Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

<snip>You never post anything positive. You just follow certain people like Jack White and Sid Walker around and jump on them if they dare to post something you disagree with. You are not willing to just debate the facts. Instead you suggest that Jack is senile and Sid is a racist. I don’t agree with a lot of what Jack says, but he does deserve our respect. I am pleased that someone of his age is still so committed to finding out the truth about past events.<snip>

John-

This is something I really don't understand abut jacks defenders – John, you are well aware that Jack NEVER defends his work on Apollo, yet, you have never said a word, why is that? - However you do complain about Len not debating the facts (when he actually does) and being mean to Jack. A bit more biased than you'd care to admit?

This is just my opinion based on the junk (the most polite word I can use) analysis Jack has done on Apollo, I can't believe any analysis he has ever done on JFK is any better. I have to ask all of you defenders of JW- do you like his work because of his “Outstanding Analyses” or is it his “Outstanding Confirmation” of what you want to believe???

If anyone doubts that Jack’s Apollo analyses is garbage, do some research yourselves and confirm where the LRV was stowed in the LM descent module, and then check out Jack’s “facts” regarding the LRV. If you are really honest, it should be a real eye opener.

Since it seems that my post started this, I have to respond. I have been on many other "forum type" sites over the years, [not just JFK related] and I have to say, I no longer belong to any of them any more. Reason being.........because of the BS that goes on such as this. This type of imature back and forths, are what ruin excellent, educational sites. Johns JFK forum is the best thing I personally have come across in a long time. I have to admit, I almost threw in the towel again at one point a few weeks ago. Jack is Jack. As I said, I dont know Jack personally, but I do feel as though I do, from all of the contributions he has made over the years concerning the JFK assassination. Jack deserves his due. He may be older than most of us, but I can tell you he knows more than most of us can ever hope to know. I was raised to respect my elders. I dont know about all of you, but I can do nothing but respect Jack. Not only because of his age, but for what he has done for everyone that is working on the JFK assassination. Im sure there are many people who are members here, who may not have ever come this far if it wasnt for something they read, written by Jack. This is not just about Jack at this point. There are many members of this forum, who do nothing but look for posts that they can attack. I guess they have nothing better to do, or..........they have an agenda that they have a working responsibility to do so because that is their job. Paid, or because they have volunteered to do so "because they feel as though they will "become" something by doing the dirty deeds they perform for others. Even Mr. Simkins has been accused of being a spook!??!!? Give me a break! This back stabbing crap has to be stopped at this point. I have noticed more than a several times, as soon as a "certain" subject is brought up, there they are. The same ones- arguing, fighting, and downgrading whoever it may be. [maybe the subject hit the neve that needs to be cut off quickly!!!] I have been set up to look like a j-ass several times here by the same people. Every time. I have watched when other members who brought up the same type of subject, get made out to be mental midgets. Humiliated, and made to look stupid by the same group of people, because these "expeirienced, and knowing" people "know more than they do" because they own more books, and took alot more pictures than most at Dealey Plaza. Thats BS! Most of these trouble makers have nothing to stand on. Just a bunch of long, technical words, most of us have to look up to understand, which I am the first to admit to. Certain people here have no respect for anything, and I mean anything, other people have to say. Forums such as Johns, are "open" sites where people can expresss, and exchange ideas, with hopefully some successful results. To have people here who purposefully disrupt and redirect the topics, just tells me one thing. Johns "Forum" is working! There are new, fresh ideas coming through every week that may lead to new discoveries, and answers, to decades old questions. But guess what? As soon as something comes up, there they are! To date I havent really had any arguements with anyone, since I try to be cool and be polite to all, and respect all who post, and for the most part, responders have basically been the same in return. Except for the few who are still doing what they are "made, paid, or just feel" that they have to do. This may stir the pot a bit, but you know what?................it needed to be said. If im the scapegoat, so be it. I have very broad shoulders, and if you want to pile it on, go ahead. I can take the load. Jack, Ashton, Peter, John, Lee, Bill, and the rest of you [you know who you are!] keep up the good work, and speak your mind. Dont be deterred by the few who want to drag you down to their level. As always..........Just my opinion FWIW.

thanks-smitty

Thanks, Smitty for repeating what is obvious to everyone. I want to add one thing.

I sort of have kept track of many of these provocateurs for a number of years. Not

a one of them has ever posted any ORIGINAL RESEARCH. All they ever do is try to

REFUTE anything which tells the truth about OFFICIAL GOVT STORIES. This tells me

that they all HAVE A SINGLE AGENDA. They are Gerald Posner INTERNET CLONES.

If you or I post some TRUTH that exposes GOVT WRONGDOING, they pounce all over

it like snarling dogs fighting over a bone. Not just one issue...EVERY SINGLE ISSUE is

opposed. When they cannot muster facts, they resort to vicious name calling and

insults. When they go after EVERYTHING any certain person says and gang up on

him in numbers with suffocating crap from five or six of the same guys...is that a sign

of an agenda?

My work stands alone and speaks for itself. I am not here to debate or argue about

any of my research. I am not about to waste time reading and responding to such

idiotic tactics. I have much better things to do with my time. I have one advantage

over them. If I post 1000 studies proving the Apollo photos are fake, it is their job

to DEBUNK ALL 1000...for they dare not admit a single photo is faked. ONE SUCH

ADMISSION DESTROYS THEIR POSITION ENTIRELY. So I don't care. Let them rave

on agreeing with each other that I am an evil person. It doesn't bother me, as I

usually do not read anything they write, and reply only to the most egregious lies.

I am under no obligation to read or respond to any of their crap.

But it is a waste of taxpayer money to employ such goons.

Jack

Edited January 28, 2007 by Jack White

[Len Colby]

John I could respond to you post (beyond what I say here) but will refrain because I have no interest in getting into an acrimonious back and forth with you. Funny you accuse me of “stirring up trouble” but how would you classify your two posts on this thread and Jack’s? I too oppose all forms of bigotry, but it is rare for any type other that anti-Semitism to be expresses here. The only time I saw what appeared to be an anti African-American comment I questioned it. Once one of your favored members made an anti-homosexual comment but I said nothing so as not to “stir up trouble”.

Jack who started this tangent complaining of personal attacks now classifies those who oppose his views as “goons” will we see words of opprobrium on your part?

Steve and Dan - Thanks for your support.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Loose Change is so full of errors I’ve seen “truthers” suggest that its makers are “disinfo” agent sent to discredit the movement. 911 Research probably the best researched “inside job” site has been particularly critical of the movie.

“Because of its flaws, the film is an easy target for debunkers defending the official story”

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

“…if it is not naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf who has been used by such.” Note this refers to the 1st edition many but by no means all the errors were corrected in the 2nd the 1st quote refers to the 2nd edition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

Oil Empire called it “Loose with truth” and a “hoax” which used “fake evidence”

Mike Ruppert wrote:

"I have watched “Loose Change” and in my expert opinion it is a very fine piece of CIA disinformation, one that fits an astute maxim by Professor Peter Dale Scott: “Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.” Even though the film opens with some of my original research (including images taken from the FTW web site), it quickly sinks into a repeatedly debunked and confabulated hypothesis that no airliner hit the Pentagon…Once the audience buys into all the credible research at the front, they are quickly swept away in a flood of easily impeached high-tech nonsense, and that was the film’s intent".

In addition to Ruppert and the webmaster’s comments the page excerts of / links to other critiques of the film.

http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

In addition to the debunking sites already cited this one is also very good

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change

I don’t care for their conservative political views but the “Screw Loose Change” bloggers have also found numerous errors in the film.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/...st-mistake.html

It is interesting to note that even Korey Rowe, the “documentary’s” producer admitted there were errors that were left in intentionally but gave a rather peculiar explaination for doing so

“We don’t ever come out and say that everything we say is 100 per cent. We know there are errors in the documentary, and we’ve actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves—the B52* [remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building], the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions….”

* They originally said a B52 had flown into the ESB when in fact the plane had been struck by a much smaller B25

http://smithmag.net/2006/08/10/korey-rowe-...e-cannon-of-911

On another occasion the filmmakers admitted their video had numerous errors but I can’t find the link. I’ll update this post when I do.

[Michael G. Smith]

John I could respond to you post (beyond what I say here) but will refrain because I have no interest in getting into an acrimonious back and forth with you. Funny you accuse me of “stirring up trouble” but how would you classify your two posts on this thread and Jack’s? I too oppose all forms of bigotry, but it is rare for any type other that anti-Semitism to be expresses here. The only time I saw what appeared to be an anti African-American comment I questioned it. Once one of your favored members made an anti-homosexual comment but I said nothing so as not to “stir up trouble”.

Jack who started this tangent complaining of personal attacks now classifies those who oppose his views as “goons” will we see words of opprobrium on your part?

Steve and Dan - Thanks for your support.

My apologies for leading this thread off its intended track. Naming people, and pointing fingers at people, are not going to get any of us anywhere. What I do hope is, that people will stop being disruptive, and just RESPECT peoples opinions. They are entitled to their opinions no matter what they are. Question them politely, and show the respect anyone would be entitled to. Fighting gets us nowhere, and only drags us all down, in whatever pursuit it is we are after. If someones idea seems crazy to you, move on. There are plenty of other topics to choose from here. There is no sense in arguing and fighting because you dont agree. Either be poilite, or change to another topic. We will all be the better for it. Just my opinion FWIW.

thanks-smitty

[Len Colby]

Amen Smitty but no reason to apologize,twazn't you who started the tangent.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Len Colby

[Sid Walker]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Sid there is no evidence the buildings collapsed at free fall speed, they didn't collapse into their footprints. I noticed you declined to answer the questions I asked you here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=90779

[Steve Ulman]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Len's question:

How many buildings with thousands of gallons of diesel stored in them have had 500,000 TON 1368 foot tall buildings collapse next to them and had uncombated fires burn in them for several hours and not collapsed?

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one.

My Point:

Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing.

The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique.

Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented?

Edited January 28, 2007 by Steve Ulman

[Peter McKenna]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Sid there is no evidence the buildings collapsed at free fall speed, they didn't collapse into their footprints. I noticed you declined to answer the questions I asked you here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=90779

I believe you're right Len,

The building's footprint is the perimeter at its base. As far as I know (based upon photos and family's description who live in NYC) the debris of the towers was described as well outside of the tower footprints.

I had never really heard the twin tower collapse described before as falling inside of its own footprint. Where did this originate?

I found a very good site to describe the building collapse:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[Peter McKenna]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Sid there is no evidence the buildings collapsed at free fall speed, they didn't collapse into their footprints. I noticed you declined to answer the questions I asked you here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=90779

I believe you're right Len,

The building's footprint is the perimeter at its base. As far as I know (based upon photos and family's description who live in NYC) the debris of the towers was described as well outside of the tower footprints.

I had never really heard the twin tower collapse described before as falling inside of its own footprint. Where did this originate?

I found a very good site to describe the building collapse:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

The photos at the referenced site are especially informative.

[Sid Walker]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Len's question:

How many buildings with thousands of gallons of diesel stored in them have had 500,000 TON 1368 foot tall buildings collapse next to them and had uncombated fires burn in them for several hours and not collapsed?

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one.

My Point:

Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing.

The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique.

Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented?

Your point, Len, is obfuscation.

A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities.

No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires.

There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed.

There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition.

If there are such cases, please let us all know.

If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun...

Edited January 29, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Peter McKenna]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Len's question:

How many buildings with thousands of gallons of diesel stored in them have had 500,000 TON 1368 foot tall buildings collapse next to them and had uncombated fires burn in them for several hours and not collapsed?

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one.

My Point:

Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing.

The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique.

Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented?

Your point, Len, is obfuscation.

A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities.

No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires.

There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed.

There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition.

If there are such cases, please let us all know.

If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun...

Sid,

I don't understand your obsessive suspicion of the twin tower collapse. Please look at the site I hyperlinked in the previous posting, as it clearly shows photos of the buildings' collapse, which occurred after some hours, and provided, what I believe is a sound engineering explanation.

The events of 9/11, especially those prior to 9/11, may bear further scrutiny due to certain suspicious facts, such as the connection between the flight school in Florida and the CIA, but the building collapse, in and of itself, doesn;t appear to me to be much more than what it seemed.

The attack occurred on a weekday, following a working day. To plan and execute a demolition, as pointed out at sites discussing this question (see the aforementioned hyperlink) would take many days of careful planning and execution, including placement of charges, structural modifications, and then controlled, sequential demolition. This would be impossible, I believe, logistically, to execute within a building occupied by thousands of white collar workers and the security staff.

The logistical arrangement of faking the hijacking of the passenger jets, that is setting up these planes being hijacked and striking the targets would take the complicit surreptitious involvement of thousands, not including the assumption that the buildings had demolitions installed and used. Based upon the history of some past conspiracies (JFK’s assassination, for example) it seems that the US Government would have enough trouble coordinating a much smaller conspiracy, and even then, the “company line”, after the work done by several dedicated researchers, is shown up to be completely implausible. Coordinating a Government conspiracy on the order of 9/11 seems to me to be much too great to pull off. But even so, if it was, I don’t believe the Twin Tower hit and collapse would be part of it. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

One facet of the Twin Tower attack, which really hasn’t been exploited by the Media or the Government, is the fact that these building were especially vulnerable to this type of attack. Based upon their design, that they were curtain wall design, and exterior wall supported for all live loading, made these buildings especially vulnerable to strikes from jets with a large amount of fuel stored in their wings. This to me is very scary, that is, the attackers thought out and exploited this vulnerability impressively. I wonder why this fact wasn’t really exploited to a greater degree.

Please read the hyperlinked site.

I think that to find the string that might lead to (or be) clues to a conspiracy, one should first discount and eliminate, those events that are as they appear (the facts), and what I left over, esp. what suspiciously appears as conspiracy, may indeed be such. But there are people on this forum who are far more qualified than me at separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to conspiracy theory.

By the way I enjoyed reading your response on WWI and your explanation of your position on Zionism around the turn of the century (the 20th century) and would like to read more of your ideas on the Jewish “Intellegentsia”, and its impact on early 19th century European politics. I had previously been taken aback with your statements as being anti Semitic. I am not agreeing with all of your views (esp. your Holocaust related views) but some discourse may be beneficial.

Peter McKenna

[Sid Walker]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Len's question:

How many buildings with thousands of gallons of diesel stored in them have had 500,000 TON 1368 foot tall buildings collapse next to them and had uncombated fires burn in them for several hours and not collapsed?

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one.

My Point:

Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing.

The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique.

Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented?

Your point, Len, is obfuscation.

A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities.

No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires.

There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed.

There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition.

If there are such cases, please let us all know.

If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun...

Sid,

I don't understand your obsessive suspicion of the twin tower collapse. Please look at the site I hyperlinked in the previous posting, as it clearly shows photos of the buildings' collapse, which occurred after some hours, and provided, what I believe is a sound engineering explanation.

The events of 9/11, especially those prior to 9/11, may bear further scrutiny due to certain suspicious facts, such as the connection between the flight school in Florida and the CIA, but the building collapse, in and of itself, doesn;t appear to me to be much more than what it seemed.

The attack occurred on a weekday, following a working day. To plan and execute a demolition, as pointed out at sites discussing this question (see the aforementioned hyperlink) would take many days of careful planning and execution, including placement of charges, structural modifications, and then controlled, sequential demolition. This would be impossible, I believe, logistically, to execute within a building occupied by thousands of white collar workers and the security staff.

The logistical arrangement of faking the hijacking of the passenger jets, that is setting up these planes being hijacked and striking the targets would take the complicit surreptitious involvement of thousands, not including the assumption that the buildings had demolitions installed and used. Based upon the history of some past conspiracies (JFK’s assassination, for example) it seems that the US Government would have enough trouble coordinating a much smaller conspiracy, and even then, the “company line”, after the work done by several dedicated researchers, is shown up to be completely implausible. Coordinating a Government conspiracy on the order of 9/11 seems to me to be much too great to pull off. But even so, if it was, I don’t believe the Twin Tower hit and collapse would be part of it. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

One facet of the Twin Tower attack, which really hasn’t been exploited by the Media or the Government, is the fact that these building were especially vulnerable to this type of attack. Based upon their design, that they were curtain wall design, and exterior wall supported for all live loading, made these buildings especially vulnerable to strikes from jets with a large amount of fuel stored in their wings. This to me is very scary, that is, the attackers thought out and exploited this vulnerability impressively. I wonder why this fact wasn’t really exploited to a greater degree.

Please read the hyperlinked site.

I think that to find the string that might lead to (or be) clues to a conspiracy, one should first discount and eliminate, those events that are as they appear (the facts), and what I left over, esp. what suspiciously appears as conspiracy, may indeed be such. But there are people on this forum who are far more qualified than me at separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to conspiracy theory.

By the way I enjoyed reading your response on WWI and your explanation of your position on Zionism around the turn of the century (the 20th century) and would like to read more of your ideas on the Jewish “Intellegentsia”, and its impact on early 19th century European politics. I had previously been taken aback with your statements as being anti Semitic. I am not agreeing with all of your views (esp. your Holocaust related views) but some discourse may be beneficial.

Peter McKenna

Hi Peter

If it's obsession to stand my ground and insist on an answer to a relatively simple question then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

I take it, by now, the (simple) answer is NO?

In other words, there HASN'T been a collapse remotely like the collapse of THREE towers that ocvcured on 9-11, at ANY time in history before or since, EXCEPT when techniques of controlled demolition have been applied?

Is that correct? (Last call...)

OK... people. Draw your own conclusions from this mind-bending fact.

I'll draw mine.

You wrote:

The attack occurred on a weekday, following a working day. To plan and execute a demolition, as pointed out at sites discussing this question (see the aforementioned hyperlink) would take many days of careful planning and execution, including placement of charges, structural modifications, and then controlled, sequential demolition. This would be impossible, I believe, logistically, to execute within a building occupied by thousands of white collar workers and the security staff.

Why would it have been impossible? Maintenance staff work on large buildings teeming with people. If they are working in shafts and stairwells, many white collar staf won't even know they're in the building.

I agree that an operation would be difficult, if not impossible, to rig the building for explosives without the consent or acquiescence of those in control of the buildings. Very useful to have the leaseholders onside. Chums within the leadership of the Port Authority would be handy too...

I read your reference to the work of Tim Wilkinson of the Uni of Sydney.

Not very impressive, I must say.

Here's a sample:

What about World Trade Center 7?

I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...

* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?

* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?

* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?

In other words, Tim hasn't much idea at all what happened to WTC 7. But we are encouraged to ponder a few questions.

Never mind about WTC 7 folks...

Nothing to see there!

It's just one of nature's little mysteries - and may have to stay that way, as long as there's more pressing tasks at hand such as chasing terrorists, starting wars and stamping out 'hate crimes' against obvious suspects such as Mr Silverstein.

Regarding the comments at the end of your post, Peter, thanks for what you said. I certainly believe that discourse is beneficial - and I respect people who play fair in free and open debate, people who aren't just out to 'win', score points or dissemble but who have a genuine interest in approaching that elusive Holy Grail: The Truth.

Old Socrates had a good idea or two, IMO.

[Peter McKenna]

Rodney King said it well:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again:

On 9-11, according to the official version of events (and taking into account the extensive video documentation from the day), THREE steel framed tower blocks collapsed, in their own footprint, at near free-fall velocity.

Again, according to the official version of events, this occured in the absence of controlled demolition.

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

Len's question:

How many buildings with thousands of gallons of diesel stored in them have had 500,000 TON 1368 foot tall buildings collapse next to them and had uncombated fires burn in them for several hours and not collapsed?

Has such a thing ever occured anywhere else in the history of humankind?

Any takers?

If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition.

The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one.

My Point:

Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing.

The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique.

Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented?

Your point, Len, is obfuscation.

A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities.

No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires.

There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed.

There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition.

If there are such cases, please let us all know.

If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun...

Sid,

I don't understand your obsessive suspicion of the twin tower collapse. Please look at the site I hyperlinked in the previous posting, as it clearly shows photos of the buildings' collapse, which occurred after some hours, and provided, what I believe is a sound engineering explanation.

The events of 9/11, especially those prior to 9/11, may bear further scrutiny due to certain suspicious facts, such as the connection between the flight school in Florida and the CIA, but the building collapse, in and of itself, doesn;t appear to me to be much more than what it seemed.

The attack occurred on a weekday, following a working day. To plan and execute a demolition, as pointed out at sites discussing this question (see the aforementioned hyperlink) would take many days of careful planning and execution, including placement of charges, structural modifications, and then controlled, sequential demolition. This would be impossible, I believe, logistically, to execute within a building occupied by thousands of white collar workers and the security staff.

The logistical arrangement of faking the hijacking of the passenger jets, that is setting up these planes being hijacked and striking the targets would take the complicit surreptitious involvement of thousands, not including the assumption that the buildings had demolitions installed and used. Based upon the history of some past conspiracies (JFK’s assassination, for example) it seems that the US Government would have enough trouble coordinating a much smaller conspiracy, and even then, the “company line”, after the work done by several dedicated researchers, is shown up to be completely implausible. Coordinating a Government conspiracy on the order of 9/11 seems to me to be much too great to pull off. But even so, if it was, I don’t believe the Twin Tower hit and collapse would be part of it. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

One facet of the Twin Tower attack, which really hasn’t been exploited by the Media or the Government, is the fact that these building were especially vulnerable to this type of attack. Based upon their design, that they were curtain wall design, and exterior wall supported for all live loading, made these buildings especially vulnerable to strikes from jets with a large amount of fuel stored in their wings. This to me is very scary, that is, the attackers thought out and exploited this vulnerability impressively. I wonder why this fact wasn’t really exploited to a greater degree.

Please read the hyperlinked site.

I think that to find the string that might lead to (or be) clues to a conspiracy, one should first discount and eliminate, those events that are as they appear (the facts), and what I left over, esp. what suspiciously appears as conspiracy, may indeed be such. But there are people on this forum who are far more qualified than me at separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to conspiracy theory.

By the way I enjoyed reading your response on WWI and your explanation of your position on Zionism around the turn of the century (the 20th century) and would like to read more of your ideas on the Jewish “Intellegentsia”, and its impact on early 19th century European politics. I had previously been taken aback with your statements as being anti Semitic. I am not agreeing with all of your views (esp. your Holocaust related views) but some discourse may be beneficial.

Peter McKenna

Hi Peter

If it's obsession to stand my ground and insist on an answer to a relatively simple question then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

I take it, by now, the (simple) answer is NO?

In other words, there HASN'T been a collapse remotely like the collapse of THREE towers that ocvcured on 9-11, at ANY time in history before or since, EXCEPT when techniques of controlled demolition have been applied?

Is that correct? (Last call...)

OK... people. Draw your own conclusions from this mind-bending fact.

I'll draw mine.

You wrote:

The attack occurred on a weekday, following a working day. To plan and execute a demolition, as pointed out at sites discussing this question (see the aforementioned hyperlink) would take many days of careful planning and execution, including placement of charges, structural modifications, and then controlled, sequential demolition. This would be impossible, I believe, logistically, to execute within a building occupied by thousands of white collar workers and the security staff.

Why would it have been impossible? Maintenance staff work on large buildings teeming with people. If they are working in shafts and stairwells, many white collar staf won't even know they're in the building.

I agree that an operation would be difficult, if not impossible, to rig the building for explosives without the consent or acquiescence of those in control of the buildings. Very useful to have the leaseholders onside. Chums within the leadership of the Port Authority would be handy too...

I read your reference to the work of Tim Wilkinson of the Uni of Sydney.

Not very impressive, I must say.

Here's a sample:

What about World Trade Center 7?

I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...

* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?

* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?

* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?

In other words, Tim hasn't much idea at all what happened to WTC 7. But we are encouraged to ponder a few questions.

Never mind about WTC 7 folks...

Nothing to see there!

It's just one of nature's little mysteries - and may have to stay that way, as long as there's more pressing tasks at hand such as chasing terrorists, starting wars and stamping out 'hate crimes' against obvious suspects such as Mr Silverstein.

Regarding the comments at the end of your post, Peter, thanks for what you said. I certainly believe that discourse is beneficial - and I respect people who play fair in free and open debate, people who aren't just out to 'win', score points or dissemble but who have a genuine interest in approaching that elusive Holy Grail: The Truth.

Old Socrates had a good idea or two, IMO.

Sid,

Wilkinson evaluated the twin towers. Like myself, he didn't have much in details of the design of WTC 7, and the unique design of the twin towers, due to thier hieght, made this a unique design problem for structural engineering and academia. I especially found the photos interesting.

The upshot of the site was that the collapse had much to do with the tremendous heat load and combustible laoding/damage between the floors and perimeter support.

I answer to your question I know of no similar failure, I really don't think there was one where the buildings were exterior wall supported design. There have been other plane crashed into high rises. The empire state building comes to mind, but there the building didn't collapse, although it experienced significant damage. The difference being the design differences between the WTC and the Empire State Bldg. were radically different. The WTC twin towers had a unique design to be able to attain the height of the bldgs.

But the question i have is why would conspirators go to such lengths to plant demolition materials for the WTC towers? The damage itself created the effect of extereme terror, and in my mind the attackers carfeully chose the most vulnerable targets for this type of attack.

The question about your focusing on the towers is really about not focusing on other factors which seem to me to be much more worthy of attention.

Anyway to answer you question, as far as I know, this is a very unique circumsatance. No other buildings of close to this height have been attacked as such, nor have any such buildings collapsed in this maner that I know of.

Peter

[Sid Walker]

Sid,

Wilkinson evaluated the twin towers. Like myself, he didn't have much in details of the design of WTC 7, and the unique design of the twin towers, due to thier hieght, made this a unique design problem for structural engineering and academia. I especially found the photos interesting.

The upshot of the site was that the collapse had much to do with the tremendous heat load and combustible laoding/damage between the floors and perimeter support.

I answer to your question I know of no similar failure, I really don't think there was one where the buildings were exterior wall supported design. There have been other plane crashed into high rises. The empire state building comes to mind, but there the building didn't collapse, although it experienced significant damage. The difference being the design differences between the WTC and the Empire State Bldg. were radically different. The WTC twin towers had a unique design to be able to attain the height of the bldgs.

But the question i have is why would conspirators go to such lengths to plant demolition materials for the WTC towers? The damage itself created the effect of extereme terror, and in my mind the attackers carfeully chose the most vulnerable targets for this type of attack.

The question about your focusing on the towers is really about not focusing on other factors which seem to me to be much more worthy of attention.

Anyway to answer you question, as far as I know, this is a very unique circumsatance. No other buildings of close to this height have been attacked as such, nor have any such buildings collapsed in this maner that I know of.

Peter

Thanks Peter

You ask:

why would conspirators go to such lengths to plant demolition materials for the WTC towers? The damage itself created the effect of extereme terror, and in my mind the attackers carfeully chose the most vulnerable targets for this type of attack.

If I (and millions of others) are correct, 9-11 was essentially a false-flag operation.

It was designed to set up an archetypal villain - Islamic extremism - providing cover for a series of unprovoked assaults on target nations with large Moslem populations and a stringent crack down on civil liberties.

In that context, spectacular is good.

Shock and awe is better.

There may well have been other reasons why the towers had to come down to fulfil this insane plan. Several have been suggested. Not knowing these villains personally, I can only speculate on their motives.

The waters have undoubtably been muddied by a substantial amount of deliberately seeded disinformation - using both official and unofficial channels. Some theories about 9-11 are crackpot. Others may be very accurate. Some are confusing mistures of sane analysis and rubbish.

But the willful destruction of evidence, the absurb subsequent official investigations, the glaring lack of mass media follow-up on some topics that scream out for it... these all point to a major conspiracy involving several collaborating 'intelligence services' (or senior elements therein), key elements within the western mass media and at least a handful of complicit politicians. That is not, BTW, intended to be an exhaustive list of conspiring forces. There may be others, even better shielded from scrutiny than the above.

How, for example, were the insurance / reinsurance companies bought off?

Usually those guys don't like losing billions without putting up a fight.

There has to be some very big money involved, if this scenario is correct.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Sid Walker