FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Josiah Thompson]

Since Evan has given his permission, I am posting the three photos that Biggart took just before his death that show part of the west end of WTC6 during and after the collapse of the South Tower at 9:59 AM.

Jack continues to post his contrast-enhanced version of one of the photos along with a caption that reads in part: "Biggert's photo shows that Building 6 at that time had already suffered major trauma to the exterior, with soot above broken windows, drapes dangling outside and a yellow glow that may be fire inside."

Now let's take a look at the three photos. The first is the one which Jack posted:

The next one was taken a few seconds later:

The third was taken just after the debris cloud from the collapse of the South Tower has passed:

The third shows no damage to WTC6.

The GIF posted above on this thread by Dave Greer makes it easy to compare photos 1 and 2.

Jack says the first photo shows WTC6 "had already suffered major trauma." Why? Because (1) it has "broken windows" (But the comparison of the two photos makes clear that no windows are broken.), (2) there is "a yellow glow that may be fire inside" (But the comparison of the two photos makes clear that the "yellow glow" is a reflection off the unbroken windows of the approaching debris cloud.) and (3) "soot above broken windows."

Two of the three indicia of what Jack called "major trauma" are not there. They were simply the product of wrong photo interpretation. How about the third? How about the "soot" that Jack claims is above the windows? Craig Lamson makes the point that reflections change in time but soot doesn'tmove around. I see changes in the dark areas but not enough for me to say they either are or are not some feature of the building. Could what Jack sees as "soot" be simply the way the building looked that day in its normal state? I don't know. And if all the windows are unbroken, the purported "soot" could not have come from anything that happened in the building. What do you all think?

Eye examinations needed.

Jack

(I missed my typo of OPTHALMOLOGIST)

[Jack White]

.......

[Jack White]

------

[Jack White]

*****

[Jack White]

final one....

Jack

[Brian Smith]

*****

If you are correct in your analysis, then what was in building six that was so important for the plotters to destroy? Could the goal have been to create chaos in the securities and financial markets by destroying tons of files and documents relating to, or having bearing with, covert activities? Building 7 also housed thousands of financial records. It gets stranger, the more you think about it. Strange isn't even an adequate word.

[Matthew Lewis]

I think Jack's question/challenge has to be answered. It does seem to me there was a bottom level explosion before any collapse, and that it was near or in WTC6. How can that be part of the collapse - where is the rest of the huge exploding collapse that went from top down? By the way anyone have the url for the Clancy CNN piece handy?

The video is not from 9:04. CNN didn't talk to Clancy until much later. An archive with CNN footage showing the supposed 9:04 clip can be seen here

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216

notice that this clip doesn't START until 11:34 EDT

If you look through the rest of the archive for CNN's coverage at 9:04 you will not find the clip Jack labels 9:04

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

This was already discussed in detail on this other thread

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119436

A search of the archives revealed that the footage Jack refers to as 9:04 (CNN did not have the time posted on the video) that shows the cloud above WTC 6 is during the first collapse

Starting at about 19:05 in the video with a different still taken about once a second.

[Matthew Lewis]

and continued

The light area get progressively more transparent as the cloud increases. In the video one can also see downward movement. There is no building there.

I encourage everyone to watch the video in the archives themselves as the downward motion of the collapse is very apparent. Again, the archive footage with the clip that Jack says is from 9:04 is here

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216

[Jack White]

*****

If you are correct in your analysis, then what was in building six that was so important for the plotters to destroy? Could the goal have been to create chaos in the securities and financial markets by destroying tons of files and documents relating to, or having bearing with, covert activities? Building 7 also housed thousands of financial records. It gets stranger, the more you think about it. Strange isn't even an adequate word.

It was NOT just Building 6 or 7...BUT THE ENTIRE WTC COMPLEX, which was insured for

billions of dollars. Consider...SEVEN buildings were totally destroyed on 9-11. A few others

were damaged, BUT the only ones completely destroyed were ALL part of the WTC complex.

Now what were the chances of that?

Jack

[Jack White]

I think Jack's question/challenge has to be answered. It does seem to me there was a bottom level explosion before any collapse, and that it was near or in WTC6. How can that be part of the collapse - where is the rest of the huge exploding collapse that went from top down? By the way anyone have the url for the Clancy CNN piece handy?

The video is not from 9:04. CNN didn't talk to Clancy until much later. An archive with CNN footage showing the supposed 9:04 clip can be seen here

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216

notice that this clip doesn't START until 11:34 EDT

If you look through the rest of the archive for CNN's coverage at 9:04 you will not find the clip Jack labels 9:04

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

This was already discussed in detail on this other thread

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119436

A search of the archives revealed that the footage Jack refers to as 9:04 (CNN did not have the time posted on the video) that shows the cloud above WTC 6 is during the first collapse

Starting at about 19:05 in the video with a different still taken about once a second.

This is AFTER THE FACT "CYA".

Where is Lewis' required photo ID avatar?

Jack

[Len Colby]

Colby’s eyesight is plainly deficient. He fails to see the sunlight on the phone building and on people standing at West and Vesey.

No Jack your reading skills and eyesight are plainly deficient? What part of (emphasis added) “in your WTC 6 hole photo the sun is on the west faces of WFC 3, WTC 7 and the Verizon building (1st photo) thus it is clearly PM.” did you fail to understand? Since you have trouble understanding plain English I’ll rephrase that for you mirroring one of your previous statements (emphasis mine):

Jack: The time is clearly AM, since the sunshine is on the EAST face of the building

Len: The time is clearly PM, since the sunshine is on the WEST faces of the buildings

The south tower has not fallen, because other photos show the huge dustcloud blocked sunlight from reaching ground level.

No because as even you acknowledge the sun is on the WEST faces of the buildings. This irrefutablly indicates the photo was taken in the afternoon

Instead he attempts misdirection by misstating what I am showing, AND REFUSING TO ADMIT THERE IS A HUGE HOLE IN BUILDING 6. These are tactics of someone trying to obscure the truth.

There IS a hole in the building. It faces away from both towers, so no debris from either of them could have caused the hole. Colby’s refusal to admit the photo shows a hole exposes his mission here.

Jack in response to your quiz I answered “YES” when you asked if there was a hole in the building. If you don’t understand the word ‘yes’ consult a dictionary. The hole however is further back than were you indicated. The splotch you call a holeas Josiah pointed out appears to be smoke

Sorry Jack but the people and traffic lights are clearly in between WFC 3 and WFC 4 about 500 feet from West Street, note that even in this carefully cropped portion of the photo the right (south) traffic light is clearly closer to the camera than the entrance to WFC 3

[Len Colby]

Jack were’ve been through all this crap before. You have pictures showing both towers still standing and no evidence of an explosion in WTC 6 and you have a CNN video still taken after the south tower collapsed with a dust cloud near WTC. What you are identifying as WTC 2 is the dust plume that resulted from its collapse. The images were taken from similar but different angles as can be seen by the differing position of WFC 3 compared to WTC 1.

The weirdest study you produced is the one where you show smoke coming from between WFC 3 and WFC 4 as being from the explosion of WTC 6 about 500 feet away. (post 202)

A couple of simple questions:

Are you willing to acknowledge that the WTC 6 hole photo you produced was taken AFTER solar noon (12:52 PM) because the west faces of WFC 3, WTC 7 and the Verizon building are in the sunlight? If not why?

Did you send Fetzer a replacement photo showing a damage free south façade of WTC 7 after the collapse of WTC 1 or did he make that up? If it’s true why haven’t you posted it yet?

[Len Colby]

KT: You mentioned you were running west on Vesey Street, what happened after that?

PO: I just kept running. I was aware there were other people running as well. After passing the cars on fire, I was trying to find someplace safe. I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me "you can't come in here, keep running." As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that "chase" in pattern. I think I started running faster at that point.

[...]

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-r...inside-wtc.html

I’m glad that Peter posted the Patricia Ondrovic interview because it completely contradicts Jack’s “theory”.

In both the Killtown and WTC Task Force interviews she said she parked he ambulance on Vesey St. in front of WTC 6 well after flight 175 hit WTC 2 and tried to enter it through the Vesey St. lobby after the tower started to collapse. Jack claims the building blew up at the time of the crash (i.e. before she got there) and showed signs of trauma on its north (Vesey St.) and west faces before the collapse. Ondrovic however made no mention of seeing any damage to the lobby or exterior of the building in either interview.

Why would she seek shelter in a blown up building?

She was obviously and understandably terrified when the tower came down but how could she have failed to notice a massive hole in the building when she arrived.

In the Killtown interview she said she heard explosions accompanied flashes that she described as “pops” reminiscent of light bulbs blowing out. This isn’t compatible with demolition charges. She said the people in the lobby didn’t react to the “pops”

In both interviews she said there were several park ranger type police in the building some of whom wouldn’t let her in. She gave no indication that they seemed at all distressed. Why would they still be in the building (and apparently calm):

- over an hour after it was evacuated 77 – 56 minutes after the neighboring towers had been hit by jetliners

- moments after one of the neighboring 1360 foot tall 500,000 ton buildings collapsed

IF

- it had suffered a major explosion almost an hour earlier and

- things were popping in the lobby?

The most obvious explanation is that either she imagined the pops or they were the result of the collapse of the South Tower.

Her justifiable terror did cloud her recollection of the moments following the collapse, months after she claimed to have seen 2 planes explode over NJ:

I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110048.PDF pg 7

Note that she also confirms that the false report of a 3rd plane headed for the WTC came well after the 2nd crash.(relevant to Barry Jennings thread)

[Matthew Lewis]

[This is AFTER THE FACT "CYA".

Sure, Jack. Because you could never just admit you were wrong could you? What proof do you have that the video that the 9:04 time stamp has been added to (it was NOT added to it by CNN) is in fact from 9:04? All evidence seems to point to the not being from 9:04 but instead from later, closer to noon. Did you even watch the video? It is obvious in the video that the first collapse is happening and the dust cloud that rises is from that collapse. Additionally, why would CNN be talking to Tom Clancy just a minute after the second plane hit? Given Clancy's background, it makes sense to talk to him only after it is clear that this is an attack on the country. It makes no sense to talk to him before the second impact as most assumed that the first impact was an accident. You would have us believe that in a SINGLE MINUTE since the second impact, they concluded it was definitely an attack (yes this did happen quickly but not that quickly) somebody thought to talk to Clancy in all the confusion and they got him on the phone in that short of time? Preposterous! Rather, it would make sense that immediately after the second impact that they would be reshowing the impact multiple times and talking about that second impact.

In fact, if you review the archive for 9:04, this is exactly what you see.

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

They initially think the explosion from the second impact is an additional explosion from the first impact (partly because the second tower is behind the first in their view and partly because they are talking to a reporter on the street, again not Tom Clancy, and the anchor was not watching the video feed). It is not until 9:04 and into 9:05 that they realize that a second plane even hit. It is not until 9:06 that they reshow the second impact. Why can't you just admit that you are wrong about that still that you purport shows an cloud from an explosion in building 6 on your still from the CNN video that was mislabled as 9:04?

Where is Lewis' required photo ID avatar?

Jack

That is me in the photo on my avatar so the answer is right where it is supposed to be. Remember, that is the same photograph that you misidentified me as wearing a militay uniform. Yet another thing you have never admitted to being wrong on.

Edited July 13, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

Colby’s eyesight is plainly deficient. He fails to see the sunlight on the phone building and on people standing at West and Vesey.

No Jack your reading skills and eyesight are plainly deficient? What part of (emphasis added) “in your WTC 6 hole photo the sun is on the west faces of WFC 3, WTC 7 and the Verizon building (1st photo) thus it is clearly PM.” did you fail to understand? Since you have trouble understanding plain English I’ll rephrase that for you mirroring one of your previous statements (emphasis mine):

Jack: The time is clearly AM, since the sunshine is on the EAST face of the building

Len: The time is clearly PM, since the sunshine is on the WEST faces of the buildings

The south tower has not fallen, because other photos show the huge dustcloud blocked sunlight from reaching ground level.

No because as even you acknowledge the sun is on the WEST faces of the buildings. This irrefutablly indicates the photo was taken in the afternoon

Instead he attempts misdirection by misstating what I am showing, AND REFUSING TO ADMIT THERE IS A HUGE HOLE IN BUILDING 6. These are tactics of someone trying to obscure the truth.

There IS a hole in the building. It faces away from both towers, so no debris from either of them could have caused the hole. Colby’s refusal to admit the photo shows a hole exposes his mission here.

Jack in response to your quiz I answered “YES” when you asked if there was a hole in the building. If you don’t understand the word ‘yes’ consult a dictionary. The hole however is further back than were you indicated. The splotch you call a holeas Josiah pointed out appears to be smoke

Sorry Jack but the people and traffic lights are clearly in between WFC 3 and WFC 4 about 500 feet from West Street, note that even in this carefully cropped portion of the photo the right (south) traffic light is clearly closer to the camera than the entrance to WFC 3

I do not know why I respond to such misinformation...except that people might actually believe it

if not shown to be wrong.

Jack