FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

Peter perhaps you’d be willing to tell us what you found particularly compelling in that video now that the maker has admitted that he misidentified the 1994 strip mining scar as the crash site.

[Craig Lamson]

Clearly, the photos were taken at slightly different angles both vertical, and more so horizontal. However, the angle is not large and the lamp post should still be there. I'm sure it was moved - again - NOT suspicious in and of itself. But that would not be a light object, but two or three men could move it without too much effort. I'm no expert on engines and that is what we need. The central core [visible] is surrounded by more delicate compressor vanes in multiple rows..they would easily break-off or compress. I am not qualified to make a statement as to the size being sufficient, but a large aircraft engine is huge......3-4 times this in diameter, minimum. Any aircraft engine mechanics out there?

SLIGHTY DIFFERENT ANGLE? Looks like it could be 30 to 50 degrees which is WAY more than "slight". Why has the background changed? THE CAMERA MOVED!

maybe 10 degrees, max. Where's the post. Where's the oil slick. Where's the beef?

Sure....10 degrees.... based on your vast years of experience as a photographer I presume? Where's the post? Where it would be expected with a 30--50 degree turn...in the center/right of the left hand photo..in the center of the wreckage...and CROPPED at the top of the frame.

Oil slick? There is FLUID of some sort in one image but OIL? You can tell this how? And why did this fluid have to to be in BOTH frames? You are making a gross assumption here with no basis in fact. For all we know someone added the fluid in the time between the two images.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Short amateur video seems to cast EVEN MORE doubt on Flight 93 crash!!!!!

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september...060907Video.htm

Replied to on the flt 93 thread where it belongs. Isn't 'changing the subject' one of the "25 ways to suppress the truth"?

They lied then and the same 'they' lied now.....

(1) President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck, causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal. The President was struck a second time by a bullet which entered the right-rear portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound.

(2) Governor Connally was struck by a bullet which entered on the right side of his back and traveled downward through the right side of his chest, exiting below his right nipple. This bullet then passed through his right wrist and entered his left thigh where it caused a superficial wound.

(f) There is no credible evidence that the shots were fired from the Triple Underpass, ahead of the motorcade, or from any other location.

2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.

3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. This conclusion is based upon the following:

(a) The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle from which the shots were fired was owned by and in the possession of Oswald.

( Oswald carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963.

© Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the Window from which the shots were fired.

(d) Shortly after the assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle belonging to Oswald was found partially hidden between some cartons on the sixth floor and the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found dose by the window from which the shots were fired.

(e) Based on testimony of the experts and their analysis of films of the assassination, the Commission has concluded that a rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald's capabilities could have fired the shots from the rifle used in the assassination within the elapsed time of the shooting. The Commission has concluded further that Oswald possessed the capability with a rifle which enabled him to commit the assassination.

5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination. This conclusion upholds the finding that Oswald fired the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally and is supported by the following:

(a) Two eyewitnesses saw the Tippit shooting and seven eyewitnesses heard the shots and saw the gunman leave the scene with revolver in hand. These nine eyewitnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw.

( The cartridge cases found at the scene of the shooting were fired from the revolver in the possession of Oswald at the time of his arrest to the exclusion of all other weapons.

© The revolver in Oswald's possession at the time of his arrest was purchased by and belonged to Oswald.

(d) Oswald's jacket was found along the path of flight taken by the gunman as he fled from the scene of the killing.

6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot another Dallas police officer.

7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning Oswald's interrogation and detention by the Dallas police:

(a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswald was not subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement officials. He was advised that he could not be compelled to give any information and that any statements made by him might be used against him in court. He was advised of his right to counsel. He was given the opportunity to obtain counsel of his own choice and was offered legal assistance by the Dallas Bar Association, which he rejected at that time.

( Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed uninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass when he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and other sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment and creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to orderly interrogation or the protection of the rights of the prisoner.

© The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to the press by various local law enforcement officials, during this period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous or misleading, it helped to create doubts, speculations, and fears in the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen. « Pre

8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963:

(a) Ruby entered the basement of the Dallas Police Department shortly after 11:17 a.m. and killed Lee Harvey Oswald at 11:21 a.m.

( Although the evidence on Ruby's means of entry is not conclusive, the weight of the evidence indicates that he walked down the ramp leading from Main Street to the basement of the police department.

© There is no evidence to support the rumor that Ruby may have been assisted by any members of the Dallas Police Department in the killing of Oswald.

(d) The Dallas Police Department's decision to transfer Oswald to the county jail in full public view was unsound. The arrangements made by the police department on Sunday morning, only a few hours before the attempted transfer, were inadequate. Of critical importance was the fact that news media representatives and others were not excluded from the basement even after the police were notified of threats to Oswald's life. These deficiencies contributed to the death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy. The reasons for this conclusion are:

(a) The Commission has found no evidence that anyone assisted Oswald in planning or carrying out the assassination. In this connection it has thoroughly investigated, among other factors, the circumstances surrounding the planning of the motorcade route through Dallas, the hiring of Oswald by the Texas School Book Depository Co. on October 15, 1963, the method by which the rifle was brought into the building, the placing of cartons of books at the window, Oswald's escape from the building, and the testimony of eyewitnesses to the shooting.

( The Commission has found no evidence that Oswald was involved with any person or group in a conspiracy to assassinate the President, although it has thoroughly investigated, in addition to other possible leads, all facets of Oswald's associations, finances, and personal habits, particularly during the period following his return from the Soviet. Union in June 1962.

© The Commission has found no evidence to show that Oswald was employed, persuaded, or encouraged by any foreign government to assassinate President Kennedy or that he was an agent of any foreign government, although the Commission has reviewed the circumstances surrounding Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union, his life there from October of 1959 to June of 1962 so far as it can be reconstructed, his known contacts with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee~ and his visits to the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City during his trip to Mexico from

(d) The Commission has explored all attempts of Oswald to identify himself with various political groups, including the Communist Party, U.S.A., the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and the Socialist Workers Party, and has been unable to find any evidence that the contacts which he initiated were related to Oswald's subsequent. assassination of the President.

(e) All of the evidence before the Commission established that there was nothing to support the speculation that Oswald was an agent, employee, or informant of the FBI, the CIA, or any other governmental agency. It has thoroughly investigated Oswald's relationships prior to the assassination with all agencies of the U.S. Government. All contacts with Oswald by any of these agencies were made in the regular exercise of their different responsibilities.

(f) No direct or indirect relationship between Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby has been discovered by the Commission, nor has it been able to find any credible evidence that either knew the other, although a thorough investigation was made of the many rumors and speculations of such a relationship.

(g) The Commission has found no evidence that Jack Ruby acted with any other person in the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(h) After careful investigation the Commission has found no credible evidence either that Ruby and Officer Tippit, who was killed by Oswald, knew each other or that Oswald and Tippit knew each other.

Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission.

10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official.

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that, Oswald acted alone. Therefore, to determine the motives for the assassination of President Kennedy, one must look to the assassin himself. Clues to Oswald's motives can be found in his family history, his education or lack of it, his acts, his writings, and the recollections of those who had close contacts with him throughout his life. The Commission has presented with this report all of the background information bearing on motivation which it could discover. Thus, others may study Lee Oswald's life and arrive at their own conclusions as to his possible motives. The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald's motives. It has endeavored to isolate factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy. These factors were:

(a) His deep-rooted resentment. of all authority which, was expressed in a hostility toward every society in which he lived;

( His inability to enter into meaningful relationships with people, and a continuous pattern of rejecting his environment favor of new surrounding;

© His urge to try to find a place in history and despair at times over failures in his various undertakings;

(d) His capacity for violence as evidenced by his attempt to kill General Walker;

(e) His avowed commitment to Marxism and communism, as he understood the terms and developed his own interpretation of them; this was expressed by his antagonism toward the United States, by his defection to the Soviet Union, by his failure to be reconciled with life in the United States even after his disenchantment with the Soviet Union, and by his efforts, though frustrated, to go to Cuba. Each of these contributed to his capacity to risk all in cruel and irresponsible actions.

12. The Commission recognizes that the varied responsibilities of the President require that he make frequent trips to all parts of the United States and abroad. Consistent with their high responsibilities Presidents can never be protected from every potential threat. The Secret Service's difficulty in meeting its protective responsibility varies with the activities and the nature of the occupant of the Office of President and his willingness to conform to plans for his safety. In ap praising the performance of the Secret Service it should be understood that it has to do its work within such limitations. Nevertheless, the

Commission believes that recommendations for improvements in Presidential protection are compelled by the facts disclosed in this investigation. ..........blah, blah, blah.........

The dishonorable men who wrote the above for the WC knew they lied, just as those who wrote the 911 [C]ommission report know they lied, and for the SAME reasons.

I'll post what I want where I want without taking into account your 'logic' to support the Borg.*

*The Borg are a race of cyborgs in the fictional Star Trek universe, first introduced in the Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series. They are characterized by relentless pursuit of targets for assimilation, their collective consciousness that enables rapid adaptability to almost any defence, and the ability to continue functioning properly despite seemingly devastating blows. They have become a powerful symbol in popular culture for any juggernaut against whom "resistance is futile."

Mods, this is a 9/11 thread. Please move Lemkin's OFF TOPIC JFK post to the proper forum. Thanks

[Len Colby]

Carpenter squares are made in two sizes.

16x24 inches and the less common 8x12 inches.

In the US, the common one is in inches, but there are some

with inches on one side and meters on the other side.

(from the internet)

The 16x24 one is also called a framing square and it the

most common one.

The one in the photo is unlike any I could find on the

internet. It is too small to be 16x24.

Jack

You're probably right about that Jack but that would still make the part about 36 inches across. Produce evidence that it is to small to be a part from a 767 engine.

Craig wrote: "For all we know someone added the fluid in the time between the two images." It's also possible that the liquid leaked betwen the two photos

What's your theory Peter a) the part was never there? Or it was planted?

Do you really doubt that planes hit the Trade Center? This a fringe theory even in the truth movement, anyone proposing such theories will get immediately booted from the Loose Change forum

[Len Colby]

From the forum's rules

(vi) Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread...

[Evan Burton]

Fair call - Peter, I'll move your post to the JFK forum. Which thread do you believe it should go to, or would you like it starting a new thread?

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Hi Evan,

In debunking, the word used in the title of this thread, or supporting 911's 'truth movement', I believe Peter's comparison of the Warren Commission report to the report by the 911 commission is both relevant and important to the debate in this thread. Given that the 911 commission report forms the basis of the government position to the people on the events of the day in question; a compare and contrast with the WC contributes to thread, especially given that it is broadly recognised a de facto whitewash!!!

In fact I would suggest moving Robert Charles-Dunne's post from the Osama [usama] Bin Laden thread in to thie one - as it expands greatly the comparisons made by Peter and permits a broader information base from which to debunk or support from. For both historical reference and completeness, the retention of Peter's post is important.

I only post this because I've noticed a sense of 'he who shouts prevails' permeating and attempting to direct moderation recent threads. I think most adults understand rules and in doing so are aware of what consititutes trivial or serious in their application. It gets silly when these calls for moderation become the staple post of some, especilaly over the most ridiculous rules.

Oh and you know I know you do a great job here - I hope you understand.

Gary

Edited September 10, 2007 by Gary Loughran
speling misteak

[Evan Burton]

Hi Evan,

In debunking, the word used in the title of this thread, or supporting 911's 'truth movement', I believe Peter's comparison of the Warren Commission report to the report by the 911 commission is both relevant and important to the debate in this thread. Given that the 911 commission report forms the basis of the government position to the people on the events of the day in question; a compare and contrast with the WC contributes to thread, especially given that it is broadly recognised a de facto whitewash!!!

In fact I would suggest moving Robert Charles-Dunne's post from the Osama [usama] Bin Laden thread in to thie one - as it expands greatly the comparisons made by Peter and permits a broader information base from which to debunk or support from. For both historical reference and completeness, the retention of Peter's post is important.

I only post this because I've noticed a sense of 'he who shouts prevails' permeating and attempting to direct moderation recent threads. I think most adults understand rules and in doing so are aware of what consititutes trivial or serious in their application. It gets silly when these calls for moderation become the staple post of some, especilaly over the most ridiculous rules.

Oh and you know I know you do a great job here - I hope you understand.

Gary

That also is a fair call.

Peter, could you edit your post to make its relevance clearer? Perhaps illustrate more clearly the linkage, or reduce the JFK content and try to summarise it?

As it is you have about 2000 words related to JFK out of about 2200 words, and then say something like "..and they are also lying about 9/11...". That's over 90% JFK material, not directly related to the thread.

[Craig Lamson]

Jack White has asked me to post this image for him. I'd have to say it looks to me that is was most likely moved, with the possiblilty of the engine image placed on two different backgrounds next most likely, and that a simple 10 degree rotation of the camera wouldn't produce the different background. Are there no other images of this object or less cropped ones? If one looks at the square, when I blow it up I see the divisions too small to be inches, but metric cm - it seems an counting them it is about 6 x 12 inches equivalent. A metric rule would be used fo more scientific purposes and might well be on hand by some tech types in responses to emergencies just for these purposes. It was marked with alternating white cm squares in a few places just for this kind of size of object in photo purpose.

Considering Jack White's PROVEN inability to understand the subject of photography or how a camera works, one must take his statement the camera for the two photos "were on almost the same line of sight" to be absurd. Perhaps Jack can offer some actual emperical photographinc evidence the support his claim...for once. I no longer trust his words.

[Evan Burton]

The claim that the engine remains have been moved, based on the lines Jack has provide alone, is worthless.

The engine may have been moved slightly - I don't know.... but the line used to "prove" the movement is wrong.

I'll take some similar images tomorrow after work.

Others may like to do likewise. get some type of cardboard sign, and write MURRY in neat captial letters on it, same as the street sign.

Get a cylindrical object approximately the same dimensions as the engine remains, and have a section marked equivalent to the tear in the engine casing.

Take an image with the 'tear' directly in front of the camera.

Take another image with the 'U' of Murry in line with the centreline of the camera (maybe 30 degrees rotation?).

Do NOT move either the sign or the simulated engine in between the shots. I believe the images will be similar to the images posted above, and showing the wreckage was not moved in any significant fashion and the images have not been altered.

Post your results here. Perhaps I am wrong... but I'm confident the posted images will prove me right.

[Len Colby]

Jack White has asked me to post this image for him. I'd have to say it looks to me that is was most likely moved, with the possiblilty of the engine image placed on two different backgrounds next most likely, and that a simple 10 degree rotation of the camera wouldn't produce the different background. Are there no other images of this object or less cropped ones? If one looks at the square, when I blow it up I see the divisions too small to be inches, but metric cm - it seems an counting them it is about 6 x 12 inches equivalent. A metric rule would be used fo more scientific purposes and might well be on hand by some tech types in responses to emergencies just for these purposes. It was marked with alternating white cm squares in a few places just for this kind of size of object in photo purpose.

More analysis from the person who originally claimed the part was and engine and that it was in the garbage basket. I agree with Craig and Evan the lines as drawn prove nothing even IF the sign or part were moved slightly between shots that wouldn’t be an indication of anything sinister.

Jack and Peter have yet to come up with a coherent theory of what they think this means

[Dave Greer]

The claim that the engine remains have been moved, based on the lines Jack has provide alone, is worthless.

The engine may have been moved slightly - I don't know.... but the line used to "prove" the movement is wrong.

I'll take some similar images tomorrow after work.

Others may like to do likewise. get some type of cardboard sign, and write MURRY in neat captial letters on it, same as the street sign.

Get a cylindrical object approximately the same dimensions as the engine remains, and have a section marked equivalent to the tear in the engine casing.

Take an image with the 'tear' directly in front of the camera.

Take another image with the 'U' of Murry in line with the centreline of the camera (maybe 30 degrees rotation?).

Do NOT move either the sign or the simulated engine in between the shots. I believe the images will be similar to the images posted above, and showing the wreckage was not moved in any significant fashion and the images have not been altered.

Post your results here. Perhaps I am wrong... but I'm confident the posted images will prove me right.

The red lines are meaningless, since they clearly don't terminate where the line would touch the surface of the engine. You just have to look at how low down the sign is, its approximate angle, and its proximity to the engine. Why has Jack decided to terminate them where he has? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he isn't being deliberately misleading, but the red lines are not onyl totally arbitrary, but also wrong and therefore misleading.

The whole thing is academic anyway, since we can't be certain the signpost didn't (accidentally or otherwise) get moved slightly in between photos. Would that also be seen as evidence of wrongdoing?

[Kevin M. West]

Yeah, but you can't just follow the line in the U, perspective will change the angle of those lines based on the distance and angle of the camera.

Look at the distance between the sign behind the engine and the lightpost. Now look at the other pic, and you can see the corner of that same sign, and the distance to the light puts it directly behind the engine. If that is the location of the post, then the garbage can would be just out of frame to the left in the other picture. I don't think the engine was moved, the pic was just taken from a different angle.

There are a lot more pics here: http://911review.org/brad.com/wtc_plane_debris.html

The only thing that appears to have moved is the garbage can as far as I can tell.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Kevin M. West

[Craig Lamson]

Yeah, but you can't just follow the line in the U, perspective will change the angle of those lines based on the distance and angle of the camera.

Look at the distance between the sign behind the engine and the lightpost. Now look at the other pic, and you can see the corner of that same sign, and the distance to the light puts it directly behind the engine. If that is the location of the post, then the garbage can would be just out of frame to the left in the other picture. I don't think the engine was moved, the pic was just taken from a different angle.

There are a lot more pics here: http://911review.org/brad.com/wtc_plane_debris.html

The only thing that appears to have moved is the garbage can as far as I can tell.

Thanks for the link, it really clears this up. The move is way more than 10 degrees, as evidenced by the sign behind the wreckage. We can also see that this move PUTS THE STREETLAMP behind the wreckage and that it was cropped out at the top center.

In other words lots of really bad "photo interpretation" going on ...

[Dave Greer]

I think the engine core was moved some...that alone is NOT suspicious to me. I also think when it was moved the sign was moved both to show where it was found and to show size and that also is NOT suspicious to me. To me, the only thing that would be suspicious would be if 1] this engine [albiet damaged] could be identified as the wrong type...[i can't do that...there are people out in internet land who can] - or- that it was placed there and didn't 'land' there. It looks to me like an engine core and the size may be OK...again I don't know....the compressor fans would easily break-off and bend and they provide much of the size. There have to be some New Yorkers who took photos of this or saw it or wrote about it. Again, there are people who can ID it even in its condition, I'm sure. I think the angle of change is only about 10 degrees and again the only thing strange is the background...but maybe for some unknown reason they moved it far enough to present a new background....but it is SUCH a significant part of the plane, I can't imagine there are not more images or reports of it.

I'd pretty much go along with that assessment Peter.

I thnk you'll find Jack only put the red lines to follow the inside edge of the U....nothing more...but I think the sign was moved as well as the engine. Neither strike me as suspicious in and of themselves....but could lead one to suspect [as Jack seems to be led] to some possible hanky panky because of the widely varient backgrounds. I'm neutral on this short of more info. I'm going to check for stories and photos in NYC papers. Some similar debris at other locations that day however are very much suspect and that is why Jack, I think, is casting a jaundiced eye at this one too. His way of looking at things has uncovered much in the JFK Assassination photos. Time will tell on this and other 911 photos.

Catch THIS!!!! http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

I am an A&P mechanic for a major airline. I overhaul 767's. The engines are NOT from a 767. No 767 in existence uses CFM56's. Not enough power to lift a '67.

THOSE ENGINES ON THE STREET IN NEW YORK DID NOT COME OFF A 767.

Engine location. Church & Murray Street.

And THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.rense.com/general64/wth.htm

http://www.rense.com/general63/hiding.htm

http://www.rense.com/general63/ident.htm

Haven't time just yet to look at all those Rense links, but the one I did look at didn't fill me with hope as to how scientific or objective it is. Take a look at this one:-

http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm

They refer to this picture that Popular Mechanics shows a hole made by aircraft parts in the Pentagon inner wall. Their position is that is is clearly made from the outside in by someone using a blackhoe (mechanical digger).

The red writing on the right side of the opening "Punch OUt" is the big giveaway. The orange circled 'V's directed the backhoe operator to make the opening within the V's. Note the orange arrow on left edge of the opening. The bricks on the edges have been clawed away from outside by backhoe teeth. IT IS CRYSTAL-CLEAR that this wall opening was made by contruction workers needing to access the inner Pentagon NOT by a landing gear as claimed by Popular Mechanics. Would somebody tell Popular Mechanics?

If you look closely at the photo, it's clear that the orange V was added AFTER the hole was made - hence it couldn't have been instructions for a blackhoe operator (the orange paint overlaps the inner brickwork). Further, there is a photograph ON THE SAME PAGE clearly showing no such paintwork, taken AFTER the hole was made. It seems quite clear the paint was sprayed on afterwards. Rense's stand on this makes me think their main purpose is to discredit Popular Mechanics - with this particular page they've only discredited themselves.

I'll try to look at the other stuff relating to the engine itself later.