Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Michael Hogan]

Jack White is a careful and meticulous researcher.

ROTFL

Speaking as a teacher of history and a determined (despite the crappy contents of this forum) educationalist...

ROTFL

[Mark Stapleton]

Hey I'd rather make a substantive post with a few typos/spelling errors than to make perfectly spelled post devoid of substance, you only seem capable of the latter.

I'm sure you would. Why not try putting something substantial in your posts?

IMHO I did. Jack claimed that the VDoT camera definitely should have captured the attack I produced evidence to show that ain't necessarily so. Perhaps you should try, I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you such as when you took stabs at Jack and David Healy but at least they make posts that further debate on the subject of the thread

I imagine if you could actually find anything else wrong with the post you would have said so.

You imagine wrong.

Unconvincing cop out reply

Oh and all my actual links work you research genius, no clicking on the actual numbers doesn't that seems to be due to a limitation/glitch on the forum's software - perhaps you should take it up Andy or the folks at Invision. I presume most forum members are capable of scrolling down to the bottom of the post.

I seem to be the only one to have looked at your links. You certainly didn't. You seem to have difficulty in accepting constructive criticism, your only retort is name-calling.

Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm

"If you presume that most Forum members are capable of scrolling down, why include citations in the text that don't work and then whine when it is brought to your attention?"

I wrote the post using MS Word and used the "insert footnote" function because it is less time consuming and I don't have renumber the notes if I edit the text. I didn't whine I offered an explanation

There are several spelling and grammatical errors in Jack's post above, they in no way reflect on the validity or lack there of, of his claims but to be consistent you should point them out and criticize him.

First blaming me, then Andy and Invision, and then using Jack White to excuse your sloppiness and laziness speaks volumes about you.

I never blamed you nor Andy nor Invision, nor did I use Jack to "excuse" anything. I pointed out Jack's errors to show that you operate by a double standard. You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others.

"On another thread, you told Mark Stapleton that you performed a search for the word straw and added: "Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged." The same could be said for proofreading your own posts."

True but it's not uncommon for people on this forums to make small errors in their posts, odd that you should only comment about mine. My reply to Mark was in response to him seeming to imply that counting the number of times I used the phrase "straw man" was an onerous task.

Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence.

As usual, it appears you don't like to take your own advice.

Fine points, Michael.

My favorite is Len's regular claim that posting links to a bunch of websites proves nothing. So what does Len do when debating other members? He posts links to a bunch of websites!

Time for reassignment, Len. You're falling apart.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson in Self Reliance 1841 and he never even met Mike, Mark and Peter! What prescience! But I guess the likes of them existed back then too. I was obviously referring to non authoritative sites that don't back their claims. I wrote:

[

Google has thousand of sources on ILLUMINATI, SKULL AND BONES, BUSHES, MASONS, THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT, NEW WORLD ORDER.

excerpted and paraphrased from a typical one: ...

LOL – This is too effing funny for words! Jack thinks that something's existence can be proven by the number of Google hits it gets; is he really that detached from reality? I suggest he google "loch ness monster", Bigfoot, "frosty the showman". "abominable snowman" and 'WMD's +iraq' and see how many hits he gets. The fact that so many sites have similar information only proves that they copy each other note that they don't cite any evidence other than other similar sites and obscure books that don't cite any evidence either except for….

[…]

Great stuff, Lee.

Great stuff to bad his sources couldn't cite any evidence to support their claims

(Mark): "p.s. to Len and the members of the debunkers association--just because you didn't read about an event in the paper or see it on Fox News doesn't mean it didn't occur."

The Strawman from OZ strikes again, when did I ever say something has to be on Fox News? I like to see evidence of something before I believe it exists. All that believers in the illuminati can cite are sources that can not document their claims.

About thirty years ago a New World Order think tank produced a secret report for the president regarding world population control.

It was called GLOBAL 2000.

It called for reductions in undesirable (non-white) populations througheugenics methods like:

1. Famines in underdeveloped (black) countries

2. Man-made disese epidemics (AIDS) in black populations

3. Drugs in black populations

4. "Limited" small continuing wars targeting ethnic groups (moslems)

These eugenics goals coincide with belief of Bonesmen.

Google BUSH, EUGENICS, GLOBAL 2000, SKULL AND BONES,

AIDS, AFRICA, ETC.

Check current events for news of Famines, AIDS, Drugs, Arab wars.

All were goals to be achieved by the year 2000.

Jack

LOL Jack you're keeping me in stitches!! Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence.

I made such comment 3 times all in the same thread a couple of days apart hardly a regular claim.

Let's look at the sources I cited. Footnote(s):

1 and 10. – Primary source an Internet posting by someone who worked at the Pentagon for 6 years including on 9/11. I did not say that what he said was true only that he made those claims.

2 and 5 – Primary source posting from an Internet researcher he backed with photographic evidence. I cited two of his claims 1)"According to one researcher it (the camera pole) was 60 feet tall" note that 'JohnDoeX' the "no planer" debating the researcher I cited accepted this as correct and Jack has as well. 2) "there is evidence the wing clipped the pole" once again I did not say that my source was correct.

3 – This is related to the angle of view of a photographic lens, this is not something that is disputed the same information can be found in numerous books on the subject. The information came from an extensive photography site run by a Portuguese photographer. Other sites such as this one [ http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ] run by a photographer and software developer provide the exact same information.

4 - Primary source – I assume we can trust Boeing to give us the correct demotions for its planes, as with the angles of view of lenses this is not something that is disputed and can be confirmed at numerous other sources including "inside job" sites

6 – The geometry of triangles, this is secondary (or possibly even primary) school math once again not something disputed. The site is that of a software company that develops technical and math programs, the odds of them getting something so basic wrong are slim.

7 - Primary source, I didn't say the plane was definitely at 530 MPH only that was its speed based on the FDR. My source in this case was the NTSB's report of the data recorder's readings.

8 – Primary source. I think we can trust the Virginia Department of Transportation's map of the traffic cameras in Arlington, Virginia as to the correct location of its traffic cameras in that city.

9 – Primary source. VDoT workers from the traffic center were interviewed for an article in the department's newsletter. The article was reproduced in an extensive website dedicated to highway and other transportation infrastructure in Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia and neighboring states.

The sites cited by Lee and referred to back Jack on the other hand offer no documentation for their claims are normally written by people with no direct knowledge of the claims they make.

If a Boeing 757 actually flew according to the OFFICIAL THEORY,

it is possible to accurately determine the flight path of such an event.

There were lightpoles at each end of a small bridge, and it is alleged that

the wingtips knocked down the two poles.

Jack

Jack's supposed VDoT video camera still does not show the crash site which was to the south (right*) of the area show. If one pays attention they can see that the windows near the right edge of the photo are different than the others that is because they are from the center portion of the wall. As can clearly be seen in this satellite image taken on September 12, 2001 the impact point was well to the south (left in the picture below) of the center.

(*to the right in Jack's image)

http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/16_Pentagon_after_800.jpg

A higher resolution (1.5 MB) copy of the same image can be seen here http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/06_Pentagon_after.jpg

Another problem is that even IF the camera now shows or at some point after the attacks showed where the plane struck there is no guarantee that it did so on the morning of September 11. According to the VDoT "In the same area, the blast from the plane's impact damaged the lenses of one of VDOT's traffic monitoring cameras and knocked the camera sideways." [http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt ]

and some who claims to have contacted and visited them confirmed that the camera's housing was damaged and had to be repaired [ http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=15307&st=0 ]. It is also quite possible that the camera was replace or realigned in the last 5 years.

If one looks at the actual webcam broadcast [ http://vdot.trafficland.com/trafficvideo.php?system=vdot&token=159f9cd136642f8ecf69f68f8daec3d3&webid=740&random=0.04545012928774861 , if the link doesn't work try http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-main.asp select Arlington from the scroll down menu over the map and then click the "Traffic Cameras" button on the left the Pentagon camera is the 1st one ABOVE 395 {the blue line} near where it says 'District Of Columbia'] or a still (from this morning) http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Pentagoncam3.jpg it appears that perhaps now (unlike in Jack's photo) it shows the impact area but once again that is no guarantee it did so 5 years ago. One can also see that its frame rate is about one frame every 2.5 seconds making unlikely that it would have captured an image of what ever struck the Pentagon at 777 feet per second it would have flown almost 2000 feet. Also as can be seen in the still above its "shutter" speed is insufficient to show unblurred images of cars presumably traveling at around 60 mph let alone a plane traveling at 9 times that speed.

"If such a tape exists showing the "plane"

in plain sight below the camera and hitting the building, you can bet

the govt would have shown it to dispell "conspiracy theories"."

There is reasonable cause to doubt the camera registered the impact, one question Jack hasn't addressed is if it is so easy to fake such images, all they would need to produce are one or two blurry still images, why haven't they haven't done so?

Edited October 24, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Len Colby]

3] How tall was the camera pole? According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall.

This is what he actually said:

"I was told the mast was 60 feet but have not found secondary documentation on that."

Len's researcher is apparently someone named Russell Pickering who posted on a 9/11 forum. What are his credentials? Len doesn't say.

The above is typical of Len's research style and how he likes to put his spin on things. This coming from someone who is always challenging other people's sources whenever he doesn't like what they have to say. ?

[i underlined a typo of yours you shouldn't be so sloppy, what are you to lazy to proofread?]

I said "According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall" I didn't say that it was the definitely true. I used it in support of my contention that it is POSSIBLE that the plane flew below the camera's FOV. You also didn't include the full quote:

"I was told the mast was 60 feet but have not found secondary documentation on that. The road signs are generally 30 feet and it does work out to be half the pole. You can also see a regular 40 foot pole to compare it all." (Note - There is a comparison photo) He mentions that he visited the VDoT yard and spoke to "the guy who handled that camera" presumably he was told the pole was 60 feet tall by someone at the VDoT.

Compare this to people saying something is true without and modifiers like "according to…" and offer no documentation. Such as Jack's nonsense claims about the "Global 2000 report". Once again I note your double standard. If it will make you happy I'll change the sentence to "One researcher believes it was 60 feet tall"

Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm

Here is what I said:

"You might want to check the links you provided in the text of your post shown above. No wonder your posts look the way that they do."

The underlined portion was a bit snide don't you think? And this was definitely sarcastic. "Here's a link that might be useful: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proofreading"

"That is your excuse for not proofreading your posts? That my comment was sarcastic?"

Never made an excuse for not proofreading, haste makes waste.

"Did that comment license you to initiate name calling?"

LOL I called you a genius. One sarcastic comment deserves another. 'Do unto others' Mike.

I didn't whine I offered an explanation.

Of course you whined. What was the explanation you offered? That it was somehow the fault of the forum's software? That Jack White and everyone else makes errors too? That it is Microsoft's fault? Is this what you meant when you said words to the effect that "Unlike others, I admit when I'm wrong?"

No I mentioned Jack's errors to show your double standard. I don't see the fact that clicking on the number in the text doesn't take you to the footnote a big deal, you're the one obsessing over it. As with normal footnotes the numbers in the text correspond to the footnotes at the bottom of the page which identify the links to the pages that corroborate my claims. There is an incompatibility between Word's footnote function and the forum's software it's no one's "fault" I never said it was. Actually you right I'll add a disclaimer to the post.

I have admitted when I was wrong, I was wrong about Meyer Lansky and admitted it, I was wrong about the WTC not being welded and admitted it, I was wrong about the "big lie" quote and likewise admitted it.

Perhaps you should try (producing evidence), I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you....

Is this the real reason why you don't proofread your posts?

I never said or implied that it was odd that you'd think so.

You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others.

This is about as simple as I can make it. It's clear that Jack (and others) proofread their posts to make sure the content is accurate and easy to follow. It's equally clear that you don't. Jack White is a careful and meticulous researcher. You are sloppy, careless, and lazy.

If Jack and everybody else always proofread there posts they wouldn't make posts with spelling and grammar errors. Jack's post above has several spelling and grammar errors. I think most regular posters have made posts with spelling errors. Jack's posts are so full of factual errors sometimes there like bad jokes. "Meticulous researcher"? like when he said the flag pole on the moon wasn't casting a shadow an it clearly was? "Meticulous researcher"? Normally he doesn't provide sources for his cropped low images and makes up excuses when asked for them or full frame full resolution copies.

I think my posts are relatively easy to follow maybe for some they are not, which part of my offending post couldn't you figure out?

What actual errors other than the problem with footnotes did you detect? I guess you could say I'm sloppy and careless due to the occasional spelling and grammar errors but the lazy charge won't stick I have produce many well researched posts as others have acknowledged.

As for your competence do you remember the post where you said my links didn't support my claims but they actually did?

Unless you say something "beyond the pale" I'll let you have the last word on this your not worth my time.

Len

[Mark Stapleton]

Hey I'd rather make a substantive post with a few typos/spelling errors than to make perfectly spelled post devoid of substance, you only seem capable of the latter.

I'm sure you would. Why not try putting something substantial in your posts?

IMHO I did. Jack claimed that the VDoT camera definitely should have captured the attack I produced evidence to show that ain't necessarily so. Perhaps you should try, I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you such as when you took stabs at Jack and David Healy but at least they make posts that further debate on the subject of the thread

I imagine if you could actually find anything else wrong with the post you would have said so.

You imagine wrong.

Unconvincing cop out reply

Oh and all my actual links work you research genius, no clicking on the actual numbers doesn't that seems to be due to a limitation/glitch on the forum's software - perhaps you should take it up Andy or the folks at Invision. I presume most forum members are capable of scrolling down to the bottom of the post.

I seem to be the only one to have looked at your links. You certainly didn't. You seem to have difficulty in accepting constructive criticism, your only retort is name-calling.

Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm

"If you presume that most Forum members are capable of scrolling down, why include citations in the text that don't work and then whine when it is brought to your attention?"

I wrote the post using MS Word and used the "insert footnote" function because it is less time consuming and I don't have renumber the notes if I edit the text. I didn't whine I offered an explanation

There are several spelling and grammatical errors in Jack's post above, they in no way reflect on the validity or lack there of, of his claims but to be consistent you should point them out and criticize him.

First blaming me, then Andy and Invision, and then using Jack White to excuse your sloppiness and laziness speaks volumes about you.

I never blamed you nor Andy nor Invision, nor did I use Jack to "excuse" anything. I pointed out Jack's errors to show that you operate by a double standard. You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others.

"On another thread, you told Mark Stapleton that you performed a search for the word straw and added: "Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged." The same could be said for proofreading your own posts."

True but it's not uncommon for people on this forums to make small errors in their posts, odd that you should only comment about mine. My reply to Mark was in response to him seeming to imply that counting the number of times I used the phrase "straw man" was an onerous task.

Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence.

As usual, it appears you don't like to take your own advice.

Fine points, Michael.

My favorite is Len's regular claim that posting links to a bunch of websites proves nothing. So what does Len do when debating other members? He posts links to a bunch of websites!

Time for reassignment, Len. You're falling apart.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson in Self Reliance 1841 and he never even met Mike, Mark and Peter! What prescience! But I guess the likes of them existed back then too. I was obviously referring to non authoritative sites that don't back their claims. I wrote:

Oh I see---the sites you cite are the authoritative one's and all the others are non-authoritative?

You're definitely losing it--I submit as evidence this post of yours, which must be regarded as one of the most confusing and difficult to read posts on the Forum. Judging by the way you are being comprehensively carved up by Mike Hogan, it's no wonder you want to exchange clarity for confusion. Too late, Len--I'm afraid the ref has already counted you out.

Google has thousand of sources on ILLUMINATI, SKULL AND BONES, BUSHES, MASONS, THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT, NEW WORLD ORDER.

excerpted and paraphrased from a typical one: ...

LOL – This is too effing funny for words! Jack thinks that something's existence can be proven by the number of Google hits it gets; is he really that detached from reality? I suggest he google "loch ness monster", Bigfoot, "frosty the showman". "abominable snowman" and 'WMD's +iraq' and see how many hits he gets. The fact that so many sites have similar information only proves that they copy each other note that they don't cite any evidence other than other similar sites and obscure books that don't cite any evidence either except for….

[…]

Great stuff, Lee.

Great stuff to bad his sources couldn't cite any evidence to support their claims

(Mark): "p.s. to Len and the members of the debunkers association--just because you didn't read about an event in the paper or see it on Fox News doesn't mean it didn't occur."

The Strawman from OZ strikes again, when did I ever say something has to be on Fox News? I like to see evidence of something before I believe it exists. All that believers in the illuminati can cite are sources that can not document their claims.

About thirty years ago a New World Order think tank produced a secret report for the president regarding world population control.

It was called GLOBAL 2000.

It called for reductions in undesirable (non-white) populations througheugenics methods like:

1. Famines in underdeveloped (black) countries

2. Man-made disese epidemics (AIDS) in black populations

3. Drugs in black populations

4. "Limited" small continuing wars targeting ethnic groups (moslems)

These eugenics goals coincide with belief of Bonesmen.

Google BUSH, EUGENICS, GLOBAL 2000, SKULL AND BONES,

AIDS, AFRICA, ETC.

Check current events for news of Famines, AIDS, Drugs, Arab wars.

All were goals to be achieved by the year 2000.

Jack

LOL Jack you're keeping me in stitches!! Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence.

I made such comment 3 times all in the same thread a couple of days apart hardly a regular claim.

Let's look at the sources I cited. Footnote(s):

1 and 10. – Primary source an Internet posting by someone who worked at the Pentagon for 6 years including on 9/11. I did not say that what he said was true only that he made those claims.

2 and 5 – Primary source posting from an Internet researcher he backed with photographic evidence. I cited two of his claims 1)"According to one researcher it (the camera pole) was 60 feet tall" note that 'JohnDoeX' the "no planer" debating the researcher I cited accepted this as correct and Jack has as well. 2) "there is evidence the wing clipped the pole" once again I did not say that my source was correct.

3 – This is related to the angle of view of a photographic lens, this is not something that is disputed the same information can be found in numerous books on the subject. The information came from an extensive photography site run by a Portuguese photographer. Other sites such as this one [ http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ] run by a photographer and software developer provide the exact same information.

4 - Primary source – I assume we can trust Boeing to give us the correct demotions for its planes, as with the angles of view of lenses this is not something that is disputed and can be confirmed at numerous other sources including "inside job" sites

6 – The geometry of triangles, this is secondary (or possibly even primary) school math once again not something disputed. The site is that of a software company that develops technical and math programs, the odds of them getting something so basic wrong are slim.

7 - Primary source, I didn't say the plane was definitely at 530 MPH only that was its speed based on the FDR. My source in this case was the NTSB's report of the data recorder's readings.

8 – Primary source. I think we can trust the Virginia Department of Transportation's map of the traffic cameras in Arlington, Virginia as to the correct location of its traffic cameras in that city.

9 – Primary source. VDoT workers from the traffic center were interviewed for an article in the department's newsletter. The article was reproduced in an extensive website dedicated to highway and other transportation infrastructure in Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia and neighboring states.

The sites cited by Lee and referred to back Jack on the other hand offer no documentation for their claims are normally written by people with no direct knowledge of the claims they make.

If a Boeing 757 actually flew according to the OFFICIAL THEORY,

it is possible to accurately determine the flight path of such an event.

There were lightpoles at each end of a small bridge, and it is alleged that

the wingtips knocked down the two poles.

Jack

Jack's supposed VDoT video camera still does not show the crash site which was to the south (right*) of the area show. If one pays attention they can see that the windows near the right edge of the photo are different than the others that is because they are from the center portion of the wall. As can clearly be seen in this satellite image taken on September 12, 2001 the impact point was well to the south (left in the picture below) of the center.

(*to the right in Jack's image)

http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/16_Pentagon_after_800.jpg

A higher resolution (1.5 MB) copy of the same image can be seen here http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/06_Pentagon_after.jpg

Another problem is that even IF the camera now shows or at some point after the attacks showed where the plane struck there is no guarantee that it did so on the morning of September 11. According to the VDoT "In the same area, the blast from the plane's impact damaged the lenses of one of VDOT's traffic monitoring cameras and knocked the camera sideways." [http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt ]

and some who claims to have contacted and visited them confirmed that the camera's housing was damaged and had to be repaired [ http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=15307&st=0 ]. It is also quite possible that the camera was replace or realigned in the last 5 years.

If one looks at the actual webcam broadcast [ http://vdot.trafficland.com/trafficvideo.php?system=vdot&token=159f9cd136642f8ecf69f68f8daec3d3&webid=740&random=0.04545012928774861 , if the link doesn't work try http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-main.asp select Arlington from the scroll down menu over the map and then click the "Traffic Cameras" button on the left the Pentagon camera is the 1st one ABOVE 395 {the blue line} near where it says 'District Of Columbia'] or a still (from this morning) http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Pentagoncam3.jpg it appears that perhaps now (unlike in Jack's photo) it shows the impact area but once again that is no guarantee it did so 5 years ago. One can also see that its frame rate is about one frame every 2.5 seconds making unlikely that it would have captured an image of what ever struck the Pentagon at 777 feet per second it would have flown almost 2000 feet. Also as can be seen in the still above its "shutter" speed is insufficient to show unblurred images of cars presumably traveling at around 60 mph let alone a plane traveling at 9 times that speed.

"If such a tape exists showing the "plane"

in plain sight below the camera and hitting the building, you can bet

the govt would have shown it to dispell "conspiracy theories"."

There is reasonable cause to doubt the camera registered the impact, one question Jack hasn't addressed is if it is so easy to fake such images, all they would need to produce are one or two blurry still images, why haven't they haven't done so?

[Len Colby]

You're right Mark that post was a bit hard to follow. I editted it and imagine that now even you can understand it

[Michael Hogan]

3] How tall was the camera pole? According to one researcher it was 60 feet tall.

This is what he actually said:

"I was told the mast was 60 feet but have not found secondary documentation on that."

Len's researcher is apparently someone named Russell Pickering who posted on a 9/11 forum. What are his credentials? Len doesn't say.

The above is typical of Len's research style and how he likes to put his spin on things. This coming from someone who is always challenging other people's sources whenever he doesn't like what they have to say. ?

[i underlined a typo of yours you shouldn't be so sloppy, what are you to (sic) lazy to proofread?

In reality, this is how my post appeared:

This is what he actually said:

"I was told the mast was 60 feet but have not found secondary documentation on that."

Len's researcher is apparently someone named Russell Pickering who posted on a 9/11 forum. What are his credentials? Len doesn't say.

The above is typical of Len's research style and how he likes to put his spin on things. This coming from someone who is always challenging other people's sources whenever he doesn't like what they have to say.

You quote me by adding a question mark to my statement, then underlining it and call it a typo. My first inclination was to say you are dishonest, but I think foolish is a better choice of word. You made it appear as if the question mark was mine, when in reality it was something you added. The sentence was a declarative statement. It was not a question. I'm beginning to see that you have a real problem with the English language.

[Michael Hogan]

Try this on for size : Free movie on how they didn't want a 911 Commission.....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250

Paul Thompson (He will be remembered much like Weisberg) and Peter Dale Scott will be in Palo Alto on October 27th to discuss this documentary.

http://www.communitycurrency.org/oct27.html

It's incredible what poor memories and short attention spans American citizens have. In some indefinable way, we lost our will and allowed these things to happen.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Len Colby]

Another question is what exactly this has to do with the Trade Center?

Len

...the dumbing-down of America or a mockingbird's call?....or both?!

1] if the resources were moved away from NYC and DC and the whole f***ing East Coast they couldn't be used to do any intercept.

2] if they mimiced the events of the coming false-flag operation they would hide and confuse the fact and could be used to cover for it....like Hitler did on the Polish border and have been done throughout history and in the USA history too [it ain't different]

Yet another sign of Mr. Lemming’s lack of critical thinking I did ask what it had to do with 9/11 there are other threads where this would have been more appropriate.

I have yet to see evidence that these exercises diverted resources from the northeastern US nor that they created any confusion or delay (except for the few seconds it took a person to ask “is real or an exercise?” and the person on the other end of the line to respond “no”. Perhaps if Peter has any he should start a new thread and present it. The number of planes on scramble alert was the same on 9/11/01 as on 9/10/01 and 9/12/01 etc. If any of these exercises entailed having planes already in the air this would have reduced response times.

By the way...great film for free here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250

Let's see the mockingbird spin on this film!....

Oh no! Not yet ANOTHER 9/11 revisionist movie presumably it is full of disinformation, faulty analysis and selective quoting like all the others. I don’t have the time to debunk an entire 84 minute movie, perhaps Peter can point out what in it he found to particularly compelling.

[Len Colby]

You quote me by adding a question mark to my statement, then underlining it and call it a typo. My first inclination was to say you are dishonest, but I think foolish is a better choice of word. You made it appear as if the question mark was mine, when in reality it was something you added. The sentence was a declarative statement. It was not a question. I'm beginning to see that you have a real problem with the English language.

I must have unintentionally added that when I was editing my reply and in my haste to find an error on your part failed to check the original. Very sloppy I admit, my apologies for that I stand by the rest of the post.

Oh, and bye the bye....how iz it dat de Pentagon has anti-aircraft missiles to guard it and they didn't shoot down whatever it was that hit the Pentagon - nor even fired them to try?........just thought I'd ask.

...or that it took the FBI less time to start confiscating videos and telling those who had seen them not to talk about it or that they were taken, than for NORAD and the Air Force to scramble planes...

Actually the Pentagon didn't have anti-aircraft missiles as I already explained on another thread. I challenge Peter to provide any solid evidece they did. I'd like to see evidence as to how long it took the FBI to take possestion of the video tapes and that they told "those who had seen them not to talk about it"

Edited October 25, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

As noted earlier Jack misidentified the point of impact in his still from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) this can clearly bees seen when comparing that image to others of the Pentagon including ones supplied by Jack. Various points of reference tell us his point of impact was way off. For this and other reasons it is highly unlikely that the camera would have recorded the plane heading towards and/or crashing into the building.

[The footnote numbers in the text of this message do not function properly as links, scroll to the bottom of the message.]

Below is a crop of the September 12, 2001 satellite image from one of my earlier posts. Note the central corridor, the collapsed area where the plane hit is well to the south of it. One can see that the collapsed area is about 2/3 of the way 'down' the wall which is 921 feet long. By measuring the apparent size of the wall on one's computer screen then the distance the hole was from the northern corner its (the hole's) location can be determined. By my calculations it was 596 feet, or 7.7 times the buildings height (77.3 feet[1]) from that corner. Look again at Jack's VDoT still the hole's distance from the corner is less than 3 times the height, I estimated Jack's hole to be only 200 feet from the corner of about 400 feet from the correct location.

The original high resolution image can be found here http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/06_Pentagon_after.jpg .

Jack's helicopter photo (below) correctly shows the point of impact the collapsed section is to the right of the corridor. Note the position of the raised roof in relation to where the plane hit. Once again the hole appears to be about 7X the height of the building from the north corner.

The satellite image below is from Google Maps (link below). The point of impact is well to the south of the little "houses" in Jack's VDoT still, what he labeled as the point of impact to be to the north of them.

Jack clearly misidentified the point of impact in his VDoT still. The actual point was far the south (right) of the point he identified. Thus not only would the 757 probably not have crossed into the camera's field of view (FOV) when it passed the camera pole (except perhaps part of the tail and left wing) it probably would NOT have at any other point of its trajectory between the pole and the Pentagon. At best it would have passed through the FOV for a fraction of that trajectory.

But there is one more reason to doubt the traffic camera would have recorded the plane, according to an article in a VDoT newsletter the camera was "knocked" "sideways" and had its lens damaged[2]. Though the author attributed this to the blast from the impact since it was over 700 feet away this seems unlikely. A more logical explanation is that this was caused by the blast from the jet engine which might have come within 40 – 50 feet of the camera and was powerful enough to propel a 200+ ton plane at over 500 MPH. Russell Pickering (who yes is just an Internet researcher) theorized the camera was knocked sideways and damaged by the plane's wing clipping the pole[3]

Even if the plane did briefly pass thought the camera's FOV it would have only been for a fraction of a second, probably not enough time to be recorded. I don't know if you can make it out but there is a distance scale in the bottom left corner of the satellite image below from Google Maps, its zero point corresponds to the approximate location of the camera pole. The top notch indicates 100 feet (30 meters) the bottom one 100 meters (164 feet) [see detail]. Based on the distance scale the camera pole was about 760 feet (230) meters from the point of impact. Remember that according to the NTSB the plane was flying at 530 MPH[4] (860 KPH) this works out to 777 feet per second [5]. Thus the plane would have taken about a second from the time it passed the pole to hitting the wall but the VDoT camera seems to register one image every 2.5 seconds [6].

The original can be found here: http://www.google.com/maps?q=I-395+(N)+%26+Washington+Blvd,+Arlington,+VA+22202&ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=38.872542,-77.054501&spn=0.005262,0.013475&om=1 [7]

[1] The height and width of the Pentagon's walls can be conferred here http://renovation.pentagon.mil/history-features.htm among countless other sites on the Net.

[2] http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt

[3] http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=15307&st=0

[4] http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA77.pdf pg 2

[5] 530 {MPH} x 5280{feet in a mile}/ 3600 {seconds in an hour (60 x 60)}

[6] As anyone can confirm by looking at it http://vdot.trafficland.com/trafficvideo.php?system=vdot&token=571e3b60271f38c7a69b9f32e260bff2&webid=740&random=0.5290182000163101 , the system is often down if it doesn't work try again later.

[7] Click on 'Hybrid' or 'Satellite' view to see the actual photo but it can take a while to load if you have a slow connection

[Len Colby]

I see that the VdoT still didn't come out very clearly. Below is a blow-up of the critical section.

"Paul Thompson (He will be remembered much like Weisberg) ...will be in Palo Alto on October 27th to discuss this documentary"

No I think he will be at best a footnote except in books, papers and articles about misguided kooks sort of like the people who thought fluoridation of water was a Communist plot and that Ike was a Communist agent.

But I'm being too harsh his timeline is a valuable tool

Edited October 25, 2006 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

As usual, Colby posts a mass of meaningless crap in an attempt

to becloud the issue. He has misidentified points within the photos.

Jack

[Randy Downs]

To me, it essentially boils down to this:

If the 9/11 report is so wrong, where are all the crowds of structural engineers & their professional organisations saying a building could not collapse like that?

Where are all the waves of professional airline pilots and their organisations crying out that a poorly-trained terrorist could not have flown the aircraft used in such a fashion?

Where are all the aeronautical engineers and their professional organisations protesting that an aircraft could not withstand being flown in such a way?

Where are all the crash investigators pointing out that wreckage found is not consistant with the claimed incidents?

Where are all the demolitions experts saying that the incidents look exactly what a controlled demolition would look like?

Well, i'll take a crack at that. Perhaps they're out there, they are simply not being recorded -kind of like the people in Dealey Plaza. Of course there were also the ones frightened, threatened (by official government agents) and killed. It's dangerous to speak out against Power.

Such statements exist. In fact, i read a most interesting article by a professional pilot who posits that: to fly such aircraft in such fashion, they were most likely military trained pilots.

Points 3 and 4) Reports are in the public domain. Of course they're being belittled and it's not like you're going to hear about it from CNN or the NYT. And the persons themselves are insulted and called names.

Personaly, i think "CTs" is really offensive and derogatory. Perhaps it's meant to be; because we know the State would never lie or obfuscate, we know the State has been honest and forthright during it's entire existence, we know the State would never do anything underhanded or criminal or just morally wrong. Therefore we can accept everything the State proclaims and sleep peacefully at night.

Maybe we should have a label for those who believe the words of the State, hmm the CMs (Cult Members) or perhaps the BDs (Brain Donars)?

Randy

[Randy Downs]

Asking him to document this would be like asking someone who in response to a question says they are a Christian to produce evidence that Jesus was the son of God.

Okay, i'll have a go at that one as well:

He said that He was. So either,

A) He deliberately lied and misled people. (Healing the blind is kind of hard to fake, though)

He lied but thought He was telling the truth -which would make Him by definition a lunatic. Now i've met a fellow who told me he was God and he believed what he was telling me. This is not the type of person who's going to inspire followers, create huge social and political unrest, and so forth.

C) He is who He says He is.

Those are your only 3 options. Oh and BTW, yes i know it's easy to dismiss and pooh-pooh events that occured thousand of years ago. But contemporary documents talk about persecution, death, jail, -brute force. As opposed to trying to disprove the things He did. Why? 'Cause when you have living eyewitnesses who can contradict and counter any propaganda, brute force is the only tool left to Power.

Kind of like Dallas.

Kind of like today.

Randy

Edited October 25, 2006 by Randy Downs

[Jack White]

Correcting more Colby misinformation.