Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

More bad lighting and shadows.

Jack

[Jack White]

Check the rocks in these two similar views.

Jack

[Jack White]

Two consecutive photos of same footprints. Please count the

rocks around the footprints. How many differences do you see?

Jack

Edited December 21, 2004 by Jack White

[Shanet Clark]

July 26, 2001 21:53:20 The Early Show CBS Evening News 48

Hours 60 Minutes 60 Minutes II All Broadcasts

• Section Front

E-mail This Story Printable Version

Ashcroft Flying High

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports on Aschcroft's

travel arrangements.

Attorney General Ashcroft, with President Bush (Photo: AP)

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is

acting under the guidelines."

FBI spokesman

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a

weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government

jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling

exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the

Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI,

and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the

remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting

under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the

Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it

was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats

against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in

California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

"I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose

responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the

FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I

should stay within for those purposes," Ashcroft said.

Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the

attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer."

Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3

Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the

government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft

was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a

Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond.

All other Bush Cabinet appointees, with the exception of Interior and

Energy with remote sites to oversee, fly commercial airliners. Janet Reno,

Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, also routinely flew

commercial. The secretaries of State and Defense traditionally travel with

extra security on military planes.

The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly

leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI

security detail. The FBI had no further comment.

©MMI, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Jack White]

http://www.physics911.net/spine.htm

Jack

[Lee Forman]

It's not impossible to make a cell phone call from an airplane. One would need to up against a window at a minimum, and within a certain altitude. Keep in mind that there is a lot less interference for the signal to the base station. Hand-off's between towers would be complicated, based upon the speed of the aircraft.

I will get more technical specs on this, as it interests me as well.

A resident of NJ, we were of course impacted by 9/11. My neighbor across the street, who was a good friend at the time, was on the 69th floor of the North tower. We didn't learn until about 11:30am that he had survived. He and 9 other co-workers [2 carried briefcases, and 4 switched off every 4 floors or so] had carried a handicapped man in a gurney weighing well over 200 pounds, down the 69 floors and to safety. They made it to safety with a margin of some 3 - 5 minutes before the tower collapsed.

Another good friend lost his brother, who worked Cantor Fitz. His last message to his wife was, "A goddammed plane just hit the building. Can you believe this xxxx? I'll call you later. Love you."

A co-worker friend of mine used to work for Cantor, and he had to go to 3 funerals in one evening.

One of my friends from childhood worked in the South Tower. He can be seen dodging falling glass in the fireman video, as the second plane struck. He never heard the announcement made to return to his desk - he had been there in 1993 also.

The question I asked, and will continue to ask, is very simple. Shortly after the event, when discussing the details, I made mention of the fact that I could understand the Pentagon, as this could be considered a military target, but that the towers were civilian.

I was having this discussion with a friend who worked for Port Authority, and this person told me I was incorrect. One thing this person told me was that since the bombing in 1993, some things had changed. Although it was apparently only an urban legend, many employees believed that there were rooftop rescues, and headed to the roof. Their passage was blocked, as apparently there was a lot of very high tech CIA gear on the roof, and the area was totally secure.

This person went on to tell me that the CIA had offices in both buildings, although it was a little known fact.

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt the source, all I'd like to know is what floor their offices were on? If it's 75 or higher in either tower, what was their casualty rate? 0% for those in building 7. What about 1 and 2?

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/07CIA.html

The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said. The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building.

The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas. The agency's officers in New York often work undercover, posing as diplomats and business executives, among other things, depending on the nature of their intelligence operations.

http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

[This can be heard in the audio file http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3. Thanks to Sir Dave 'tmo' Soule for transfering this from the video to an MP3 file. "America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/.]

Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC 7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way?

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.

[This can be heard in the audio file http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt2.mp3 taken from the video.]

This shocking contradiction is yet another curious twist in a disturbing series of events surrounding the "collapse" of WTC 7, and the WTC complex in general.

Among these is the fact that, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever resulted in a collapse. On 9/11 three such anomalies were alleged to have occurred. Those who argue that the towers were vulnerable in their top-heaviness and verticality cannot then explain the collapse due to fire of WTC 7, a broad based, 47-story steel-framed building.

There is also the fact that most of the structures destroyed by falling debris were directly under the twin towers, and none of them caught fire. WTC 7 was not only a full city block away from Tower 1 but WTC 6 stood directly between the two buildings and certainly absorbed most of the damage.

In addition, WTC 7 suffered a strangely thorough and complete collapse, leaving only a leveled lot where it once stood. Although it was a much smaller structure, WTC 6's 8-story carcass stood for months afterwards, even after being gutted by Tower 1.

There's also disturbing correlations between the collapse of WTC 7 and the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Both buildings were constructed using the same bridge beam system that, in WTC 7's case, allegedly contributed to its demise. But more importantly WTC 7, like the Murrah building, housed high-level government offices including the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service. WTC 7 was also the storage facility for millions of files pertaining to active cases involving international drug dealing, organized crime, terrorism and money laundering.

How convenient.

- lee

[Jack White]

It's not impossible to make a cell phone call from an airplane.  One would need to up against a window at a minimum, and within a certain altitude.  Keep in mind that there is a lot less interference for the signal to the base station.  Hand-off's between towers would be complicated, based upon the speed of the aircraft.

I will get more technical specs on this, as it interests me as well.

- lee

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lee...you are mistaken. I can provide many expert sources on cellphone

calls, such as:

http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm

I know a technician who works on cellphones. He said present technology

makes it IMPOSSIBLE at altitude and speed, and inside an airliner, for

current cellphones to reach ground stations. The problem is that from great

height and great speed, several ground antennas would not know which

antenna should receive the message and when to hand-off to next station.

The confusion would JAM THE SYSTEM, if received at all, which he doubts.

He says it takes at least 5 seconds for one tower to hand-off to the next

tower, and in 5 seconds BOTH towers would be out of range.

Jack

[Lee Forman]

Lee...you are mistaken. I can provide many expert sources on cellphone

calls, such as:

He said present technology makes it IMPOSSIBLE at altitude and speed, and inside an airliner, for current cellphones to reach ground stations. The problem is that from great height and great speed, several ground antennas would not know which antenna should receive the message and when to hand-off to next station.

The confusion would JAM THE SYSTEM, if received at all, which he doubts.

He says it takes at least 5 seconds for one tower to hand-off to the next

tower, and in 5 seconds BOTH towers would be out of range.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

I would not disagree with your statement above. The main variables, as I had stated, are speed and altitude. Excessive speed would have caused the calls to be dropped. Agreed. At a high enough altitude, it's doubtful that there would be a signal. I was only making the point that it was not 'impossible' to make a cell phone call from inside a plane.

- lee

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/12/15/...llplanes_1.html

FCC to consider allowing cell phones on planes

Decision would allow voice and data communications aloft.

By Stephen Lawson, IDG News Service

December 15, 2004

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Wednesday kicked off efforts that could reshape the communications services available to airline passengers, deciding to auction off spectrum now set aside for air-to-ground phone service and proposing to relax its ban on the use of cellular phones in flight.

The FCC will auction radio frequencies in the 800MHz band in the hopes of spurring new onboard services that could include voice, data and broadband Internet access, the agency said in a statement. The services could be provided for commercial, military and general aviation. The FCC proposed three possible configurations of the spectrum, all of which are designed to ensure at least two operators in that band, and will let private industry settle on one.

There is 4MHz of spectrum in the 800MHz band set aside for air-to-ground communications, but only one service, Verizon's Airfone, is using that spectrum now, according to the FCC. The Airfone seatback phone service is expensive, limited to voice and not often used, Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement on the decision. The FCC granted Verizon Airfone a new, 5-year, nonrenewable license on Wednesday, but limited that service to 1MHz of the 4MHz band.

Service providers that participate in the auction could choose an arrangement in which two carriers each have 3MHz of spectrum, overlapping in the middle part of the band, or one of two configurations that set aside a 3MHz band exclusively for one carrier and a 1MHz band exclusively for another.

"Our rules for the 800MHz commercial air-ground service has been locked in a narrowly defined technological and regulatory box and have kept passengers from using their wireless devices on planes," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said in a statement on the decision. The agency shouldn't dictate business plans by choosing only one band plan, he said. Commissioners Copps and Jonathan Adelstein voiced concern about auctioning an exclusive 3MHz license, saying the remaining 1MHz license wouldn't give a rival carrier enough bandwidth to effectively compete.

The agency also proposed allowing passengers to use standard wireless handsets and other devices via a "picocell," a small base station on the plane. Phones would also have to operate at their lowest power setting and not allow unwanted radio emissions to interfere with land-based cell networks. FCC rules currently prohibit using cell phones after takeoff, and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations restrict the use of any mobile phones and other portable electronic devices to prevent interference to onboard communications and navigation gear.

In its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the FCC is seeking public comment on whether the plan should apply only to devices operating in the 800MHz cellular band or include other types of phones, such as those in the PCS (Personal Communications Systems) or Advanced Wireless Services bands. It also wants ideas about how the 800MHz air-to-ground spectrum could be used as a "pipe" between an aircraft and a network on the ground. The agency is coordinating with the FAA, which is examining its own rules, according to the FCC statement.

In his statement on Wednesday's decisions, Copps welcomed the idea of exploring the issue but said he was worried about the possible fallout for airline passengers.

"Many airline passengers don't relish the idea of sitting next to someone yelling into their cell phones for an entire six-hour flight. I know I don't!" Copps wrote. He urged consumers to participate in the NPRM. "Meanwhile, we here at the Commission need to determine precisely what jurisdiction the FCC has over the annoying-seatmate issue."

[Evan Burton]

Here are two A11 consecutive photos that demonstrate

bad lighting. The pix are part of a panorama series taken

from the same viewpoint. Therefore the lighting in the

background SHOULD BE IDENTICAL though the camera

is pointed a few degrees more to the right in the second

view. But note that at the splice line, the lighting does

not match.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack tends to be somewhat haphazard with the facts, and very economical with the truth.

The two photos shown in the COMPOSITE image are AS11-40-5875 (taken at 110hrs 10 min 33 sec Ground Elapsed Time) and AS11-40-5915 (taken between 110hrs 41 min & 43min).

That's 31 mins between the images. They are NOT consecutive. They are taken from similar positions, NOT the same.

Check out other images and you'll see the light drop off (normally) toward the edge of the images.

There is a word that is banned here - I won't use it.

I will, once again, say however that Jack does not tell you the correct information about the images and he will often manipulates the images in order to create an image showing what he wants you to believe.

If Jack tells you the sun will rise this morning, I would advise you check with your local observatory.

DO NOT RELY ON WHAT JACK SAYS OR PORTRAYS!

Look for the original images yourself, and do your own research.

If you do so, you'll understand that what Jack White says does not agree with your own conclusions.

[Evan Burton]

BTW, if anyone wants me to address each and every image Jack White has presented in this thread, I'll do so.

I consider it a waste of time, but will do so if anyone is still not convinced as to the validity of Jack White's claims about the Apollo images.

[John Simkin]

I have asked Gerald Posner several times to discuss his book Case Closed on the JFK Forum. He has implied he will do this after he finished his current project on 9/11. Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11 has now been published. I will invite him to discuss both books on the Forum.

It seems that this time Gerald Posner's Oswald is Barney Frank. This is what one newspaper has said about the book:

http://www2.townonline.com/newton/opinion/...rticleid=222411

Gerald Posner, author of "Case Closed," the widely acclaimed book on the assassination of President Kennedy, has penned another blockbuster, "Why America Slept - The Failure to Prevent 9/11." In it, Posner details how over two decades the breakdown in authority, jurisdiction and communication among the various levels of the government responsible for protecting our borders and preventing terrorist infiltration led directly to the establishment of foreign terrorist sleeper cells in the United States, which culminated in the terrorist bombings of Sept. 11, 2001.

What Posner reveals is nothing short of startling, as he details the misguided complicity of none other than our own Congressman Barney Frank, whose meddling in the immigration laws since the early 1980s had disastrous consequences:

"Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa.

"Under Frank's amendment, which seems unthinkable post 9/11, a visa could only be denied if the government could prove that the applicant had committed an act of terrorism. Rendered toothless by the Frank amendment, the Reagan administration had virtually no way to block entry visas even when there was information linking the individuals to terrorist groups."

And so it began.

Since 1798, when President John Adams signed into law the Alien Enemies Act, the country had legally and effectively prevented known or suspected enemy agents or terrorists from gaining entry into the United States. But the various amendments to the immigration laws put forth by Barney Frank over the span of two decades derailed this crucial government policy which had worked remarkably well for nearly two centuries.

Between 1981 and 2001, Barney Frank sponsored no less than 13 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which had the effect of opening the nation's floodgates to a well-disciplined, well-organized network of terrorist sleeper cells and support groups that have since become entrenched here in America for up to two decades.

The Frank Amendment of 1989, the crown jewel of the congressman's assault on our immigration laws, declared that a foreigner could not be denied a visa because of his ideology, which meant that that no matter how repugnant, hostile or undemocratic an individual's politics, these could not be grounds for denying him entry into the United States....

[Pat Speer]

The Frank Amendment of 1989, the crown jewel of the congressman's assault on our immigration laws, declared that a foreigner could not be denied a visa because of his ideology, which meant that that no matter how repugnant, hostile or undemocratic an individual's politics, these could not be grounds for denying him entry into the United States....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, that evil Barney Frank just pushed the Administration of George HW Bush all over the place. They were helpless to defend this country against the man they privately referred to as "Barney Fag.." Right. Posner pisses me off so much he makes me want to hiss... Always looking for a way to blame the liberals. You'd think Ted Kennedy had killed his girlfriend or something...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Of course, its all so obvious. Here's a handy mantra, all together! "THE LIBERALS DID IT GOVENOR"!! Or Homer's hint number one for getting though life, "IT WAS LIKE THAT WHEN I GOT HERE"!!

I'm sure if we give Mr Posner enough time(& CIA dollars) He will be able to explain how that well known Liberal, Adolph Hitler, started the Second World War. SIGH!!!!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Lets see Mr Posner debate this.

WHERE WAS GEORGE!!

Sept 11th, is said to be the defining moment of Dubya's presidency,even of modern history. is it not strange then, that his behaviour~along with that of

his administration~is never examined in any detail. No less odd is the Media's

willingness to let the inconsistencies in White House stories pass unexamined

Leni Riefenstahl would be proud of them...

That morning Bush was visiting the Emma e. Booker elimemtary School in

Sarasota.The moment he learned of the attacks is a matter of deep dispute.

CIA chief George Tenet was informed of the first crash & is reported to have

remarked " You know this has Bin Laden's fingerprints all over it" But the

Presidents aides maintain that he was not told of the attack for more than

15 mins, well after viewers saw the first biulding engulfed in smoke on CNN

Even after he interupted his schedule to take a call from Condie Rice.

The various accounts offered by the White House are all inconsistent. on

Dec 4th,2001, Bush was asked"How did you feel when you heard about the

terrorist attack?" Bush replied "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to

go in, & i saw the aeroplane hit the tower???~ "The TV was obviously on. &

I used to fly myself, & I said well there's one terrible pilot. It must have been

a horrible accident. But i was whisked off there, I did'nt have much time to think

about it." He repeated the same story on Jan 5th 2002,"First of all, when we

walked into the classroom, I had seen this planefly into the FIRST!!! biulding.

There was a TV set on. & you know I thought it was pilot error, & I was

amazed that anyone could make such a terrible mistake....."

This is false. Nobody saw the first Jet crash into the tower on TV until a video

tape surfaced a day later.whats more, Bush's memory not only contradicts

every media report of that morning, it also contradicts what he said on the

day of the attack. in his speech to the Nation that evening, Bush said.

" Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our Governments

emergency response plans." Again this statement has never been explained.

No one besides bush has ever spoken of these "Emergency plans" & the mere

idea of there implementation is contadicted by Bush's claim that at the time,

he belived the crash to have been " pilot error."

Other contradictions abound. Bush told an interviewer that Andrew Card was

the first person to inform him of the crash. Ari Fleischer repeated this story,

claiming that Card had told Bush about the crash " as the President finished

shaking hands of School officials." But other sources, including Bob Woodward,

have Karl Rove telling Bush the news.

What we do know is that Bush continued to read to the children long after

the FAA~NORAD~NMCC~Pentagon~White House~Secret Service & Canada's

Strategic Command, were all aware that three Jets had been hijacked. The

Presidents entourage hung around for a full 50 mins after CNN broadcast the

news of the first crash.

Bush's aides later offered, & retracted,an excuse that he spent the rest of the

day flying around the country, because of threats to Airforce One, received at

the White House. What no one has ever explained is this: If you think

Airforce One is to be attacked, why go up in Airforce One......??

There is plenty more of these Monkeyshines which I will post later......

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Another factor in this is what Conan Doyle called "The curious case of the dog

in the night time"

The S/S exist for one reason & one reason only, to protect the life of the president.

By there own admision, they had no idea how many planes had beenhi-jacked,

or where they were. There job in this circumstance is to remove Dubya to a

place of safety, no questions asked. Yet for more than 45mins after the first crash,

Bush remains in the school, listening to the children read, shaking hands ect.

With an Airport less than 3 miles from the school, how did the S/S know that

Bush was in no danger.

Elimentory, my dear Watsons. The dog didnt bark because it knew the killer.