FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

From another thread:

I'll let people look at the evidence provided and make up their own minds. I just thought that Jack might want to correct himself, in line with his oft repeated statement - but I didn't expect it, because the statement he made regarding correcting himself has no basis in reality.

I guess 8 months has not been enough time for Jack to keeps his promise to correct studies that have been shown to be wrong or does he still believe the part was actually a jet engine "small and light enough to deposit in [the] wire wastepaper basket"?

[Evan Burton]

I wouldn't expect any correction from Jack. He makes errors and refuses to correct them. That has been demonstrated on this forum on multiple times. You can draw your own conclusions how that affects the veracity of his claims.

[Jack White]

I wouldn't expect any correction from Jack. He makes errors and refuses to correct them. That has been demonstrated on this forum on multiple times. You can draw your own conclusions how that affects the veracity of his claims.

Are you guys still harping on the wastebasket? I corrected that more than a year

ago. Maybe David never posted it. Maybe he never got it. I seldom check the website.

I seldom read trivial postings of Colby and Burton. If you are so interested, contact

him and ask about it. I will try to find the revision and resend it if he does not

have it. It is such a trivial point. You ought to be more concerned about the

alleged "jet engine" and how it got in under a scaffold and knocked down a

street sign. Looks planted to me...in this only early shot showing the ENTIRE area

before it was "cleaned up" for photo ops.

Please explain this photo...instead of questioning my veracity.

Jack

[Jack White]

Maybe you'd rather explain this one with the two tires from the jet.

Or explain why the "jet engine" looks about the same size as the

wire wastebasket.

Nah...you guys don't do research...just criticize those who do.

Jack

[Jack White]

Maybe you had rather explain this one. I already know

what your response will be.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Are you guys still harping on the wastebasket? I corrected that more than a year

ago.

Jack you make various claims based on your supposed and largely self declared expertise as a photo-analyst. You made a blunderous error that seriously undermines your claim to said expertise. This was only one of a few major errors you’ve made just on this forum, others that come to mind were misidentifying the Pentagon impact point by several hundred feet and claiming the WFC Winter Garden was a building that had fallen over.

You corrected error that before Matthew pointed it out, are you sure about that? Why is this the 1st you told us this?

Maybe David never posted it. Maybe he never got it. I seldom check the website.

I think the rest of us were under the impression you ran the website after all the contact e-mail is yours. But I did a whois search and indeed the site is registered to David Percy. One would think you would have checked it again after Mathew started this thread and asked him to correct it.

I seldom read trivial postings of Colby and Burton. If you are so interested, contact

him and ask about it. I will try to find the revision and resend it if he does not

have it. It is such a trivial point.

Trivial is in the eye of the beholder. To me it demonstrates that your ability to understand what you see in photos can at times be well below that of the average person.

You ought to be more concerned about the alleged “jet engine” and how it got in under a scaffold and knocked down a street sign.

Jack, you do know what an arc is don’t you? It is unreasonable to believe the engine PART would have dropped straight down out of the sky. That would violate fundamental physics. Since Murray St. is north of where the WTC was it is obviously from flight 175 which hit the South Tower. According to a leading CT site (see link below) this is the corner of Murray and Church streets. Thus the part traveled about 800 feet horizontally as it fell almost 1000 feet. Thus the scaffolding would have been unlikely to interfere with the trajectory.

This image shows a piece of airplane debris, probably the engine or part of it exiting the South Tower.

This image shows the part still smoking

This one supposedly from the Naudet Bros film shows that the part is bigger than you imagined This can also been seen in your image if we compare the height of the part to the walk/don't walk sign

This one seems to indicate the part did crack the side walk

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetengine2cutC.jpg

All above images (except map) from http://www.rense.com/general64/wth.htm

It also could have bounced and or rolled or been move to the location where it was photographed. If it were in the middle of the street and the FDNY though it was an impediment they would have moved it.

Looks planted to me...

This coming from the guy who used to think it was in the garbage can

in this only early shot showing the ENTIRE area

Can you document your claim it is the “early shot showing the ENTIRE area”? Do you mean it is the only one you could find? You had never seen the Winter Garden before either.

before it was “cleaned up” for photo ops.

Can you provide evidence for your claim the area ‘was “cleaned up” for photo ops.’?

Please explain this photo...instead of questioning my veracity.

No need to it’s already been explained on this thread and on this page from Jim Hoffman a leading “truther”

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynold...tml#f175_debris

Edited May 6, 2008 by Evan Burton
Added "Can you" to statements; they sounded like demands. We cannot compel someone to do anything

[Len Colby]

Maybe you'd rather explain this one with the two tires from the jet.

Or explain why the "jet engine" looks about the same size as the

wire wastebasket.

Nah...you guys don't do research...just criticize those who do.

Jack

Jack I don't know if it's just me but I don't see an image in this post.. As has been explained to you several times to you alredy the object is an engine CORE not and entire engine. There have already been several posts about that on this thread

[Len Colby]

Maybe you had rather explain this one. I already know

what your response will be.

Jack

I don't see an image here either

[Jack White]

The FBI was immediately at Church and Murray, examing two tires and an engine part.

They also photographed them. Has anyone seen the FBI reports or photos. Or are they

classified?

Jack

[Jack White]

Is it possible that this is one of the "tires" in Church Street?

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Is it possible that this is one of the "tires" in Church Street?

Jack

I have no idea where or when that image was taken, but that is almost certainly part of a turbine assembly.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/powturb.html

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turbparts.html

[Evan Burton]

That must weigh a ton or two and falling from up near the top of the towers it would have broken the concrete, pavement or made a small crater - and not be neatly sitting there, tucked-in under a scaffold, next to some undamaged poles etc.

How do you know it was the impact point? Who says it fell directly down, rather than at an angle with some forward momentum? You are just assuming these things.

The chances are as 'good' as those Cessna non-pilots flying large commercial craft like airforce aces.

You ignore the FACT that the hijacker pilots had commercial pilot licences, had flown B757 or B767 Level B Full Flight Simulators numerous times, had flight manuals and cockpit posters of the aircraft, etc. Added into this is - to the best of my knowledge - your total lack of aeronautical experience versus rated-on-type pilots who say even a non-pilot could be taught the fly the profiles with about 30 mins instruction.

....even the laws of Physics were suspended that day - so the official version would have us believe.

Interesting that you bring up physics. Why is it that people who claim that the physics was wrong, who show how it must have been CD, refuse to have their work subjected to peer-review in mainstream journals? Perhaps because they are well aware it would be laughed at? That it is fantasy, not physics?

And most sinister about this 'engine' and possible 'landing gear' is they would all have unique part ID numbers that have never been released http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149?page=1 How can 'National Security' be at risk? ONLY, I fear, that the numbers wouldn't match those of the 'flights' we are told hit the towers that day!

Len has covered that previously.

Jack, I've never seen the FBI reports on the 'examination' of the soft-landing of those 'parts' and can't locate any information on them.

Why would there specifically be some? It would be reported that a certain part was found in a certain location. If that appeared suspicious or impossible, THEN I can imagine an investigation being conducted. So, do air crash investigators, the people who make their living investigating this type of stuff, look at the debris location and cry out "That cannot be right"? Nope; they see no problems with it.

You just start from the premise [or job] that the official explanation must be supported at all cost and any who would question it must be drowned out.

That is incorrect. If I see EVIDENCE, not speculation, fantasy, or maniacal ravings, but evidence that it was an "inside job", I'll review my opinions. Until then, I have not seen anything to sway my opinion - nor the opinion of the large majority of people. Nor the opinion of people like physicists, engineers, demolition experts, airline pilots, military pilots, etc.

Also, the reports have been quite clear that this was an unprecedented event and that the exact collapse mechanisms are extremely complex; that the mechanisms given in investigation reports are the best explanations so far supported by the evidence. Like all good science, if errors are found or new information becomes available, the mechanisms are reviewed and revised.

It's coming up to seven years since that tragic day, and yet there is still no massive upswell of professionals claiming "It could not happen this way!"; all we see is the lunatic fringe in any group, the uninformed, or the people who just make things up to feel important.

The problem with you, Peter, and people like you, is that your hatred of the US and continual conspiracy claims act in exactly the opposite direction to which you claim to want to proceed. Hell, you are a 'black ops' team's wet dream! You keep crying "wolf!" Everything is a conspiracy! You are so busy shouting out that Rome is burning that if there is a fire, no-one will listen. The day that you do discover some evidence of a government plot (and I have no doubt they do exist), no-one will pay any attention to you because of your track record.

This false-flag operation allowed a genocidal war... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

(Obviously, the 'blah blah' is mine)

Edited May 6, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Len Colby]

The FBI was immediately at Church and Murray, examing two tires and an engine part.

They also photographed them. Has anyone seen the FBI reports or photos. Or are they

classified?

Jack

Jack what evidence do you have that “The FBI was immediately at Church and Murray”? It would not be at all surprising if they got there quickly they often assist in crash investigations even when criminal activity is not suspected. The NYC FBI office is 0.5 miles a 1 – 2 min drive, 3 – 6 min run or 10 minute walk from Church and Murray.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=26+Feder...007296&z=17

...examing two tires

Is it possible that this is one of the "tires" in Church Street?

Is it possible that this may be one of the "tires" in Church Street? Looks like part of the engine

I agree Jack it looks like an engine part, who besides you said they were tires? Even so it wouldn’t surprise me if of the potentially dozens of parts to be ejected some would end up falling close to each other

The whole s/n business is absurd

1) It's not SOP to include s/n info in NTSB crash reports, can't say about FBI reports because they aren't normally made public

2) Even if the info was produce "no planers" would simply claimed it was faked.

Evan wrote

Len has covered that previously.

Most truthers love rehashing the the same points even if thay can't counter the counter arguments

Peter wrote:

That must weigh a ton or two and falling from up near the top of the towers it would have broken the concrete, pavement or made a small crater - and not be neatly sitting there, tucked-in under a scaffold, next to some undamaged poles etc.

1st you need to eliminate the possibility the part bounced or rolled or was moved to the location it was photographed.

Then you need to due some calculations as to the part’s mass, velocity and angle of impact, the amount of energy expended cracking the mend between the concrete square were the part was and the adjoining ones and then the strength of the sidewalk and show that it should have (futhur) broken the pavement. When you’ve done that get back to us. Harder to imagine is the part being planted there in broad daylight in front of witnesses without anybody saying a word.

The whole idea that anything other that Boeing 767’s hit the Twin Towers, especially the south one, is so bizarre and unfounded that even most ‘truthers’ reject it as lunacy at best or a ‘posion pill’ at worse meant to make the movement look like a bunch of lunatics

Edited May 7, 2008 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

http://911review.org/Wiki/WTCPlaneEngine.shtml

Is the author that stupid? Have they actually looked at engines?

What we are seeing is the rear sections of the engine, the turbine section. Also, notice that part of the outer cover matches the RB211 cover:

You should suggest to the author they try to read AND comprhend what is said here:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[Len Colby]

Jack’s mention of “tires” in quotes being found near the engine part suggests he was under the impression the “official story” was that they were recovered from the same location. That was not the case.

From page 6 of Chapter 1 of the ASCE/FEMA report

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

2 landing gears from flight 175 were found on rooftops 2 from flight 11(though the figure only show 1) were found on other street corners to the south of the North Tower

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-69_landi...ctor-s-full.jpg

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-70_tire-...-panel-full.jpg

Here’s another image of the engine core being ejected from the South Tower

The asphalt adjacent to the location where the part was photographed was in shape. Its possible it impacted close to where the smaller parts were found and was moved.

The no planers want serial numbers? Here ya go

All images from http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

If Jack or Peter have the time and patience NIST released a 462 base report about the effects of the plane parts on the towers. I believe it mentions the engine core. It's over 57MG and slowed down my computer too much

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf

It is broken down into more manageable chunks here http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm