Jack White Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 I notice Jack likes showing off his new Joker image - just like a kid with a new toy. At least Burton has the courage to show his face. Mr. Golfball does not, claiming "national security".... Why is Mr. Golfball allowed to violate forum rules? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 "The fires are not visible in the picture with the woman although there is still plenty of smoke showing there was a fire deeper in. Air would have been rushing in through the hole she was standing in to feed the fire and her location would actually have been quite cool." - (Mr. Golfball)...that's a new one...!~one doesn't have to do the math on the force of the winds that would be generated in such an event, or the radiant heat.... having both blown away the poor woman and cooked her - dismissed out of hand.....by the way Mr. Golfball...how come you don't show your face?..... Oh please, do the math. I would like to see it. As for showing my face, I know of no rule saying I must. Further, I do not have a digital camera, nor a scanner. It seems as if it really bothers you that you have to resort to namecalling instead. Perhaps if it is so important to you that I show my face you could buy me a camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) I notice Jack likes showing off his new Joker image - just like a kid with a new toy. At least Burton has the courage to show his face. Mr. Golfball does not, claiming "national security".... Why is Mr. Golfball allowed to violate forum rules? Jack Now Jack, you know that is a lie. I have no personal objection to posting a picture, only a monetary one. I know of no rule saying I must post a picture, only a suggestion, and I have looked. From the Board Guidelines linked at the top of each page Unlike many discussion forums we do not allow anonymity on the Education Forum. For our aims to be met we must know who you are! Members are required to register using their real name or part thereof and to sign in at Biographical details. If for some reason a member feels they cannot reveal their identity they should contact the administrators who will assess each case on its merits. Anonymous accounts may be set up by the Administrators if in their judgement it is an appropriate action It appears that the generic avatar bothers you greatly as well. Did either of you have an incident at a Mini-golf as a child? But I digress, since it bothers you so much, perhaps you could share the cost of a camera with Mr. Lemkin? I chose a golfball because I like golf. Shudder the thought. Since the generic avatar is so disturbing to you both, I will remove it. Now the next question is, why is Jack making up forum rules? Edited August 17, 2006 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) An addition from the terms and rules that must be agreed to in order to register Forum Terms & Rules Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser. Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, racist, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board. In order to preserve the integrity of the forum new accounts are validated manually by the administration team. Shortly after registering an account you will be contacted by an administrator seeking further information about you and your role in education. It is essential that when you register you use your own name as your username. People registering under obviously false names will not complete the registration process Perhaps Jack can point out which rule I have broken? Edited August 17, 2006 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 An addition from the terms and rules that must be agreed to in order to register Forum Terms & Rules Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser. Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, racist, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board. In order to preserve the integrity of the forum new accounts are validated manually by the administration team. Shortly after registering an account you will be contacted by an administrator seeking further information about you and your role in education. It is essential that when you register you use your own name as your username. People registering under obviously false names will not complete the registration process Perhaps Jack can point out which rule I have broken? Matt, I have nothing against you as a person...but the rules are to have a photo [exceptions only if you have legit reason you explain to Administrators ie good cause.....no digital camera not being the kind they had in mind...more like harmful to one's 'health'], sorry. Then please, show me this rule. And if you are so adamant about it, then am I to assume you will be buying me a camera? Further, if you can't find said rule, I may be tempted to interpret your repeated asking for a picture as both "harassing" and "invasion of my privacy," both which are against the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) Peter / Jack etc, Still waiting for evidence that -the photo of the cut beam was taken before the cleanup process began -the cut could NOT have been made with a cutting torch or similar tool -could have been made with thermite or one of its derivatives Without the above it proves nothing Peter you wrote (in post # 7) "Welding and steel-cutting experts who have viewed this photograph have testified to Professor Jones that this column was not cut with a torch." Can you tell us who those experts are and where we can read there statements? You also wrote in the same post: "Here is another photo of another beam from WTC [no don't know date...] but it was certainly NOT cut by a welder and experts say looks like a thermite or thermate" Who are these "experts" and where can we verify their statements? What it the provenance of the photo how can we (you) be sure it was from the Trade Center? Why would two beams cut using the same method at (around) the same time, from the same (or an almost identical) building, look so different? In post 14 you wrote "On the matter of the fires in the WTC being so hot that they could explain the melting of the beams that supported the building, I submit this piece of evidence....in the photo in the circle is a woman alive and about to die from the collapse....but it is not too hot for her to stand there and hold on to the building in her last minutes alive...." and presented a photo of a person apparently holding a perimeter columns near a hole in one of the towers. Firstly neither the ASCE nor NIST nor the authors of most papers about the collapses ever claimed that the steel had melted only that it had weakened. At least know the theory you are trying to debunk before trying to debunk it. Can you tell us precisely where and when it was taken and its provenance? Which tower was it which floor, which side? What time was it exactly? Did NIST claim that that area of that floor was engulfed in flames at that time? If you had actually read the NIST report you would know they didn't claim, nor did the ASCE or anyone else who studied the collapses claim that all areas of the impact floor were equally hot from the moment of impact till the structures collapsed but rather that certain floors/areas were a lot hotter than others. How do we know there isn't a raging fire 20 – 30 -50 feet away? Have you ever been near a bonfire? It's not very hot only a few feet away. What drove her to stand on the edge of a building hundreds of feet of the ground? In another post you said (something to the effect of) you had been to the towers and they weren't that big, I suggest that your memory is failing you in this case, the floors towers were 208 x 208 feet (63 x 63 meters). Sorry but that photo, like the others, doesn't prove anything! Len Edited August 17, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 (edited) Peter / Jack etc, Still waiting for evidence that -the photo of the cut beam was taken before the cleanup process began -the cut could NOT have been made with a cutting torch or similar tool -could have been made with thermite or one of its derivatives Without the above it proves nothing Peter you wrote (in post # 7) "Welding and steel-cutting experts who have viewed this photograph have testified to Professor Jones that this column was not cut with a torch." Can you tell us who those experts are and where we can read there statements? You also wrote in the same post: "Here is another photo of another beam from WTC [no don't know date...] but it was certainly NOT cut by a welder and experts say looks like a thermite or thermate" Who are these "experts" and where can we verify their statements? What it the provenance of the photo how can we (you) be sure it was from the Trade Center? Why would two beams cut using the same method at (around) the same time, from the same (or an almost identical) building, look so different? In post 14 you wrote "On the matter of the fires in the WTC being so hot that they could explain the melting of the beams that supported the building, I submit this piece of evidence....in the photo in the circle is a woman alive and about to die from the collapse....but it is not too hot for her to stand there and hold on to the building in her last minutes alive...." and presented a photo of a person apparently holding a perimeter columns near a hole in one of the towers. Firstly neither the ASCE nor NIST nor the authors of most papers about the collapses ever claimed that the steel had melted only that it had weakened. At least know the theory you are trying to debunk before trying to debunk it. Can you tell us precisely where and when it was taken and its provenance? Which tower was it which floor, which side? What time was it exactly? Did NIST claim that that area of that floor was engulfed in flames at that time? If you had actually read the NIST report you would know they didn't claim, nor did the ASCE or anyone else who studied the collapses claim that all areas of the impact floor were equally hot from the moment of impact till the structures collapsed but rather that certain floors/areas were a lot hotter than others. How do we know there isn't a raging fire 20 – 30 -50 feet away? Have you ever been near a bonfire? It's not very hot only a few feet away. What drove her to stand on the edge of a building hundreds of feet of the ground? In another post you said (something to the effect of) you had been to the towers and they weren't that big, I suggest that your memory is failing you in this case, the floors towers were 208 x 208 feet (63 x 63 meters). Sorry but that photo, like the others, doesn't prove anything! Len I don't feel obligated to answer your posts because you 'want' me to. I am putting information out for those on the internet and in the Forum. IMO your main modus operandi is to endlessly jawbone and stall everyone so they have less time to do things and [in your opinion] seem to have weaker arguements. Why don't YOU find the references and facts above? You can declare 'victory' all you want...another of your techniques when somone doesn't answer your ponderous replies of tar and syrup. However, even jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to significantly weaken steel and as anyone can see there were no raging fires - other than perhaps those set by the cutting charges. Your over-dissection of person's arguements is to divert from the larger picture and I won't play your game...maybe others will. I do NOT get the feeling that you are doing a back and forth to get closer to the truth...but to just tire those of us putting out the information and diverting us. The larger picture shows that on 911 a series of improbable events [some impossible!] happened one after the other and we are told to believe them.....the evidence doesn't support most of them, some evidence IMO is clearly indicative of controlled explosions in addition to the planes. Taken as a whole - and most individual pieces when looked at ALSO - do not conform in physics nor logic with the official version and to make the official version 'work' one has to posit that several hundred unlikely events [some of which never happened that way before] went back to back to just-so-happen to give them the New Pearl Harbor they so desperately wanted...... I will post more for all when I have time...not when you demand I do so. If it is just a 'style' difference between you and I, sorry...but I have said how I feel and think it goes beyond style to intent/motive. FYI and others... http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/ Peter, Your and Jack's M.O.s seem to be making also sorts of unsubstantiated claims and then to try to change the subject when legitimate questions are raised. The building six thread is an example Jack couldn't come up with evidence to back his assertions and you brought up irrelevant points such as the Windsor Tower, I debunk those points on another thread but rather than reply to them you bring up another smokescreen. And on this thread you guys can't back your assertions that the beam in the photo in the 1st post was cut with termite or that the photo of the woman by the hole proves that it didn't get hot enough to weaken steel anywhere in the Twin Towers so you brought up the issue of the pulverization of concrete but you have yet to as promised produce calculations showing there wasn't enough energy for that. So now you bring up another totally irrelevant topic the supposed beating of Chris Bollyn. The only evidence for this is Bollyn's own narrative but since he has been less than honest in the past I'm not convinced. FYI I never demanded that you or anybody else reply to me, but that is how debate on forums is supposed to work, a person states there point of view on a controversial subject some will voice agreement and others will raise objections and point out (perceived) problems with that POV and hopefully the person will be able to defend his or her point. Most people will assume that a person who refuses to defend their points (you in this case) doesn't because they can't. "However, even jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to significantly weaken steel and as anyone can see there were no raging fires" Once again you seem to be trying to debunk a theory you don't understand. No one is saying the jet fuel was what brought down the towers. It served a function akin to lighter fluid in a barbeque grill or an arsonist's bottle of accelerant. It ignited the office contents which quite certainly had the potential to burn hot enough to weaken steel. Test have show that home/office fires can reach 1120 C (2050 F) way past the point 1100 F (590 C) at which steel looses 50% of its strength and 1800F (980 C) where it looses 80%. If fire can't weaken steel then why have fire codes require that structural steel be fire proofed? As for your assertion that there were no signs of a raging fire, look at'em and weep. More can be seen here http://www.debunking911.com/fire2.htm Back to the cut beam. Let's consider this photo of a worker cutting a box column at ground zero. How about a close up? Looks sorta familiar doesn't it? Len PS tell what exactly in that plaugepuppy page you find so compelling. EDIT -typos Edited August 18, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 (edited) duplicate post deleted Edited August 18, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 18, 2006 Author Share Posted August 18, 2006 (edited) Colby called those pictures of a RAGING FIRE. Here is a photo of a real raging fire in a Madrid building. It burned for ten hours. The building did not collapse. Jack Edited August 18, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Jack – You really must learn to keep up, as I already pointed out the Windsor Tower (Torre Windsor) in Madrid was of totally different construction than the WTC in that it was essentially a concrete framed building. The only part of it that was steel framed, the perimeter columns above the 17th floor collapsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Deitche Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 For those, like myself, who believe the "Al-Queda did it" scenario, there an excellent article in the July 10th issue of the New Yorker by Lawrence Wright, about FBI agent Ali Soufan. Soufan got on Al-Queda's tail after the USS Cole bombing inYemen. The piece clearly illustrates how politics, territorial pissings, and overlapping misisons crippled the CIA and FBI's efforts to adequately assess the threat of Al-Queda operatives in America. Here's a Q&A with Wright. http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/060710on_onlineonly01' target="_blank"> Wright has a book coming out this month, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Looks like a great companion piece to Peter Lance's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) It's very interesting - I didn't realise just how much the 9/11 "truth" movement actually resorts to deception & misinformation if it suits their cause. On the James Randii forum, there was discussion about 9/11 and one person brought up a quote from one of the firemen, saying how he heard bombs going off. Turns out that particular fireman is a member of the board, and proceeded to vent his fury at the numerous "truth" groups that misquote or distort what he said. He said he heard things that sounded like explosions (not bombs), and does not believe for a second there were explosives used; the noises simply sounded like explosions. That led to the amount of misquoting and ommission that is going on. See here: http://911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html So far, the so-called truth movement seems to be guilty of everything it is accusing the US government of. So until I see hard, solid evidence that those shots were taken before the guys started cutting beams, see original quotes from people who can be confirmed as experts saying that they were not cut with a torch... well, those claims just go into the ever-growing "unproven" pile. Edited August 19, 2006 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Was there meant to be a quote with that post Scott? Would you know if that article will be available online at all? Sounds like a very interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 It's very interesting - I didn't realise just how much the 9/11 "truth" movement actually resorts to deception & misinformation if it suits their cause. On the James Randii forum, there was discussion about 9/11 and one person brought up a quote from one of the firemen, saying how he heard bombs going off. Turns out that particular fireman is a member of the board, and proceeded to vent his fury at the numerous "truth" groups that misquote or distort what he said. He said he heard things that sounded like explosions (not bombs), and does not believe for a second there were explosives used; the noises simply sounded like explosions. That led to the amount of misquoting and ommission that is going on. See here: http://911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html So far, the so-called truth movement seems to be guilty of everything it is accusing the US government of. So until I see hard, solid evidence that those shots were taken before the guys started cutting beams, see original quotes from people who can be confirmed as experts saying that they were not cut with a torch... well, those claims just go into the ever-growing "unproven" pile. Funny how the majority of Americans [and growing] are of the opinion that the official version is nothing but xxxx. Do you also believe that the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' was real? The WC was the truth about Dallas or maybe that the Poles attacked Germany and some Communist set fire to the Reichstag?.....post away you Coincidence theorists and apologists for the Empire.....while the forces are evil are currently on your side the tide of history is not, I'm afraid..... so declare 'victory' and be smug....no one is buying the story you sell. Majority of American? Time to pony up there Lemming and post the actual poll that gave these numbers. No one is buying what YOU have to sell these days WITHOUT some actual DATA to back up your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Deitche Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Was there meant to be a quote with that post Scott?Would you know if that article will be available online at all? Sounds like a very interesting read. Sorry-the interview with Wright can be found at: http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/ar...on_onlineonly01 I don't see the full article online. The article is ``The Agent: Did the CIA Stop an FBI Detective From Preventing 9/11?" and is in the July10/17 issue of The New Yorker. Here's a link to Wright's book: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...isbn=037541486X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now