Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

After a little digging I found the raw data of the poll, from context it seems obvious that those who answered “somewhat likely” only gave such theories ABOUT a 50 – 50 chance of being true:

There are also accusations being made following the 9/11 terrorist attack. One of these is:

People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.

Very likely 16%

Somewhat likely 20%

Not likely 59%

Don't know 5%

http://newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=716

The collapse if [sic] the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

Very likely 6%

Somewhat likely 10%

Unlikely 77%

Don't know 6%

Other response 1%

http://newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=718

I think we can assume the 16% of the population that believer it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that explosives were planted are by and large the same people as the 16% who think participation by “people in the federal government”. So 6% of the population think it’s very likely explosives where planted and that there was government involvement, 10% believe that the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) or MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) theories are “very likely” to be true and that the planting of explosives is a possibility. 20% believe that LIHOP or MIHOP are possible but doubt the use of explosives.

As for LIHOP I’ve never ruled that out, but I have yet to see evidence that’s true.

Interestingly another question returned similar numbers

.

The federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from others planets?

Vyer [sic] likely 16%

Somewhat likely 22%

Unlikely 54%

Don't know 8%

http://newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=715

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.

I don't suppose you could point out the supposed factual errors in the sentence you are referring too?

[Len Colby]

A few points in response.

First, yes, you correctly observed I was play-acting about taking offense over sexual innuendo. I could't care less what any of you think about my sexual preferences or habits.

How's this for a deal? I'll stop pretending to take offence if other posters stop using smutty language when attacking me.

If you are disingenuous how will we ever know when to take you seriously? You're still play acting since on another thread you replied to me with "smutty language"

Blow me

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6655&view=findpost&p=72145

So this whole act of yours of having Victorian morals is rather unconvincing no one on this forum AFAIK has ever suggested you perform a sex act on them (or anyone else). I won't pretend to be offended by such language, I grew up in New York after all, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me.

Second, quoting the Bollyn articles was not 'bait and switch'. The references are both highly relevant to this thread. One indicated massive Israeli intelligence penetration of US telecommunications; the other pointed to links between the current Israeli Prime Minister and the company controlling security at key airports on 9-11.

Not that relevant because your were pushing the "Israeli spy ring" story as evidence of that country's involvement in 9/11 you have not replied to my debunkings of the "art students" and "movers" stories. The Bollyn articles had nothing to do with that. As for Cameron, he like Bollyn isn't very good at providing evidence to back his claims since his article about the art student ring was so distorted it's had to put credence in his other similar claims without documentation.

I agree that a lot more documentation would be beneficial. I'm sure Bollyn would agree. With more research and open discussion, no doubt it can be established whether concerns raised in his articles have substance, or not.

Without documentation his article is just the undocumented claims of a "journalist" with an "ax to grind" and a credibility problem. That article lacks it doesn't reflect well on him.

Third, you wrote: " Don't most inside jobbers claim there were no hijackers anyway?"

I think the point here, which your comments obscures, is that whatever exactly happened on 9-11, if the official scenario is not accurate, the role of the airport security companies is of potential central relevance to finding out what really did happen.

Very big "IF" this has nothing to do with the supposed spyring. Bollyn lied about Huntleigh which was only responsible for security for United at Logan, similar problems were identified at other terminals of the same airport whose security was run by other companies. The other hijacked flights left from terminals where English and Swedish companies ran security.

Argenbright Security a unit of Securicor PLC, in Sutton, Surrey, England

Security at Dulles, Terminal D, where AA Flight 77 departed

Security at Newark, Terminal A, where UAL Flight 93 departed

Globe Aviation Services a unit of Securitas AB which is based in Stockholm

Sweden

Security at Logan, Terminal B, where AA Flight 11 departed

Huntleigh USA Corp., a unit of ICTS International NV, in the Netherlands.

Security at Logan, Terminal D, where UAL Flight 175 departed

http://www.planesafe.org/legislation/Ltr_S...0%2Bairports%22

For me, the most explosive line in Bollyn's article about the airport secuity companies was the following:

"Huntleigh, along with the other security companies, was granted complete congressional protection in 2002."

Can anyone here throw light on this - one way or the other?

This once again points to Bollyn's weaknesses as "journalist", wasn't it up to him to elaborate? By "granted complete congressional protection" he meant congress gave them immunity from lawsuits (see previous link). Why exactly they did this I don't know perhaps some sleazy backroom politicking perhaps a recognition that these companies did get a lot of money and thus their cutting of corners was in part at least the responsibility of the federal government. What is so explosive about that line? What does it prove?

Anyone familiar with the story of the large Israeli spy-ring busted in the USA during 2000/1 story will probably also have come across the now-legendary Fox News expose of December 2001 – a four part series referred to HERE in Crytome (scroll down for the transcript).

Among other scoops contained in that report, the role of Comverse was mentioned.This is an Israeli-controlled hi-tech company that, according to Fox, plays a pivotal role in US telecommunicatioons surveillance.

There's a recent update on goings on at Comverse in this recent article by Christopher Bollyn: Israeli 9/11 Crook Flees with $57 Million to Israel.

[...]

If there's a even a smidgeon of truth in this report, Americans would do well to take a keen interest in the folk at Comverse and their ethical 'standards', which seem akin to those of the Red Mafiya.

Sid you are really too transparent. The only connection between these guys is that they happen to be Jewish. The Russian mob is only partially Jewish anyway.Would it be fair if I pointed to Mel Gibson, his dad, the Cronulla Beach rioters, Fredrick Toben and you and implied that Australians were in general bigots?

There's a recent update on goings on at Comverse in this recent article by Christopher Bollyn: Israeli 9/11 Crook Flees with $57 Million to Israel.

There's a rather unpleasant recent footnote to this story.

Chris Bollyn was arrested and beaten by police in Chigago, after he himself had called the police to report on suspicious and intimidating activities in his own suburb.

His post-release account is HERE.

Bollyn was working on a follow-up article to his American Free Press article on Comverse and its Israeli founder who has fled US justice. This article was mentioned in my previous post on this thread.

All we have is Bollyn's account to go on, and he has proven to be less than reliable in the past.

Edited August 27, 2006 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

Check it out:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156656659...ce&n=283155

Jack

[William Kelly]

Another new book:

The Looming Tower - Al-Qaeda and The Road To 911 - by Lawrence Wright (Knopf, 2006).

"The Looming Tower achieves an unprecedented level of intimacy and insight by telling the story thorugh the interweaving lives of four men: the two leaders of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri; the FBi's counter-terrorism chief, John O'Neill; and the former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal."

Wright knows what he is talking about, and began his quest after reading an obituary of John O'Neill, knowing he had many of the answers.

BK

[Len Colby]

Can’t say much about the book I haven’t even heard of most of the contributors but apparently none of them is a civil engineer. A book contending (among other things) that the world’s largest structural collapse didn’t happen as numerous qualified experts concluded it did would carry more weight if the editors could find a single person with applicable qualifications to back that thesis. Not only are there no engineers among the contributors but the lead technical chapter, Dr. Jones error filled paper, wasn’t reviewed by engineers. Editor David Griffin thinks that review by engineers would have as appropriate as review by “morticians… or insurance scam experts” (e-mail to author). Such disdain for practitioners of the field most applicable to the collapse of the towers is a common trait among leaders of the “truth movement” ST911 founder James Fetzer condemned them to hell at least twice:

“I am disgusted, disgusted with the structural engineers who know the truth about this and are keeping their mouth shut. There’s a special place in hell reserved for them. And they are going to deserve it” June 29th, 2006 Jim Fetzer interview with Judy Wood, http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html

“I suggest that hell has a special place reserved for those like them (structural engineers) who betray their own nation.”

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread214717/pg1

I know that publisher’s blurbs are often not written or even approved by the authors / editors of a book that the blurb for this one starts with deception is another bad sign. The publisher’s description begins “Practically from the moment the dust settled in New York and Washington after the attacks of September 11, a movement has grown of survivors, witnesses, and skeptics who have never quite been able to accept the official story.” (see Jack’s link). This is highly misleading because survivors and witnesses have been notably absent from the ranks of the “truth” movement. AFAIK the only survivors amongst the 20,000 or so from the WTC are William Rodriguez and two of his co-workers and an EMT who also claims she saw a plane explode over NJ that morning. Rodriguez his coworkers as noted elsewhere only made their accusation after getting involved in a lawsuits and his comments contradict Rodriguez’s earlier comments. I know of no survivors from the Pentagon that back their theories.

How the backers of these ideas expect anyone to take a theory not back by experts or credible witnesses seriously is beyond me.

[Len Colby]

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.

I don't suppose you could point out the supposed factual errors in the sentence you are referring too?

Still waiting Mike!

[Michael Hogan]

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.

I don't suppose you could point out the supposed factual errors in the sentence you are referring too?

Like so many other issues in this thread, your suppositions are mistaken. Of course I could point them out; but since they are self-evident to any careful reader, I've chosen not to extend this debate with you at this time.

I'll respond to you on my terms, not yours.... especially since that's the way you elected to respond to my comments.

[Len Colby]

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.

I don't suppose you could point out the supposed factual errors in the sentence you are referring too?

Like so many other issues in this thread, your suppositions are mistaken. Of course I could point them out; but since they are self-evident to any careful reader, I've chosen not to extend this debate with you at this time.

I'll respond to you on my terms, not yours.... especially since that's the way you elected to respond to my comments.

Great cop out answer Mike. If the errors are so self-evident you should have no trouble pointing them out, wouldn't that be easier than continuing to make excuses? In the words of Plato "Put up or shut up!"

[Michael Hogan]

Great cop out answer Mike. If the errors are so self-evident you should have no trouble pointing them out, wouldn't that be easier than continuing to make excuses? In the words of Plato "Put up or shut up!"

It's like this....when I pointed out errors about your poll question interpretations, you selectively answered what you wanted to and ignored the rest. Even in that context, your answers left much to be desired.

I don't have to put up anything nor do I have to shut up. Your words speak for themselves, just as mine do. Anyone so inclined (and I doubt there are any) can go back to that eight line sentence and see how poorly it was constructed and how patently ridiculous your claims were. They don't need me to point anything out.

And as for me pointing them out to you? I don't think so. Especially in light of your clumsy taunts.

[Sid Walker]

A few points in response.

First, yes, you correctly observed I was play-acting about taking offense over sexual innuendo. I could't care less what any of you think about my sexual preferences or habits.

How's this for a deal? I'll stop pretending to take offence if other posters stop using smutty language when attacking me.

If you are disingenuous how will we ever know when to take you seriously? You're still play acting since on another thread you replied to me with "smutty language"

Blow me

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6655&view=findpost&p=72145

So this whole act of yours of having Victorian morals is rather unconvincing no one on this forum AFAIK has ever suggested you perform a sex act on them (or anyone else). I won't pretend to be offended by such language, I grew up in New York after all, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me.

Len

My apologies for not replying sooner. I have a few higher priorities at present on the State politics front.

I aim to provide a fuller reply when time allows.

Just one thing for now. You claim to believe that the expression "Blow me!" is "smutty language".

I'll confine my comment to the charitable interpretation that if you really believe this expression is "smutty language", you are surprisingly unfamiliar with English idiom.

You might like to read some Enid Blyton books to broaden your knowledge of the language. They are written for children, smut-free and pitched at your comprehension level.

Edited August 27, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

Great cop out answer Mike. If the errors are so self-evident you should have no trouble pointing them out, wouldn't that be easier than continuing to make excuses? In the words of Plato "Put up or shut up!"

It's like this....when I pointed out errors about your poll question interpretations, you selectively answered what you wanted to and ignored the rest. Even in that context, your answers left much to be desired.

I don't have to put up anything nor do I have to shut up. Your words speak for themselves, just as mine do. Anyone so inclined (and I doubt there are any) can go back to that eight line sentence and see how poorly it was constructed and how patently ridiculous your claims were. They don't need me to point anything out.

And as for me pointing them out to you? I don't think so. Especially in light of your clumsy taunts.

In other words you can't identify any mistakes and you don't have the courage to admit it.

Back to the subject of the thread. Jack / Peter - Do you have evidence that the column in the photo WASN'T cut with a torch or that the photo was taken before the clean up began?

Edited August 28, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

[Just one thing for now. You claim to believe that the expression "Blow me!" is "smutty language".

I'll confine my comment to the charitable interpretation that if you really believe this expression is "smutty language", you are surprisingly unfamiliar with English idiom.

You might like to read some Enid Blyton books to broaden your knowledge of the language. They are written for children, smut-free and pitched at your comprehension level.

Sid debating you often strikes me as a waste of time; in any of Ms. Blyton’s books does one character tell another to “blow” them or anybody else? Perhaps you could quote one of those passages. I don’t know maybe the expression has different connotations in Australia than it does in the rest of the English speaking world but elsewhere if one person “blows” another it has a distinct sexual denotation (but of course you know that). The American Heritage Dictionary has 15 definitions for ‘blow’ as a transitive verb, only one (13) would fit the construction “blow me” used as an imperative http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...e.UFT7DB.CsgMMF .

LOL aren’t you the one who pretended to object to the use of “pimping”.

[Michael Hogan]

In other words you can't identify any mistakes and you don't have the courage to admit it.

Is that your best effort?

[Sid Walker]

[Just one thing for now. You claim to believe that the expression "Blow me!" is "smutty language".

I'll confine my comment to the charitable interpretation that if you really believe this expression is "smutty language", you are surprisingly unfamiliar with English idiom.

You might like to read some Enid Blyton books to broaden your knowledge of the language. They are written for children, smut-free and pitched at your comprehension level.

Sid debating you often strikes me as a waste of time; in any of Ms. Blyton’s books does one character tell another to “blow” them or anybody else? Perhaps you could quote one of those passages. I don’t know maybe the expression has different connotations in Australia than it does in the rest of the English speaking world but elsewhere if one person “blows” another it has a distinct sexual denotation (but of course you know that). The American Heritage Dictionary has 15 definitions for ‘blow’ as a transitive verb, only one (13) would fit the construction “blow me” used as an imperative http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...e.UFT7DB.CsgMMF .

LOL aren’t you the one who pretended to object to the use of “pimping”.

Len, I'm finding it really way too weird to discuss anything related to sexuality with you. This is the very last occasion for me, whatever you post in response.

I did a quick Google search on what I had imaged to be a rather innocent, admittedly quaint but still-in-use expression: 'blow me!'

From the content of the first couple of search pages, it no longer means what I thought.

Showing my age, I guess.

This is one battle I shaln't be joining. I shaln't use the expression again on the internet. A very small loss to my vocabulary which I can take in my stride. If I encounter a poem such as THIS, I am now better informed what a New Yorker is likely to be thinking about.

I wonder what other liguistic pitfalls I may encounter as I grow older, that may also excite the attention of people with minds like yours, Len?

Edited August 28, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

Len, I'm finding it really way too weird to discuss anything related to sexuality with you. This is the very last occasion for me, whatever you post in response.

Sid we aren't discussing sexuality but rather vocabulary

I did a quick Google search on what I had imaged to be a rather innocent, admittedly quaint but still-in-use expression: 'blow me!'

From the content of the first couple of search pages, it no longer means what I thought.

Showing my age, I guess.

I checked with some British friends of mine and they all told me the same thing that "blow me" can be used as an interjection to show surprise as an abbreviated form of "blow me down with a feather" but the first thing that came to their minds was the meaning of the phrase as I understood it. They also were a bit incredulous that someone who wasn't much older than you would be unaware of its more common usage. So perhaps I misunderstood you.

I shaln't use the expression again on the internet. A very small loss to my vocabulary which I can take in my stride. If I encounter a poem such as THIS,

"blow me" and "blow me away" are not the same phrase now are they?

I am now better informed what a New Yorker is likely to be thinking about.

I wonder what other liguistic pitfalls I may encounter as I grow older, that may also excite the attention of people with minds like yours, Len?

Two fallacies Sid

1) You admit above that the primary meaning of the phrase has a sexual connotation (see underlined phrase above) but now imply there is something wrong with me in particular or New Yorkers in general for understanding it that way.

2) You seem to believe that sex is somehow 'bad' or 'naughty'; might you have some sort of hang up? - This would be inline with your complaints about "smutty language". You complain that you won't use "blow me" on the Net anymore but seem to believe that others shouldn't use words like 'pimping'. – You're wrong about sex, it is a great and wondrous thing. I believe the hippies were right that if people spent more time "making love" the world would be a much better place. For me as long as it is between consenting adults (or even mature teenagers) and proper precautions are taken just about anything goes.

Now that the "blow me" side show seems to have come to a close reply to my other points.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Len Colby