Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

Some videos showing a jetliner making the second WTC strike

are clearly video fakes. Click here and read about it:

http://www.reopen911.org/bluescreen.htm

There are two giveaways:

1. in one video, a plane in motion crashes into the WTC tower,

but obviously a STILL PHOTO WAS USED FOR THE BACKGROUND

of the burning building, BECAUSE THE BILLOWING SMOKE IS

MOTIONLESS.

2. several videos show the plane MELTING THROUGH THE WALLS

of the skyscraper...NO DEBRIS, NO EXPLOSION, NO FIRE, NO

WINGS BREAKING OFF, NOTHING. According to the laws of

physics, this is impossible.

Jack

[Jack White]

Some videos showing a jetliner making the second WTC strike

are clearly video fakes. Click here and read about it:

http://www.reopen911.org/bluescreen.htm

There are two giveaways:

1. in one video, a plane in motion crashes into the WTC tower,

but obviously a STILL PHOTO WAS USED FOR THE BACKGROUND

of the burning building, BECAUSE THE BILLOWING SMOKE IS

MOTIONLESS.

2. several videos show the plane MELTING THROUGH THE WALLS

of the skyscraper...NO DEBRIS, NO EXPLOSION, NO FIRE, NO

WINGS BREAKING OFF, NOTHING. According to the laws of

physics, this is impossible.

Jack

Jack, while I would put absolutely NOTHING past those who now run the 'show', and while from a quick look at the slide show version is was 'odd' I admit....there were also eye witnesses to the second crash and even video images of it caught by unsuspecting cameras.....going to be difficult to square all that. I admit there are strange aspects of these images, but.....

Peter...reread what I wrote. No claim is made that the plane did not

hit the building. The claim is that some of the videos are clearly faked.

In my opinion, this is correct...especially in the one where the background

image is clearly a still photo of the smoke. The plane MELTING through

the walls is also impossible without debris or explosion. The claim is that

some of the photos were doctored FOR EFFECT...not that the event

did not happen. Maybe the networks did it on their own for "dramatic

effect". Networks routinely manipulate graphics in news stories, quickly

and easily.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

A typical Jack White claim. "I don't say an aircraft didn't hit the building, only that the images are faked".

"I don't say Apollo never went to the moon, only that the images were faked."

"I don't say that (insert your claim of choice here), only that the images were faked."

Now, I don't say Jack White isn't a real person, only that claims of his expertise are faked.

[Michael Hogan]

In Vanity Fair, Michael Bronner writes:

How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11? Could it have shot down United 93, as conspiracy theorists claim? Obtaining 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD's Northeast headquarters, the author reconstructs the chaotic military history of that day—and the Pentagon's apparent attempt to cover it up.

His account of the tapes is riveting:

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

[Michael Hogan]

Mike,

IMO the military's original story about 9/11, that no jet fighters took off until after the Pentagon was hit, was true. This is the story that General Myers gave at his confirmation hearing, and what NORAD told the nation through an official spokesman. IOW there was indeed a stand-down, except with respect to Flight 93, whose take off had been delayed and which was possibly shot down.

This story was soon changed, with contrived timelines released for the scrambling of the Otis and Langley jets along with other lies, when it became obvious that the original story wouldn't fly. Myers in fact was pressured into changing the military's story right in the middle of his testimony.

Ron

Ron,

I didn't see your post until after I had started a new thread. Please see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry71233

I know you will find Bronner's account of the NORAD tapes fascinating.

Mike

[William Kelly]

In Vanity Fair, Michael Bronner writes:

How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11? Could it have shot down United 93, as conspiracy theorists claim? Obtaining 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD's Northeast headquarters, the author reconstructs the chaotic military history of that day—and the Pentagon's apparent attempt to cover it up.

His account of the tapes is riveting:

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

Many thanks for calling our attention to this one Mike.

It's a keeper.

BK

[Jack White]

911 activist Kyle Hence has ELEVEN QUESTIONS regarding

the NORAD tapes:

The real and problematic confusion and fog is one which is seemingly

preventing the corporate media from grappling with any of the following

pressing questions which have been advanced for years by the 9/11

families, advocates and independent researchers.

Here are *Eleven Questions* that the corporate media have thus far

refused to raise or attempt to answer in their examination of the NORAD

tapes and related issues:

*Who was responsible for scheduling multiple war games and terror

exercises involving aircraft for Sept. 11th

*Who moved "Global Guardian" normally scheduled for October to September?

*Who designed the war games to involve 'hijackings'?

*Who planned and scheduled the movement of Airforce aircraft north to

Canada, Alaska and Greenland?

*Who planned the terror exercise at the NSA involving an evacuation in

response to threat from the air?

*Who was "hands-on" responsible for coordinating all the war games the

morning of September 11th?

*Who would have been responsible for turning off the war games to enable

a timely real world response to the attacks?

*How were as many as 21 false radar blips or possible targets (per Jane

Garvey) inserted into FAA radar screens?

*Who was responsible for the identification of ghost flight 11 which

allegedly continued to fly south past Manhattan and which may have

caused NORAD's Langley intercept jets to vector North toward NYC rather

than D.C.?

*

[NOTE: John Farmer of the 9/11 Commission said to me personally that the

9/11 Commission was never able to identify the individual for this

information--to resolve this anomaly.]*

*Why was there no reference to the pattern of 9/11 Commission cover-up

including that of Able Danger as revealed by Capt. Scott Philpott?

=================

*

The bottom line question that corporate media refuse to answer and which

the 9/11 Commission ignored is who, specifically, would have been

responsible for creating the circumstances that led to the confusion or

fog the morning of 9/11 and who should have immediately ceased any and

all war gaming activity and deceptive radar data?

To begin to answer these questions journalists intent on getting answers

to questions long asked by the families and others should visit:

*Center for Cooperative Research: Essay -- "U.S. Military Exercises up

to 9/11"*

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...litaryExercises

<

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...litaryExercises

>

*Randi Rhodes interview with Complete 9/11 Timeline author, Paul

Thompson on Air America*

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/Ran...ORAD_080206.mp3

Enough with excusing those responsible by pointing to 'confusion' or

'fog'. The real and dangerous 'fog' here is that which prevents

journalists from doing their jobs and asking and answering the hard

questions about 9/11 including those posed above and those surrounding

the growing evidence for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center

towers and WTC #7. [Google Dr. Steven Jones & World Trade Center]

Kyle F. Hence

Executive Director

9/11 CitizensWatch

http://www.911citizenswatch.org

[William Kelly]

I don't believe Kyle Hence read this Vanity Fair article or listened to these tapes.

Some of his questions are answered by the tapes.

It's very odd that the DOD would release the tapes in the first place.

We're still waiting for the release of the full AF1 tapes from 11/22/63.

911 Citizens Watch out of DC is no longer in existence, and Kyle is now affiliated with the 911 Truth Movement in NYC.

In addition, the FAA side of the story is yet to be told.

BK

[Jack White]

I don't believe Kyle Hence read this Vanity Fair article or listened to these tapes.

Some of his questions are answered by the tapes.

It's very odd that the DOD would release the tapes in the first place.

We're still waiting for the release of the full AF1 tapes from 11/22/63.

911 Citizens Watch out of DC is no longer in existence, and Kyle is now affiliated with the 911 Truth Movement in NYC.

In addition, the FAA side of the story is yet to be told.

BK

Bill...Kyle Hence's 911 Citizens Watch IS NOT OUT OF EXISTENCE. I receive

several emails from him weekly. The one I posted is from today. It was signed:

Kyle F. Hence

Executive Director

9/11 CitizensWatch

http://www.911citizenswatch.org

His email was postmarked today at 11:36 a.m. so the organization is still

functional.

Jack

Edited August 3, 2006 by Jack White

[Len Colby]

Peter...reread what I wrote. No claim is made that the plane did not hit the building. The claim is that some of the videos are clearly faked. In my opinion, this is correct...especially in the one where the background image is clearly a still photo of the smoke. The plane MELTING through the walls is also impossible without debris or explosion. The claim is that some of the photos were doctored FOR EFFECT...not that the event did not happen. Maybe the networks did it on their own for "dramatic effect". Networks routinely manipulate graphics in news stories, quickly and easily.

Jack

Jack what are talking about? The title of the article is "Proof That Blue Screen Technology Was Used to Fake the 2nd Plane" Holmgren and Grable (the Webfairy) have been claiming that no planes hit the towers for quite some time now, Morgan Reynolds a ‘prominent’ member of S9/11T also backs this crackpot lunatic theory. There is nothing in the article to the effect that the video "were doctored FOR EFFECT", nor did you say anything along those lines, that was a ‘fabrication’ of your imagination Jack.

[Len Colby]

Interesting Peter.

But tell me - Do you believe William Rodriguez to be credable simply because he is a 9/11 survivor?

Why would his beliefs be any more valid than Len's, your's or mine?

He was THERE and spent the entire time working in the building.

He knew the building in and out.

Listen to his testimony. It is of a highly intelligent person [more than the Prez...that says nothing, I realize]

It coincides with much other evidence. His observations are very keen and sanguine.

Your point that such an educated person there - and not just another worker, but a student of the building and the first bombing - would be equal to your or my opinion is, sorry to say, stupid on your part.

Peter's sarcasm once again is unwarranted other that speaking about events he witnessed in the WTC that morning, most of what he says isn't under dispute, when he 1st left the North Tower the top was covered in smoke, he went back inside, an elevator operator was badly burned etc. Oddly he was mystified by something that was explained long ago, the sprinklers in the basement went off, there were numerous reports of fireballs being set off at lower levels from jet fuel spilling down elevator and utility shafts.

He claims he was in the basement when he felt an explosion from a lower level before the plane hit above, the only people to back his account were 3 of his coworkers. None of them said anything about this till they became plaintiffs in a suit seeking unspecified damages potentially reaching millions or billions of dollars against the federal government in general and Bush administration particular. The day after the attacks he gave a different version ""We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.""

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

It is interesting that Peter should bring up WTC survivors. Except for Rodriguez and his three co-workers/co-plaintiffs none AFAIK support the 'controlled demolition theory' according to the 9/11

Commission NIST estimated there were "between 16,400 and 18,800 civilians were in the WTC complex as of 8:46 AM on September 11" and "at most 2,152" of them died in other words there were about 15500 civilian survivors not including security guards, emergency personnel, and civilians from other building who aided in the evacuation of the complex. So out of about 20,000 witnesses only 4 say they think explosives were planted in the towers. So of the people who were there 0.02 % back this theory this is probably far below the rate of the general population. In a similar vein the rate of acceptance among experts is 0. If the CD theory had any merit one would think that people who were actually there and people with relevant expertise would be far more not far LESS likely to back it than the general population.

He is an expert

An expert what?

Len's opinions mean zero to me...he is only out to prove that coincidence is the rule and conspiracy something last done in Ancient Rome...sounds like you might fall into that 'camp' too.

Nor do I really care about your opinions, I ask you to look at the information I bring to the table I don't remember ascibing things to coincidence as much as I discount the validity and/or significance of the points raised by the CD camp.

[William Kelly]

I don't believe Kyle Hence read this Vanity Fair article or listened to these tapes.

Some of his questions are answered by the tapes.

It's very odd that the DOD would release the tapes in the first place.

We're still waiting for the release of the full AF1 tapes from 11/22/63.

911 Citizens Watch out of DC is no longer in existence, and Kyle is now affiliated with the 911 Truth Movement in NYC.

In addition, the FAA side of the story is yet to be told.

BK

Bill...Kyle Hence's 911 Citizens Watch IS NOT OUT OF EXISTENCE. I receive

several emails from him weekly. The one I posted is from today. It was signed:

Kyle F. Hence

Executive Director

9/11 CitizensWatch

http://www.911citizenswatch.org

His email was postmarked today at 11:36 a.m. so the organization is still

functional.

Jack

OKAY, Jack, got it.

911 Citizens Watch was founded by John Judge and Kyle Hence after the June 10, 2002 National Press Club conference on 911 Questions. The purpose of the 911CW was originally to monitor the activities of the 911 Commission, much like COPA monitored the ARRB.

I worked with them attending most of the 911 Commission public hearings and helped write the Citizens Report that coincided with the release of the 911 Com Final Report.

Kyle is a professional sailor from Connecticut and worked out of New York City and came down to DC for the hearings.

About a year or two ago, as Kyle increasingly became involved with those in the 911 Truth Movement (Fetzer et al), and alligned himself with those who didn't believe a plane hit the Pentagon, and the WTC towers were exploded from within, that one of the hijacked planes was shot down by jet fighter and other conspiracy theories that not even John Judge could support, they parted ways. Judge dissolved the 911 Citizens Watch non-profit org checking account in DC and took their name off the answering machine and replaced it with the name of another organization, 9/11 Research Project.

Apparently Kyle hadn't read the article before sending out that email, because if he had he would have known that the war games scheduled for that day never took place.

This is not meant to be a criticism of Kyle Hence, as he was instrumental in the original organization of the 911 Citizens Watch and apparently has kept it going in NY.

Judge's position is that there are enough serious questions that can be answered that issues like Pentagon missile, WTC implosions and jet fighter shoot downs distract from answering the real questions.

BK

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Excellent brief new interview with Paul thmpson of 9/11 Timeline by Randi Rhodes

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/Ran...ORAD_080206.mp3

[Owen Parsons]

I want to emphasize that I'm pretty neutral on this issue.

He claims he was in the basement when he felt an explosion from a lower level before the plane hit above, the only people to back his account were 3 of his coworkers. None of them said anything about this till they became plaintiffs in a suit seeking unspecified damages potentially reaching millions or billions of dollars against the federal government in general and Bush administration particular. The day after the attacks he gave a different version ""We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.""

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

It is interesting that Peter should bring up WTC survivors. Except for Rodriguez and his three co-workers/co-plaintiffs none AFAIK support the 'controlled demolition theory' according to the 9/11

You seem to have it in for Rodriguez, who is by all acounts one of the "heroes" of 9/11. Anyway, assuming he has not been misquoted by CNN in its quick blurb, I wouldn't exactly call it a "different" version. Replace the word "rumble" with the closely related "explosion" and you have the same story he's always told, but in an undetailed manner, with explosion/rumble #1 coming from below and explosion/rumble #2 coming from above and coinciding with the plane strike. A detailed account of his story can be read here. Talk about reaching for straws.

On a side note, Rodriguez also gave testimony to the 9/11 commission that he encountered one of the hijackers in the north tower in June 2001 (link).

He is an expert

An expert what?

An expert janitor? What Peter is saying here is that Rodriguez would know about explosions in the WTC, having been there the first time around and that he knows the building like the back of his hand.

Edited August 4, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I think the physical evidence, though often quite convincing, is not the most convincing evidence of governmetn coverup.

In particular the FISA applications and the blocked FBI investications, and the sheer number of international warnings.. Also scheduling such a high number of wargames AT THE PRECISE TIME OF THESE WARNINGS. The sheer amount of evidence on the international diplomatic fronts and itelligence bureacracy fronts are far more suggestive of an inside job possibility than the physical evidence line of argument.

One goal of disinformation might be to set the weakest foot forward first! Please note that I am not accusing any researcher of this, just suggesting the possiblity of this type of disinformation.