Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

So I presume you'll want to admit you were wrong about WTC7, Jack?

That you were wrong about WTC7 not being hit by debris from the twin towers?

That you were wrong about fires in the building?

After all, any time it can be proved that one of your studies is wrong, you are more eager than anyone to acknowledge and correct it.

As predictable as ever.

WTC7 was not struck by debris from the towers.

The fires were very minor.

Please quit twisting what I say.

Please quit taunting and insulting.

Jack

[Len Colby]

So I presume you'll want to admit you were wrong about WTC7, Jack?

That you were wrong about WTC7 not being hit by debris from the twin towers?

That you were wrong about fires in the building?

After all, any time it can be proved that one of your studies is wrong, you are more eager than anyone to acknowledge and correct it.

As predictable as ever.

WTC7 was not struck by debris from the towers.

The fires were very minor.

Please quit twisting what I say.

Please quit taunting and insulting.

Jack

I wonder if Jack who has no training in evaluation the severity of fires or structural damage to buildings and (presumably) was nowhere near ‘Ground Zero’ or even NYC on 9/11 can provide any evidence to support his claims. Evan has provided numerous quotes from people on the scene, the vast majority of them firemen, many of whom were senior commanders w/ decades of experience, who indicate the fires and damage from debris were extensive. Collapse had been predicted for hours, how do Jack and the other truthers square that with their controlled demo fantasies?

Only minor fires Jack says…

…but he is contradicted by photos from the scene as well as witness testimony

Not damaged by debris he claims, Evan has already presented witness statements. Here’re some pix

Gee, where did these holes come from?

More images can be found here

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_hit_by_debris_.html

The problem is the south side of the building was the one most damaged and with the strongest fires because that was the side facing the rest of the WTC complex. For the same reason few if any journalists were there thus there are only a few images.

Perhaps Jack can also explain how exactly Evan...

'twisted his words'

'taunted him' and

'insulted him'

Does he consider someone saying he's wrong an insult? Is asking him to admit error taunting? Is quoting what he said 'twisting his words'?

Edited to fix formating error

Edited May 3, 2008 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

I'll let people look at the evidence provided and make up their own minds. I just thought that Jack might want to correct himself, in line with his oft repeated statement - but I didn't expect it, because the statement he made regarding correcting himself has no basis in reality.

[Jack White]

So I presume you'll want to admit you were wrong about WTC7, Jack?

That you were wrong about WTC7 not being hit by debris from the twin towers?

That you were wrong about fires in the building?

After all, any time it can be proved that one of your studies is wrong, you are more eager than anyone to acknowledge and correct it.

As predictable as ever.

WTC7 was not struck by debris from the towers.

The fires were very minor.

Please quit twisting what I say.

Please quit taunting and insulting.

Jack

I wonder if Jack who has no training in evaluation the severity of fires or structural damage to buildings and (presumably) was nowhere near ‘Ground Zero’ or even NYC on 9/11 can provide any evidence to support his claims. Evan has provided numerous quotes from people on the scene, the vast majority of them firemen, many of whom were senior commanders w/ decades of experience, who indicate the fires and damage from debris were extensive. Collapse had been predicted for hours, how do Jack and the other truthers square that with their controlled demo fantasies?

Only minor fires Jack says…

…but he is contradicted by photos from the scene as well as witness testimony

Not damaged by debris he claims, Evan has already presented witness statements. Here’re some pix

Gee, where did these holes come from?

More images can be found here

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_hit_by_debris_.html

The problem is the south side of the building was the one most damaged and with the strongest fires because that was the side facing the rest of the WTC complex. For the same reason few if any journalists were there thus there are only a few images.

Perhaps Jack can also explain how exactly Evan...

'twisted his words'

'taunted him' and

'insulted him'

Does he consider someone saying he's wrong an insult? Is asking him to admit error taunting? Is quoting what he said 'twisting his words'?

Edited to fix formating error

Colby shows a minor fire on about the fifth floor of WTC7. He shows WTC7 UNDAMAGED AFTER BOTH TOWERS

HAVE FALLEN. He doe not even realize that he is proving my statements true.

Jack

[Maggie Hansen]

I find it strange that WT7 if 'severely' damaged on one side did not collapse asymmetrically as would be expected with such lopsided damage. Why such a nice neat fall into it's footprint?

[Len Colby]

Colby shows a minor fire on about the fifth floor of WTC7. He shows WTC7 UNDAMAGED AFTER BOTH TOWERS

HAVE FALLEN. He doe not even realize that he is proving my statements true.

Jack

I think the same visual impairment or cognitive dissonance that caused Jack to see a “jet engine…small and light enough to deposit in a wire wastepaper basket" when he was actually looking at an engine part obviously larger than and in front of the trash can has befallen him once again.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10924

1st photo – (fire) I guess minor fire is in the eye of the beholder flame is pouring out of more than half the windows on a particular floor. True the east façade of the build appears to intact other than broken window. But the east side of the building was neither facing nor adjacent to the north tower.

2nd photo – (North Tower collapse) Jack is right, the north and east faces of 7 WTC are apparently intact mid collapse of the North Tower, however no one is claiming the debris flew around the building or over its roof and arced back to damage those sides. The firemen at the scene said it was the south side, which is obscured from view, i.e. the side closest to and facing the Trade Center was the one that was damaged. What the photo shows is North Tower debris flying towards building 7.

3rd photo – (NYPD) I’m not sure what Jack’s problem was here there is an arrow pointing to the damaged corner. Once again were are not looking at the south face of the building but the SW corner is obviously seriously damaged.

4th – (Steve Spak) there is a pretty obvious gash in the building to the left of the photographer’s name.

Jack of course continues like most truthers to simply ignore the testimony of FDNY personnel at the scene that the fire and structural damage to the south side was so severe they had been expecting collapse for several hours.

Here’s another image showing damage to the south face

The amount of smoke being produce here contradicts the notion fires were small and limited

Maggie wrote:

I find it strange that WT7 if 'severely' damaged on one side did not collapse asymmetrically as would be expected with such lopsided damage. Why such a nice neat fall into it's footprint?

Maggie – I posted images showing that 7 didn’t collapse symmetrically but rather southwards, i.e. towards the damaged side. I’m pretty sure I did so on this thread.

[Cliff Varnell]

I'll let people look at the evidence provided and make up their own minds.

I agree.

There were a series of these vertical beams with the symmetrical cuts.

A hand held torch made those cuts?

That would be some Cool Hand Luke!

Edited May 6, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Evan Burton]

I'll let people look at the evidence provided and make up their own minds.

I agree.

There were a series of these vertical beams with the symmetrical cuts.

A hand held torch made those cuts?

That would be some Cool Hand Luke!

That's a good one Cliff! Yep, that image is often brought up as proof of thermite or demolition. Is it, however, what it first seems to be?

See here for the answer.

[Len Colby]

I'll let people look at the evidence provided and make up their own minds.

I agree.

There were a series of these vertical beams with the symmetrical cuts.

A hand held torch made those cuts?

That would be some Cool Hand Luke!

Cliff you're in violation of the rule requiring your bio be linked in your signature. I wanted to see if anything in it suggested a familiarity with CD or clean up techniques. Let me guess, you no nothing about the subjects? Cutting columns at an angle is SOP because it controls the direction they fall in, sorta like trees. Look at Evan's link. You're a bot late to the game, that photo was discussed here years ago.

[Evan Burton]

These photos were taken before the cut-up began

Proof?

no sane welder/cutter would do the extra cut of a 45 degree cut

So you are a welding / demolition expert now? my, my - how talented you are.

[Len Colby]

NO! This is exactly what the Borg do. They endlessly throw in already settled stuff - just to try to cloud the issue and cast doubt - psyops - nothing more. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ress=125x142949 More images. Show kind of steel melt typical of thermate not oxyacetylene cuts and no sane welder/cutter would do the extra cut of a 45 degree cut. These photos were taken before the cut-up began and no one has produced any cutters who claimed to make the illogical longer cut, not who could produce the slag-like thermite drips seen. Further the thermite signature in the dust and the molten metal all discount this tripe which the Borg know is tripe - but just endlessly push the same fecal matter hoping it will convince someone. No one can make any progress - what the Borg want. Ignore them. Report them. They just go to the internet and get this crud that is

designed

by other Borg, purporting to debunk valid research showing the flaws of the

offical

lies.

Why do I doubt that Peter ever looked at Evan's link? LOL

A recovery worker cutting a column with an angular cut because presumably doesn't want the assemblly to fall on him and hi coworkers

Peter we're still waiting for you to produce evidence in support of your claim the photo Cliff posted was from before clean up began. I asked you a long time ago on another thread

[Evan Burton]

Show kind of steel melt typical of thermate not oxyacetylene cuts

Let's examine how Peter's 'expert' opinion stacks up against the real world.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/r...ough-steel.html

Now, thermite:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel

Seems that thermite does NOT look like those cuts, whereas the cutting torches used by the cleanup crews DO make those kinds of cuts.

You'd better turn in your welding degree, Peter.

[Len Colby]

Oh yes the usual response when the evidence goes against Peter’s POV - spam the thread with a long irrelevant post which contains a variation of the ‘Lemkin rant’ and cut and paste material.

[Evan Burton]

One should question where Evan Burton has a 'horse in this race'? He works for the Aussie Navy, but is now stationed somewhere in a US Naval Base, apparently.

Peter - last warning. Do not question the motives of posters:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

Now, some important points for you to note:

1. I have stated on more than one occasion my profession and the fact that all comments, opinions, etc, are mine alone;

2. I am not acting on behalf of my employer, nor do I receive any instructions or direction from them as to the content of my posts;

3. I have no association in any way, shape, or form with the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, or any other US intelligence agency.

4. I do have an association with the US DoD because of my current assignment.

5. That association in no way shapes, alters, or directs my opinions or posts.

6. You have twice incorrectly stated my posting (Carswell AFB, US Naval Base) despite my having clearly stated on more than one occasion where I am currently based.

I am deeply offended that I am continually called to answer for my profession of choice by you, in clear violation of the forum rules, on more than one occasion. I have never question why you are in your location or your profession.

I can only surmise that you feel you cannot adequately address my rebuttals, that you cannot defend your statements, and resort to tactics such as questioning my motives in order to divert attention away from the issue at hand. I don't care where you are from, what you do, how you do it, or why you do it. I'm interested in what you say, and I address what you say.

[Jack White]

If those here are forbidden TO QUESTION MOTIVES, we may as well pack up and move on.

I question the motive of LBJ and others in the JFK affair as well as Apollo misadventures.

I question the motives of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush in the 911 affair.

Mr. Simkin's forums are based on the premise that the public has been misinformed about

the motives of those who committed these crimes.

If we cannot question the motives of those who DEFEND and perpetuate false "official stories",

then we are all wasting our time here.

Please recall that it was Burton who defamed ME with his every posting for a long time,

declaring that I was responsible for LITTLE WHITE LIES. Remember?

That a DEFENDER OF OFFICIAL STORIES has been put in charge here is in itself very curious.

Jack