Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Craig Lamson]

Spoken like a typical loser liberal.

Blah Blah Blah...about all you are good for Hogan...

Gosh, that really hurts.

Crawl back into your snakehole Hogan.

[Len Colby]

There are a few problems with the first (and second) Zogby poll. The first is that the wording of the questions induced answers desired by it sponsor a 9/11 "truth" group. According to the political science department of an American university

Polls may look convincing yet be completely worthless

1. 
   
   1. 
      Public opinion is subjective and can change rapidly. Consequently, polls sometimes produce conflicting or meaningless results, even when they are carefully written and presented by professional interviewers to scientifically chosen samples.
      
   2. Pollsters can also set up surveys that deliberately shade the truth.
      

Four simple questions can separate the good polls from the trash.

1. Did they ask leading or biasing questions?
   
2. A leading question is one that leads the respondent to choose one response over another by its wording.

   http://www.sfasu.edu/polisci/Abel/PollEvaluation.html

   The complete wording of the question cited by Peter was:

   17. Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?

   The question was obviously engineered to induce as many yes votes as possible almost as leading as the question cited above. A more neutrally worded question (Do you believe that some leaders…?) obviously would have returned less yes votes.

   Another issue is response bias, the poll had about 48 questions not including demographics (race, income etc) and obviously had an agenda. I imagine that people who questioned the official 9/11 would be more willing that others to spend time responding, incomplete polls are not calculated. The report above discusses response bias.

   The question is a bit vague I might even have voted yes. But answering does necessarily mean that the respondent believes bombs were planted in the towers or even that Bush, "let it happen on purpose".

   Another issue is as Craig very undiplomatically put it, "yes" answers are disproportionately associated with minorities and people with lower income levels both of which are associated with lower educational levels.

   In the second Zogby poll respondents were asked about educational level and the preponderance "yes" answers decreased the greater the person's educational level. [ http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZog...FinalReport.htm ]This fits with no one with technical expertise and only 3 out of thousands of survivors publicly backing such theories. In all three cases the more a person knows the less likely he or she is to back "inside job" theories.

   As for the Scripts Howard poll it didn't really show that "over a third" of Americans believe 9-11 conspiracy theories. "Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.". According to Webster's 'somewhat means "in some degree or measure : SLIGHTLY" [ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=somewhat ] other dictionaries give similar definitions. I might even agree there is a slight chance that the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory is possible. So in reality 36% believe such theories are possible not they are probable, it would be interesting to see the raw numbers to see how many gave the theory a better than 50-50 chance. The same logic applies to the 16% who "speculated" explosives brought down the towers, how many of them thought such a scenario was "somewhat likely" and how many "very likely"?

Leading questions are actually statements disguised as questions, and make respondents feel that only one response is legitimate.
For example: "Don't you agree that the look and feel of user interfaces should not fall under copyright protection?"

Edited August 21, 2006 by Len Colby

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Lamson, You claim to be a photographer with special interest in lighting. It comes to my attention that your photo on the Forum is not a good one - in fact your face can not been seen due to lighting. I request you replace it with one in which we can identify you and the face be in the light and larger - we don't need to see your Emperor Nero while Rome burns pose. If you do not in 72 hours I will ask the administrators to request this of you. Thank you so very kindly - and for all your pleasant, eminently civil and enlightening posts. A birdie told me that you were removed from several other fora on the internet I believe for attacking others and lack of civility......it would be so very sad to see that happen to you here. I'm sure others share my feeling and love your politeness, civility, fairness, moral and intellectual strengths etc. Have a very nice day. Yours sincerely.

My photo is EXACTLY as I planned it, and it that respect it is a perfect photo. It follows the letter of the rule as posted by John Simkin.

For the record I was ousted from ONE forum, DellaRosa's cult forum, along with a number of others that post on this forum including Mr. Simkin. Seems at the cult forum they really CAN'T handle the truth.

have a very nice day.

BTW, you ever gonna own up to the lie you told upthread? A little birdy told me ths is standard practice for you. Complain about everyone and their brother writing falsehoods and here you are doing EXACTLY what you claim to dispise. How typical of the left.

Edited August 21, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Michael Hogan]

As for the Scripts Howard poll it didn't really show that "over a third" of Americans believe 9-11 conspiracy theories. "Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.". According to Webster's 'somewhat means "in some degree or measure : SLIGHTLY" [ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=somewhat ] other dictionaries give similar definitions. I might even agree there is a slight chance that the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory is possible. So in reality 36% believe such theories are possible not they are probable, it would be interesting to see the raw numbers to see how many gave the theory a better than 50-50 chance. The same logic applies to the 16% who "speculated" explosives brought down the towers, how many of them thought such a scenario was "somewhat likely" and how many "very likely"?

According to Webster's LIKELY means "having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable.

Other dictionaries give similar definitions.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/likely

[Len Colby]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/dayof911.html

A good timeline for all....

Forensic Metallurgy

Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m...urgy/index.html

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot cossosion attack on the steel.

...

The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

...

The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.

...

liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

...

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Thermite Use as an Explanation

The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intragranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.

References

1. , JOM, 12/01 [cached]

2. The 'Deep Mystery' of Melted Steel, WPI Transformations, spring 02 [cached]

A rather unconvincing article, as seems to be inevitable with "inside side job" writings the author is writing far outside his area of specialty. In this case the author is presumably Jim Hoffman, the site's webmaster, a computer programmer. Except for the following sentence "Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intragranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.", he never says what exactly is so suggestive of explosives. There is no documentation that Jones made such a comment or elaboration as to how he (Jones) reached that conclusion. Metallurgy it should be pointed out is not one of Jones' areas of specialty either, he is a particle physicist whose area of specialty in nuclear energy.

What Hoffman left out of his article were explanations of the eutectic reactions from the WPI article that he himself cited, once again calling into question the intellectual honesty of "inside job" proponents. The quoted scientists of course unlike Hoffman and Jones are qualified to postulate about such matters

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html ://http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformat...ing/steel.html ://http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformat...ing/steel.html

Other scientists have suggested gypsum from drywall, heating oil and diesel fuel (several thousand gallons weren't recovered from 7 WTC) as potential sources of sulfur.

Also nothing in any of the sources Hoffman cited suggests any of the scientists suspects explosives or thermite and nothing in any of the sources supports his contention that eutectic reactions were "never before observed in building fires".

Fire Severity

How Serious Were the Twin Towers' Fires?

The plane crashes resulted in significant fires in both towers, at least for the first few minutes after the crashes. The fires in the North Tower were considerably more extensive than than those in the South Tower. As time progressed the fires in at least the South Tower appeared to diminish greatly in severity. This was probably due to most of the jet fuel being exhausted within a few minutes of the impacts. Since kerosene (jet fuel) has a low boiling point and a low flash point, most of it would have evaporated and caught fire quickly.

The Fires at Their Most Severe

[...]

At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone, and many more would have were it not for confusion in the evacuation process. None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone. An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the tower was destroyed.

Another weak article no sources at all are cited. Once again reference is made to the radio communication of Chief Orio Palmer. He did say he saw two small fires he could easily knock down but he was in an enclosed stairwell not the sky lobby as the author falsely claims. NIST never speculated that fires were very intense on the 78th floor any way, in fact they said ""there was only light fire activity observed on the 78th floor"

http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

As for the Scripts Howard poll it didn't really show that "over a third" of Americans believe 9-11 conspiracy theories. "Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.". According to Webster's 'somewhat means "in some degree or measure : SLIGHTLY" [ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=somewhat ] other dictionaries give similar definitions. I might even agree there is a slight chance that the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory is possible. So in reality 36% believe such theories are possible not they are probable, it would be interesting to see the raw numbers to see how many gave the theory a better than 50-50 chance. The same logic applies to the 16% who "speculated" explosives brought down the towers, how many of them thought such a scenario was "somewhat likely" and how many "very likely"?

According to Webster's LIKELY means "having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable.

Other dictionaries give similar definitions.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/likely

That's what 'likely' means when it's NOT preceded by a modifier. Most people would understand "somewhat likely" to mean possible but not very probable hence the options given to the respondents: 'very likely', 'somewhat likely' and presumably 'not very likely'.

Let's try and not get too silly here Mike.

Len

Edited August 22, 2006 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

As for the Scripts Howard poll it didn't really show that "over a third" of Americans believe 9-11 conspiracy theories. "Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.". According to Webster's 'somewhat means "in some degree or measure : SLIGHTLY" [ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=somewhat ] other dictionaries give similar definitions. I might even agree there is a slight chance that the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory is possible. So in reality 36% believe such theories are possible not they are probable, it would be interesting to see the raw numbers to see how many gave the theory a better than 50-50 chance. The same logic applies to the 16% who "speculated" explosives brought down the towers, how many of them thought such a scenario was "somewhat likely" and how many "very likely"?

According to Webster's LIKELY means "having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable.

Other dictionaries give similar definitions.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/likely

That’s what ‘likely’ when it’s NOT preceded by a modifier. Most people would understand “somewhat likely” to mean possible but not very probable hence the options given to the respondents: ‘very likely’, ‘somewhat likely’ and presumably ‘not very likely’.

Let's try and not get too silly here Mike.

Len

Len, I tried to keep this as impersonal as possible. If you had chosen to, you could have responded in kind, leaving out the condescending and gratuitous accusations of getting too silly.

If that's the tone you want to adopt, I'm willing to accommodate you in my responses. I've tried to use restraint in keeping out of your threads, and not commenting on your posts.

In the above instance, you are choosing to put your spin, and your spin only, on the semantics of the poll question and the results you perceive those semantics had on the outcome of the poll results.

You took a phrase from some of the questions and offered a definition of half the phrase. I merely added the definition from the same source for the second half of the phrase. What is silly about that?

Do you want to include a citation as how the modifier "somewhat" substantially alters the definition of the word "likely?" Or could it be the other way around in this instance?

Your assertion that "Most people would understand 'somewhat likely' to mean possible but not very probable " (emphasis mine) is your opinion. I doubt that most people would share that opinion.

Truthfully, I think your whole attempt to break down the poll questions into your personal interpretations was unconvincing. And Len, I think that you basically think that anyone who does not agree with you is either "mudslinging" or "silly."

Mike Hogan

Edited August 22, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Len Colby]

Len, I tried to keep this as impersonal as possible. If you had chosen to, you could have responded in kind, leaving out the condescending and gratuitous accusations of getting too silly.

If that's the tone you want to adopt, I'm willing to accommodate you in my responses. I've tried to use restraint in keeping out of your threads, and not commenting on your posts.

In the above instance, you are choosing to put your spin, and your spin only, on the semantics of the poll question and the results you perceive those semantics had on the outcome of the poll results.

You took a phrase from some of the questions and offered a definition of half the phrase. I merely added the definition from the same source for the second half of the phrase. What is silly about that?

Do you want to include a citation as how the modifier "somewhat" substantially alters the definition of the word "likely?" Or could it be the other way around in this instance?

Your assertion that "Most people would understand 'somewhat likely' to mean possible but not very probable " (emphasis mine) is your opinion. I doubt that most people would share that opinion.

Truthfully, I think your whole attempt to break down the poll questions into your personal interpretations was unconvincing. And Len, I think that you basically think that anyone who does not agree with you is either "mudslinging" or "silly."

Mike Hogan

According to The LONGMAN DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH 'somewhat' means "more than a little but not very" http://www.ldoceonline.com/

According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (the full version is only available to subscribers) 'somewhat' means "to some extent" http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/somewhat?view=uk

According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 'somewhat' means "slightly" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...4&dict=CALD

According to the Cambridge Dictionary of American English 'somewhat' means "to some degree" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...*1+0&dict=A

Likely can't modify the meaning of 'somewhat' because it isn't a 'modifier'. As a modifier 'somewhat' can't be used on its own the sentence "Twenty of respondents overall said it is "somewhat" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." Would have no meaning in English when we talk about the extent of something we normally use the adjective or adverb that indicates to a positive degree 'tall', 'old', 'expensive' etc. Modifiers show that we think these to be true to a greater or lesser degree so "somewhat likely" vs. "very likely". Don't expect me to waste more time on this.

And no I don't " think that anyone who does not agree with (me) is either "mudslinging" or "silly" " which is why I rarely make such comments. So cut it with your silly mudslinging!

Len

I find it very interesting that Len Colby never uses his vaulted skills of questioning, dissecting, refuting, casting doubt upon, asking for more references for, seeking stronger evidence about, etc. on official pronouncements like the Warren Ommission or the 911 Omission Report...and always acts like [and wants the readers to believe that] the burden of proof is on the citizen researcher [with little money and resources] who questions such official pronouncements....I wonder why....?!?!?! He may have been in a debating club at some point, but he mistakes intensity of critique as a substitute for logic, evidence and facts in the service of the official versioin of everything....by the way the Coca Cola company officially denies they once put cocaine in their beverage....official versions in my experience are more llikely to be lies in the service of power, profit and control than not...but there are a few [sadly, very few] official versions told by power that do seem to be true... The American public is slowly awakening to this....they have in Brazil for a long time, as you likely know. A good amount of skepticism is a healthy thing...but your one-sidedness gives away your attempt at 'just seeking the truth'. Shall we list the official versions of things now accepted as false...? It is a looong list. Enjoy Curitiba.

The burden of proof is on people who doubt the scientifically accepted version of why the towers collapsed because they have yet to find a single qualified expert to back their version of events, because of the approximately 20,000 people who were there at the time only 3 or 4 back their version of events (about 0.02 %) and they all have credibility problems, because their claims don't stand up to scrutiny or prove nothing, because the collapses were among the most closely studied events in history and several independent studies have all reached the same basic conclusion: a combination of structural damage from the impacts combined with weakening of the remaining structure by the fires (exacerbated by thousands of gallons of jet fuel and damage to the fireproofing).

Edit - diction error corrected see below.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

According to The LONGMAN DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH 'somewhat' means "more than a little but not very" http://www.ldoceonline.com/

According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (the full version is only available to subscribers) 'somewhat' means "to some extent" http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/somewhat?view=uk

According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 'somewhat' means "slightly" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...4&dict=CALD

According to the Cambridge Dictionary of American English 'somewhat' means "to some degree" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...*1+0&dict=A

Likely can't modify the meaning of 'somewhat' because it isn't a 'modifier'. As a modifier 'somewhat' can't be used on its own the sentence "Twenty of respondents overall said it is "somewhat" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." Would have no meaning in English when we talk about the extent of something we normally use the adjective or adverb that indicates to a positive degree 'tall', 'old', 'expensive' etc. Modifiers show that we think these to be true to a greater or lesser degree so "somewhat likely" vs. "very likely". Don't expect me to waste more time on this.

I guess that just means you are going to waste time on something else. That's certainly okay with everyone, I'm sure. Just think Len, if you hadn't brought up the topic in the first place, you wouldn't have wasted any of your time (or ours) at all.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Michael Hogan]

The burden of proof is on people who doubt the scientifically accepted version of why the towers collapsed because they have yet to find a single qualified expert to back their version of events, because of the approximately 20,000 people who were there at the time only 3 or 4 back their version of events (about 0.02 %) and they all have credibility problems, because none of their claims stand up to scrutiny or prove nothing, (Emphasis mine) because the collapses were among the most closely studied events in history and several independent studies have all reached the same basic conclusion: a combination of structural damage from the impacts combined with weakening of the remaining structure by the fires (exacerbated by thousands of gallons of jet fuel and damage to the fireproofing).

I know you have attempted to pass yourself off as some sort of expert on the English language on this thread.

Aside from the tortured syntax of the single sentence quoted above, and the obvious misstatements of fact, I see you still haven't mastered the double negative. Here is a link for you so that you might better understand.

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html

Other websites have similar information.

[Len Colby]

According to The LONGMAN DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH 'somewhat' means "more than a little but not very" http://www.ldoceonline.com/

According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (the full version is only available to subscribers) 'somewhat' means "to some extent" http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/somewhat?view=uk

According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 'somewhat' means "slightly" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...4&dict=CALD

According to the Cambridge Dictionary of American English 'somewhat' means "to some degree" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...*1+0&dict=A

Likely can't modify the meaning of 'somewhat' because it isn't a 'modifier'. As a modifier 'somewhat' can't be used on its own the sentence "Twenty of respondents overall said it is "somewhat" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." Would have no meaning in English when we talk about the extent of something we normally use the adjective or adverb that indicates to a positive degree 'tall', 'old', 'expensive' etc. Modifiers show that we think these to be true to a greater or lesser degree so "somewhat likely" vs. "very likely". Don't expect me to waste more time on this.

I guess that just means you are going to waste time on something else. That's certainly okay with everyone, I'm sure. Just think Len, if you hadn't brought up the topic in the first place, you wouldn't have wasted any of your time (or ours) at all.

Mike if you think my posts are a waste of time you are free to skip over them. Who are you to presume to speak for "everyone"?

I know you have attempted to pass yourself off as some sort of expert on the English language on this thread.

Aside from the tortured syntax of the single sentence quoted above, and the obvious misstatements of fact, I see you still haven't mastered the double negative. Here is a link for you so that you might better understand.

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html

Other websites have similar information.

Never claimed to be an expert on the English language, but it seems obvious to me if someone says they think something is “somewhat likely” especially as opposed to “very likely” they don’t think that the probability that it is true is very high.

You’re right I did make a mistake; such errors of course are not uncommon in forum postings which are normally hastily written. Are you sure if I comb over every one of your posts I wouldn’t find any errors?

[Steve Ulman]

I hate to be a spoil sport with all the important discussions of whether a member should be banned because of their photo (or lack thereof) and semantics regarding poll results.....

but - can we get back to the original topic of this thread?

I asked this question back on page 1:

...nice try...but that photo was taken shortly after the collapse when the pile was too hot to deal with and before the clean-up/cover-up had begun...

Peter-

How do you know when it was taken?

I've asked Jack for verification of when and where on the site this photo was taken but as usual he can’t. Now maybe you can provide the verification. If not, then you have to allow that it could have been caused by workers clearing the site and therefore is not evidence of controlled demolition.

Can anyone provide a verifiable time and date for when the photo Jack posted was taken?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Hi everyone.

I thought some might be interested in this article on "The hunt for Bin Laden" from Counterpunch. It should be noted that this website has been very dismissive of those questioning the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Recently, however, it did post an article that was questioning the link between Neil Bush and securicom-- essentially along the lines of why dont they just release the records.

http://www.counterpunch.org/osseiran08212006.html

[Len Colby]

Steve I doubt you’ll get a straight answer to your question from Peter or Jack. Fact is no one really knows when the photo was taken or even exactly where. No one except the photographer, but since no one knows who the photographer is that leaves us back where we started. The photo comes from the “This is New York” site, it’s image 5100 http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp...5&picnum=13 and just like the thousands of images on the site was taken and donated by an anonymous contributor.

[Michael Hogan]

Mike if you think my posts are a waste of time you are free to skip over them.

Of course I am. And I usually do. It's you that first addressed me by my name and accused me of being too silly. You turned it personal and insulting. I offered you an olive branch; to drop the tone, but you declined.

Who are you to presume to speak for "everyone"?

Go back and read it again. I spoke for myself and gave my opinion. And if you and I think this discussion is a waste of time (your words), do you really expect anyone else to find it productive?

Never claimed to be an expert on the English language, but it seems obvious to me if someone says they think something is “somewhat likely” especially as opposed to “very likely” they don’t think that the probability that it is true is very high.

Really? Wasn't it you that first gave links to the dictionary, leaving out a key definition of a word in the phrase you were attempting to define? Wasn't it you that gave us your interpretation of modifiers? You may never have claimed to be an expert, but your condescension left no doubt that you regarded yourself as such.

Just because something is obvious to you doesn't mean that it is right. Your statement above is evidence of that. Want me to give you the definition of "likely" again?

You’re right I did make a mistake; such errors of course are not uncommon in forum postings which are normally hastily written. Are you sure if I comb over every one of your posts I wouldn’t find any errors?

Yes, I'm sure. Go knock yourself out. Just make sure its not a typo, but a fundamental grammatical mistake. Such as the one you made that came in a thread where you were taking pride in your command of the language. I know your attention to detail is not always the best, but try proofreading.

And, despite your protestations, such errors (double negatives) are uncommon on this Forum.

And finally, as someone that is giving others lessons (however misguided) on definitions and the use of modifiers, why not go back and look at that sentence of yours I mentioned; A single sentence that consumed eight lines and was a grammatical (not to mention factual) nightmare. I notice you had no comment on that.

[Michael Hogan]

Hi everyone.

I thought some might be interested in this article on "The hunt for Bin Laden" from Counterpunch. It should be noted that this website has been very dismissive of those questioning the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Recently, however, it did post an article that was questioning the link between Neil Bush and securicom-- essentially along the lines of why dont they just release the records.

http://www.counterpunch.org/osseiran08212006.html

Thanks Nathaniel. It was interesting.