Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks, Peter. You are correct.

I look at and evaluate all information...whether or not I agree

with all opinions expressed. Information and facts and photos

exist SEPARATELY from opinions expressed.

I visit 911 sites mostly to collect photos, not read opinions.

The photos exist independently of what people say about them

and are not affected by opinions nor people who post the

photos. The WebFairy and several others have many good

photos. Four or five sites mix into their sites THE JEWISH

CONSPIRACY, which to me is not connected. I cannot help it

if some sites have good material as well as questionable.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks, Stephen. Everyone should study the facts enough to

have some opinion. Some have more facts than others.

I respect your opinion as being far advanced over most people,

and correct in several respects.

However, you say you do not believe in the CONTROLLED

DEMOLITIONS. I would like to ask you what caused the

explosions of Building 6 and Building 7.

Thanks for starting this discussion. Brace yourself for several

salvos by the disinformation provocateurs.

"Cue up Brazil!"

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at and evaluate all information...whether or not I agree

with all opinions expressed. Information and facts and photos

exist SEPARATELY from opinions expressed.

Jack

Should we all check out the 'total validity' of a site - yes. Can we always -No - time constraints.

It is quite clear to me Jack that you are incapable of sentient, rational or critical thought. Photographs, like any other historical sources, are only understandable in their context.

Peter - it is indeed time consuming to assess the provenance of one's sources (including websites) but nonetheless essential for the serious researcher/historian to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White wrote:

"I look at and evaluate all information...whether or not I agree with all opinions expressed. Information and facts and photos exist SEPARATELY from opinions expressed."

When I first joined this Forum there was great controversy surrounding Michael Collins Piper and I read all the threads. Some of the views expressed opened my eyes as to how quick some people are to judge others and their motives.

Piper's actual research into the murder of President Kennedy as written in Final Judgement was largely ignored while peripheral issues like his views on the Holocaust, his appearance on "Nazi" websites, his association with others became the focus of many threads.

Recent forum discussions on Watergate prompted me to go to my library and look for books that dealt with that subject. Piper had sent me the 6th edition. He dealt with Watergate in a chapter called Appendix Seven.

Piper borrowed heavily on the writings of Carl Oglesby and Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great). He had many quotes from Haldeman's The Ends of Power. He sourced and quoted almost all of Nixon's staff. He quoted part of Walter Cronkite's interview with Robert Vesco on 60 minutes and made his case for Vesco's Permindex connection.

Here are some of his other quoted sources:

Leslie Cockburn on CSpan

Loftus and Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews (St. Martin's Press, 1994)

Robert Hutchinson, Vesco (Praeger, 1974)

Jim Hougan, Spooks (Morrow & Co. 1978)

Webster Tarpley, George Bush, the Unauthorized Biography (1992)

There are many more.

Of course, anyone reading this knows Piper suspected an Israeli/Mossad connection to Watergate.

My post makes no judgement on that. My point is that the sources employed by Piper were interesting in and of themselves, and showed a side to Watergate that generally has not been discussed on this Forum to my knowledge.

Whether on not someone agrees with Piper's other views (understood or misundersood), that doesn't mean that his book cannot contain good information. Its obvious that Piper spent a lot of time researching the murder of John Kennedy. His book Final Judgement, in its 6th edition contains much of value.

Much of the criticism of Final Judgement (and not coincidentally, John Armstrong's Harvey & Lee) come from people that have not read the books in their entirety(if at all). Instead they base their criticisms exclusively from what they find on the internet. If that's what they want to do, of course that's their right.

But the most accurate method to judge an author's research, in my opinion, is to read the book, assiduously check the sources, learn some things if you can, and discard the rest. Piper's chapter on Watergate was sound.

Mike Hogan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have noticed that most threads in this section are about aspects of 911, remotely controlled planes, airforce defence stand down, controlled demolition of the three Towers etc, etc. I think a thread that allows members to lay out their own personel theory/belife on the subject is in order. I realise this is asking a lot, but it will allow us to debate the matter in the round, rather than in peicemeal fasion. For the record this is where I stand.

George Bush lied about what he witnessed that morning, twice, and I can prove it.

Most of the physical evidence supports the official version, ie four planes, three hits, 19 hijackers. I dont believe that a missile, or anything else other than a very large plane hit the pentagon, or that the Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition Two elements though do concern me, 1, I think that the suicide pilots were much more highly trained than we have been led to believe, the kind of training taught in the military. 2 The administration lied about being taken by surprise, in claiming that they had no idea about planes being used as flying bombs.

911 was used as a false justification to begin the ruinous war on terror, the invasion of Afganistan, and later Iraq had been the Neo Cons intention all along, 911 or no 911. Knowingly false documents and memo's were cobbled together to support this, Parliament, the UN and the Senate were told Lies and half truths, an anti Democratic measures, such as the patriot act were rushed though in its wake. Anti patriotic, and terrorist supporter labels were applied to anyone questioning this activity.

I dont believe that 911 was an inside job, as such, although real questions remain about how much foreknowledge certain agencies had about the event, and whether every thing possible was done to prevent it. I dont believe that Isreal, or Mossad had anything to do with it, indeed they were one of at least 25 countries to warn America about the very real possibility of terrorists hijacking planes, and flying them into biuldings, as part of a multi strike attack. Saudi Arabia is, in my view, a much more likely candidate, but of course we have already got their oil.

I will enlarge on these points if requested. your turn.

I pretty much agree with you Steve except on few points

"I think that the suicide pilots were much more highly trained than we have been led to believe, the kind of training taught in the military."

At best there is reason to suspect this in only one case, that of 'Hani' Hanjour or whoever flew that 757 into the Pentagon. Crashing into a 208 foot (63 meter) wide sky scraper or a field is not particularly difficult. The flight computers of modern planes can autonomously handle most if not all aspects of flight between take off and landing (and aide in those parts) the planes were hijacked at cruise altitude. Even in the case of flight 77 only the last few seconds were at all complicated and I quoted several pilots and a Boeing engineer who said it wouldn't have been that difficult. So far only 1 qualified expert (Wittenberg) has said the Pentagon flight path would have been difficult to fly but his claim that a 757 couldn't have flown it has been pretty well debunked.

"the invasion of Afganistan, and later Iraq had been the Neo Cons intention all along, 911 or no 911"

In the case of Iraq I agree but not in the case of Afghanistan. Yes they had contingency plans but that's different from planning to got to war. The US presumably have contingency plans to invade many countries if the situation arises, I would be surprised if they didn't have a contingency plan to invade North Korea but would surprised if they ever did. I haven't looked that closely at this issue so would like to see your evidence.

As to foreknowledge it is now obvious that signs were missed but haven't seen any "smoking gun" that those signs were INTENTIONALLY ignored in order to have a casus belli. Analogously in 1939 – 40 the French missed signs that the Germans would invade through the Low Countries just like that did in WWI, the Israelis missed signs of an impending attack in 1973 and the British missed signs the Argentines would invade the Falklands in 1982.

I would like to see your evidence for involvement by the Saudi government in the attacks though involvement by prominent Saudis wouldn't surprise me, ditto regarding Pakistan.

However, you say you do not believe in the CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS. I would like to ask you what caused the explosions of Building 6 and Building 7.

Neither building "exploded" despite the fact they both were hit by debris from the collapsing towers

Thanks for starting this discussion. Brace yourself for several salvos by the disinformation provocateurs.

No need for him to "brace" himself "for several salvos by the disinformation provocateurs" because you seem to be behaving yourself on this thread. Note that he disagrees with 90% of your theories.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent posting, Mike. I agree with what you say. One need not

agree with all of an author's opinions to evaluate the worth of information

presented (assuming one has sufficient background to judge the information

and separate it from opinions).

I have Piper's book but have never read it entirely...only selected chapters

of interest to me.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Thanks, Stephen. Everyone should study the facts enough to

have some opinion. Some have more facts than others.

I respect your opinion as being far advanced over most people,

and correct in several respects.

However, you say you do not believe in the CONTROLLED

DEMOLITIONS. I would like to ask you what caused the

explosions of Building 6 and Building 7.

Thanks for starting this discussion. Brace yourself for several

salvos by the disinformation provocateurs.

"Cue up Brazil!"

Jack

Thank you for responding Jack. I believe that the collateral damage sustained by Buildings 6, and 7 explains their structural failure, and subsequant collapse. I have read engineers reports on this subject which I believe shows how this collapse came about. As I am no engineer, or Architect myself I had to seek out professional explanations, these I accept. Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
I pretty much agree with you Steve except on few points

"I think that the suicide pilots were much more highly trained than we have been led to believe, the kind of training taught in the military."

At best there is reason to suspect this in only one case, that of 'Hani' Hanjour or whoever flew that 757 into the Pentagon. Crashing into a 208 foot (63 meter) wide sky scraper or a field is not particularly difficult. The flight computers of modern planes can autonomously handle most if not all aspects of flight between take off and landing (and aide in those parts) the planes were hijacked at cruise altitude. Even in the case of flight 77 only the last few seconds were at all complicated and I quoted several pilots and a Boeing engineer who said it wouldn't have been that difficult. So far only 1 qualified expert (Wittenberg) has said the Pentagon flight path would have been difficult to fly but his claim that a 757 couldn't have flown it has been pretty well debunked.

"the invasion of Afganistan, and later Iraq had been the Neo Cons intention all along, 911 or no 911"

In the case of Iraq I agree but not in the case of Afghanistan. Yes they had contingency plans but that's different from planning to got to war. The US presumably have contingency plans to invade many countries if the situation arises, I would be surprised if they didn't have a contingency plan to invade North Korea but would surprised if they ever did. I haven't looked that closely at this issue so would like to see your evidence.

As to foreknowledge it is now obvious that signs were missed but haven't seen any "smoking gun" that those signs were INTENTIONALLY ignored in order to have a casus belli. Analogously in 1939 – 40 the French missed signs that the Germans would invade through the Low Countries just like that did in WWI, the Israelis missed signs of an impending attack in 1973 and the British missed signs the Argentines would invade the Falklands in 1982.

I would like to see your evidence for involvement by the Saudi government in the attacks though involvement by prominent Saudis wouldn't surprise me, ditto regarding Pakistan.

However, you say you do not believe in the CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS. I would like to ask you what caused the explosions of Building 6 and Building 7.

Neither building "exploded" despite the fact they both were hit by debris from the collapsing towers

Thanks for starting this discussion. Brace yourself for several salvos by the disinformation provocateurs.

No need for him to "brace" himself "for several salvos by the disinformation provocateurs" because you seem to be behaving yourself on this thread. Note that he disagrees with 90% of your theories.

Len

Len, good to hear from you. I should point out that I am possitive about only three aspects. 1 Bush lied. (I know we agree on this point) 2 The administration lied as a body by claiming that they knew nothing about terrorists planning to use Planes as flying bombs. and 3, false intellegence reports were use to justify preemtive war. All the rest is supposition, but let me try and explain how I got here, I take your point about the skill level's needed to accomplish the deed, but either Hanjour got very lucky, or his training was far more extensive than has been admitted to date. Be interesting to find out if any of the hijackers spent any time in the Saudi airforce.

Quote on Len Colby."In the case of Iraq I agree but not in the case of Afganistan< I would like to see your evidence" Quote off. So would I, LOL, Its a hunch based on what was going on around Bush, Haliburton and the Taliban pre 200. The pipeline is now in place, the Taliban are back big style, and us poor Brits are left holding the baby. If I get anymore than that I will let you know.

Quote on "and the British missed signs that the Argentinians would invade the Falklands in 1982" quote off.

Now this is really another subject, but there is enough evidence to suggest that the Thatcher government were well aware of Argentinian intent, but let it go ahead anyway, war, great way to boost flaging poll ratings. I will start another thread on this. The rest, as I freely admit, is intellegent(I hope) suposition.

Now, would others post their own theories on 911.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

A little bit on possible foreknowledge. Or at least the lie that using planes as bombs was an unknown concept within the Bush administration.

Warnings from foreign intellegence.

These are three warnings I have picked from a multitude. Together they were specific enough to have helped identify the Date, Method, Targets, and possibly perpetrators.

As reported in the German daily newspaper Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung Sept 13, "The German intellegence service warned both the CIA, and Mossad in June 2001 that middle eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons, to attack important symbols of American, and Jewish culture. The story reffered to an electronical eavesdropping system known as Eschlon A cell phone tap where partner countries poll information obtained. No denial by the BND, CIA od Mossad of this story exists.

On Sept 14th, a report on the internet newswire Online ie "German police monitoring the phone calls of a jailed Iranian man, learned he was calling the USG, Intellegence agencies to warn of an imminent attack on the WTC in the week of Sept 9th. German Police confirmed the calls took place.

In July 2001, Russian intellegence warned the USG that as many as 25 pilots were training for missions involving the crashing of aircraft into important targets. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated he had ordered Russian Intel to warn the USG "In the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports, and Government/civilian biuldings well before Sept 11th.

Other warnings at least as detailed came from Britain, Isreal, France, Holland, Australia, Egypt, Brazil etc,etc. None of them, apparently, set off any alarm bells within the administration. Lazy and self serving, or culpable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Lazy and self serving, or culpable?

More like CYA and/or Incompetence at all levels of our Government-

2 administrations not taking the threat of al-Qaeda seriously and just paying it lip service

Administration and congress cutting intelligence funding because it wasn't needed after the end of the cold war

Congress failure to provide adequate oversight on the intelligence community over a very long period of time

3 intelligence agencies not talking to one another - "The Wall" - but mostly because of turf battles

No big bad conspiracy, intelligent mastermind, or allowing it to happen to forward an agenda - just incompetence. I almost wish there was a conspiracy - it would mean the intelligence of those in public service is somewhat higher than I truly suspect it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked at a lot of information and think that the "official" version of events is the most credible. That is, aircraft flown into Pentagon, WTC, WTC collapse due structural failure, etc.

WHY this happened is another matter. A possible scenario is that a group set up a "front organisation", purporting to be Islamic militants, which subsequently recruited and funded the people - who were genuine "believers" - that committed the attacks.

It would be arguable that an element of the US government did this but I don't believe that myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked at a lot of information and think that the "official" version of events is the most credible. That is, aircraft flown into Pentagon, WTC, WTC collapse due structural failure, etc.

I agree. The real question is did the Bush administration make use of 9/11 to fulfil its own political agenda. I believe that is what happened. The next question is then, did they have advance warning of the terrorist action. There is some evidence that this was the case. The next, and most important question of all, is, did they fail to take preventative action because of incompetence or because it suited them for the attack to take place. I have never believed the idea that the CIA is an incompetent organization (JFK assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra, WMD in Iraq, etc.). I therefore suspect that the terrorist attack was allowed to take place. However, I accept, they never thought for one moment that it was going to be so successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked at a lot of information and think that the "official" version of events is the most credible. That is, aircraft flown into Pentagon, WTC, WTC collapse due structural failure, etc.

I agree. The real question is did the Bush administration make use of 9/11 to fulfil its own political agenda. I believe that is what happened. The next question is then, did they have advance warning of the terrorist action. There is some evidence that this was the case. The next, and most important question of all, is, did they fail to take preventative action because of incompetence or because it suited them for the attack to take place. I have never believed the idea that the CIA is an incompetent organization (JFK assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra, WMD in Iraq, etc.). I therefore suspect that the terrorist attack was allowed to take place. However, I accept, they never thought for one moment that it was going to be so successful.

Did they have advance warning? Yes - though they thought it would be a chemical / biological attack, according to a source.

Did they fail to take preventative action? Without pretty specific details, you'd have to take some pretty wide ranging measures which would have been considered unacceptable pre-9/11.

Were they incompetent? Not really; all of the intelligence agencies worldwide normally have a fault - overclassifing sources, being vunerable to "mirror image", not sticking to intelligence requirement and collection plans (i.e. "picking") - I think they just really got caught badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they fail to take preventative action? Without pretty specific details, you'd have to take some pretty wide ranging measures which would have been considered unacceptable pre-9/11.

IMO that's exactly what happened. The military's original story was that no interceptors were launched until after the WTC and Pentagon were hit, i.e. until after all targets were hit, except for that of Flight 93 (which had been delayed in taking off, and thus may have been shot down). This story was officially announced by NORAD and given under oath to a Senate committee by the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But you have pointed out why this story was soon changed. It involved "wide ranging measures" (in short, a military stand-down) that were "unacceptable."

Why the military ever thought such a story would be acceptable remains a mystery, unless it can be attributed simply to their contempt, well established since at least 1963, for the American sheeple, who are known to believe or accept almost anything (or not believe it but not care).

In any case the Chairman changed his story, in the middle of his testimony, as soon as he felt some heat from the committee, and there accordingly followed a pack of lies incorporated into a NORAD timeline of fighter launches, about which generals were then caught shamelessly lying (when it turned out their fictional second story had to be drastically revised) in TV documentaries and to the 9/11 whitewash commission. The latter of course let the military's second-story lies pass (what choice did it have?) without explanation as "inaccurate government accounts."

In sum, the evidence (that is, the military's original straightforward story, soon found unacceptable and replaced with lies) shows that there was a military stand-down on 9/11. I'm not sure how that can be distinguished from an inside job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that I didn't criticize Jack for using an image from the webfairy. He asked if we thought it was "Real or fake" I said why I thought it was fake. Her being an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier was the reason I least emphasized.

Add to that the fact that the 'precrash' fireball didn't appear live at the time.

The "webfairy" is one of the least credible members of the "truth" movement. She pushes the theory that the Twin Towers weren't hit by planes but rather holographic projections that were blue screened into film and video (much of it broadcast live) of the 'impacts' or something like that.

Her site still has Holocaust denial and "the Jews did it" pages thought they are no longer linked to the main page, but that's another story!

Jack replied: "Unfortunately several good websites mix in other research about Zionism which prejudices some against them. I was not aware that the Webfairy site was one of these, but I know of at least three others. This, however, should not detract from their often excellent research."

The webfairy is anti-Zionist but that isn't what I criticized her for. What I found objectionable are webpages like the one excepted below, entitled "Duh! The Jews!" which was written by leading "Inside Job" proponent, Holocaust denier and Scholars for 9/11 Truth member Eric Hufxxxx which she hosts on her site:

"In other words, the plan to destroy these buildings may have started off as a joke simply because the Jews could not believe such a incredible stunt was possible and that the Arabs were serious about it.

However, as they continued to observe the Arabs, they noticed that the Arabs were actually looking for suicide pilots and seriously planning this stunt. The jokes about planting explosives in the building turned into serious discussions. Eventually it became approved by the Israeli government. Tax money was set aside to increase the observation of the Arabs and to figure out the best way to take advantage of this attack.

Soon thousands of Jews in America were contacted and told of this stunt. The Jews in America then began pushing the New York government officials into selling the World Trade Center to Larry Silverstein so they would have control over the building. (Silverstein, in case you didn't guess, is a Jew.) You can take it from here, right?

[…]

The Jews gathered in Marvin's office near the World Trade Center so they could have a clear view of the base of the buildings. They were very happy when the first plane hit the north tower.

[…]

Is it a coincidence that Hollywood frequently uses explosives to destroy buildings, and Hollywood is also full of Jews?

http://www.thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Hufschmid/WhoBlewUpWTC.html

In another article on the same page he suggested, as Hitler did decades earlier, that American Jews manipulated the US into WW1 in exchange for the Balfour Declaration and wrote "The Nazis decided to exterminate the Jews. This turned out to be the greatest thing that has ever happened to the Jews."

The webfairy like Hufxxxx recently dropped the Holocaust denial/revisionism sections from their sites they probably realized that it was bad for business.

This is NOT the 1st time Jack has conflated being a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier with being anti-Israel.

On another thread I wrote: "4 - Why do you quote neo-Nazi sites like AFP do you find them credible? What about their claims that the Holocaust was a hoax, do you find those credible too? AFP is published by Willis Carto try googling his name."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5089&view=findpost&p=48224

Jack replied: "Calling Carto a neo-nazi makes no sense. His publication* exposed the role of the CIA in the JFK assassination."

* The Spotlight, predecessor to the American Free Press (AFP)

I replied with an article about Carto excerpted below:

Previously, Carto had founded Western Destiny (also defunct), a magazine which during the 1960s produced racist, Nazi-tinged articles; and Noontide Press, which continues to publish and offer for sale anti-Jewish and pro-Nazi books.

One such book was Francis Parker Yockey's 600-page Imperium, which was dedicated to Adolf Hitler and featured a 35-page introduction written by Carto himself. Yockey, an outspoken admirer of Hitler, was arrested in San Francisco in 1960 on passport fraud charges and subsequently committed suicide in prison. His book offers a rehash of Nazi doctrine -- it denounced, for example, "the Church-State-Nation-People-Race of the Jew" as "distorters of culture."

[…]

…(A racist as well as an anti-Semite, Carto complained during the 1950s that "only a few Americans are concerned about the inevitable niggerfication of America.") In October 1966, the late columnist Drew Pearson published the contents of a letter written by Carto which stated:

"Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe. And of America. How could we have been so blind? The blame, it seems, must be laid at the door of the international Jews. It was their propaganda, lies and demands which blinded the West to what Germany was doing. . . . If Satan himself, with all of his superhuman genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews."

[…]

Carto's anti-Semitism was further manifested in the Institute for Historical Review, which he founded in 1979 to spearhead a movement to deny the reality of the Holocaust and to market Holocaust-denial propaganda… Carto promoted the Institute, contributors to its publications and Holocaust denial generally in The Spotlight and on "Radio Free America." A 15-page "Holocaust supplement" in the December 24, 1979, issue of The Spotlight included headlines that amplified Carto's unique rendition of the holiday spirit: "Were Six Million Jews Exterminated?" "Famous 'Gas Chamber Victims' Living Well," "Need $50,000? Find a Holocaust Victim," "Torture Used to Make Germans 'Confess.'" As Deborah Lipstadt has noted, The Spotlight ran articles claiming that Auschwitz victims were cremated to control typhoid, that the "gas chambers" were actually life-saving delousing showers, that the Diary of Anne Frank was a hoax and that Jews created the six million number to convince the United Nations to support the creation of Israel.

That sentence was the only reference to Israel in an 1880 word article.

In the next message I posted a link to 36 page report about another white supremacist which discussed Carto's Holocaust denial and ties to neo-Nazi / white supremacist groups.

Jack replied: "Now I get it. Anyone who is anti-Israel is a nazi."

No I don't think Jack is anti-Semitic, a Nazi or a Holocaust denier but I think the above indicates that he is not the careful researcher that he purports to be.

While it's true that one can find good information from bad sources the computer animation that appeared on the wbfairy's site could easily have been faked which it seems pretty obviously have been. Call me crazy but I give less credence to information on sites that back ideas like "the Holocaust was a hoax", "The Jews are responsible for 9/11" and "no planes hit the WTC". I would for example be skeptical of info from a "creationist" site for the same reason.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...