously said a photo of building 6 was suspicious because you had “Collected almost every photo available since 9-11-01” and it wasn’t in your files.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119892

Len

Edit - more diplomatic wording used

Edited October 19, 2007 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

Sep 28, 2007

CIA Veterans Reject "Official" 9/11 Story

A 2,000 word article, Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report — Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up", appeared September 23 in OpEdNews. The article details severe criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by seven CIA veterans and their calls for a new investigation. A brief quote from each of the individuals featured in the article appears below....

Link to complete article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_al..._veterans_c.htm

[Kevin M. West]

Shouldn't those last 2 posts be in another thread? This one was supposed to be about Jack's new discovery.

[Craig Lamson]

And yours is?! It is as obscure as your photo...or maybe not...maybe both indicative of something.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone's paranoia?

Edited October 17, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

As previously noted Peter tends to spam 9/11 threads with irrelevant posts when they start going bad for the "truther" POV. Perhaps he can explain the relevance of the opinions of CIA agent's re 9/11 in general has to do with Jack's photo that supposedly shows 6 WTC on fire and damaged with WTC 1 still standing behind it? He posts it not once but twice. His posts on this thread constitute trolling IMO as are his incessant insinuations that those who disagree with him have ulterior motives.

[Jack White]

My new study can be seen by clicking:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies118a.htm

Serious comments invited. Personal attacks will be reported

to moderators.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

As previously noted Peter tends to spam 9/11 threads with irrelevant posts when they start going bad for the "truther" POV. Perhaps he can explain the relevance of the opinions of CIA agent's re 9/11 in general has to do with Jack's photo that supposedly shows 6 WTC on fire and damaged with WTC 1 still standing behind it? He posts it not once but twice. His posts on this thread constitute trolling IMO as are his incessant insinuations that those who disagree with him have ulterior motives.

Len, please do not accuse someone of being a xxxxx. I know you said "IMO", but please keep the opinion to yourself. If you think it is becoming a problem, use the REPORT function and report the posts of concern. Thank you.

[Craig Lamson]

My new study can be seen by clicking:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies118a.htm

Serious comments invited. Personal attacks will be reported

to moderators.

Jack

Thanks Jack. Hmmm.....sure seems like damage and fires....couldn't be from the planes or even the down the elevator shaft fireball [which I doubt happened and was not noted by eyewitnesses]. It does seem to have been some incindiary device or explosive. Guess Silverstein really wanted to make sure even the smallest buildings were done in. This one was fairly small. What companies were in that building? I'll put up another photo that matches the mysterious phenomenon.

Thanks Lemkin. Hmmmm....sure seems like there is no damage and fires..because there is none. Actual video of the scene confirms such. The only mysterious phenomenon is the inability of 'half-truthers" to actually understand what they see.

There is that pesky principal... angle of incidence equals angle of reflection...to deal with. But hey, lets not let actual science get in the way of a good truther yarn!

Edited October 17, 2007 by Craig Lamson