FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Jack White]

How did this tire get stuck in a window it should have gone thru? Where is the mate to

the tire (they are arranged in sets of two)? All landing gears were retracted at the time.

The rest of the plane went thru the window...why didn't this tire?

Jack

[Jack White]

A main landing gear; the previous photo was a nose gear.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Quick question Jack - is it your belief that B767s did NOT hit WTC 1 and WTC 2?

I'd like to be clear what you are arguing for / against.

[Jack White]

Quick question Jack - is it your belief that B767s did NOT hit WTC 1 and WTC 2?

I'd like to be clear what you are arguing for / against.

I am arguing FOR planted evidence. I am arguing against the "official commercial

jets" hitting the towers. IMO, special planes filled with incendiary devices were used

to create huge fireballs and lots of smoke. These planes may or may not have been

Boeing 767s. Several witnesses said the planes striking the WTC towers HAD NO WINDOWS.

Clearly "plane parts" were salted at the Pentagon and Shanksville; why not NYC also?

Jack

[Evan Burton]

You are avoiding the question, Jack.

Could you please confirm that you contacted the photographers of each image and confirmed the times they were taken? This would obviously support your hypothesis that "...the FBI had already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it...".

Still waiting - did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

I should remind the moderator that bullying is not allowed on the forum.

Repeated taunts and insistence on answering questions is bullying.

Jack

And I'll remind you of a Forum rule:

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

I asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question, reference your comments: did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

Evan is one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum and one of its biggest bullies. How often does he cite references - not all that often - I'd like to point to his 'Bollocks' and similar taunts at me, as examples. Shameless bullying - not different than those sustained by those of us who worked on the JFK Assassination or the Civil Rights Movement, the Peace Movement or Anti-this or that War Movements - those who feel they represent the 'official' or 'conservative' views feel they can taunt; they can bash; and they even feel fighteous about it. How wonderful a moderator+provacateur and bully.

When one of those who support Evans views posts they don't get harrassed. You Evan are un-unfair, non-evenhanded bully! Jack has made carefull, thoughtful and reasonable conclusions about the general time the photos were taken. If you don't like it prove otherwise yourself and stop being a provacateur. They are obviously taken before the buildings fell [and all the dust - due to the controlled demolition - pulvarized them to dust].

Blah, blah, blah - yes Peter.

[Len Colby]

You are avoiding the question, Jack.

Could you please confirm that you contacted the photographers of each image and confirmed the times they were taken? This would obviously support your hypothesis that "...the FBI had already found this wheel, spray painted arrows under it, and moved it...".

Still waiting - did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

I should remind the moderator that bullying is not allowed on the forum.

Repeated taunts and insistence on answering questions is bullying.

Jack

And I'll remind you of a Forum rule:

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

I asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question, reference your comments: did you confirm the times the images were taken.... or are you just assuming?

Evan I think it’s clear the photos Jack so IDed were indeed precollapse due to the lack of dust. But I fail to see why it would be odd that the FBI would have responded to the locations in the 73 minutes between the 1st crash and 1st collapse since they are about 1 – 5 minutes by car from the NYC office.

Nor is there any evidence that for Jack’s claim the FBI was at any location other than Murray and Charles pre-collapse, he hasn’t produced any evidence any of the other precollapse photos were taken by or show FBI agents.

Nor has Jack presented any evidence the FBI shifted the wheel’s position or explained why that would be a problem.

Nor has Jack explained why he thinks metal plane parts should have been charred by being exposed to flame for couple of seconds.

Acording to this site http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911 Jack’s photo above was taken at the Fresh Kills landfill

Parts from the plane were taken there

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=5474

As for the wheel “lodged” in the perimeter column panel , Jack it’s time for you to do some homework

1) What is the width of a 767-200 wheel?

2) What was the space between the perimeter columns?

3) It looks to me like some of the axle is still attached to the wheel don’t you think it might have stopped the wheel?

4) How do we know the photo wasn’t miscaptioned? The wheel could have fallen into the space between the columns

5) What is the basis for your assumption the rest of the plane exited the WTC?

[Jack White]

A professional photographer who lived and worked near the WTC heard the initial

noise of the first impact. He grabbed a video camera and went to his window and

started shooting, first the towers, then street scenes. One quick pan of a street below

showed an overturned car on a sidewalk. How could an impact of a plane high in the

air overturn a car on the street and put it on its side against a building? Many witnesses

described a GROUND LEVEL EXPLOSION simultaneous with the plane impact.

Jack

[Len Colby]

A professional photographer who lived and worked near the WTC heard the initial

noise of the first impact. He grabbed a video camera and went to his window and

started shooting, first the towers, then street scenes. One quick pan of a street below

showed an overturned car on a sidewalk. How could an impact of a plane high in the

air overturn a car on the street and put it on its side against a building? Many witnesses

described a GROUND LEVEL EXPLOSION simultaneous with the plane impact.

Jack

Jack

I never heard of this vídeo. I did a couple of Google searches and could find no reference to it*. I think if a video such as you describe existed it would be better known. By contrast “What We Saw”, an amateur video shoot from several blocks away only released in 2006, is quite well known.

Please provide a link to said video or reliable reference to its existence. The image does look like it was taken in lower Manhattan on 9/11 sometime after 8:46 but it is important to know the exact time and location. It’s too low resolution to even rule out it was post-collapse.

My best guess is that the car was flipped over by ejected debris which would have been traveling at over 200 mph at that point. Presumably the side facing up was the one facing the WTC and it appears to be undamaged. It’s hard to believe a blast that could have been strong enough to flip the car over would not have broken or even visibly cracked the windows. The side view mirror seems to be folded flat against the door but people commonly due the when they park in NYC.

Two firemen reported seeing a car partially crushed by debris, it is not unreasonable to imagine that under the “right” circumstances another could have been flipped on its side.

“We just passed a compact car where the engine was running and the door was open, which looked to me like the driver had escaped, but from the back seat to the trunk was crushed by a jet engine. We started going up West Street.”

FDNY firefighter Michael Hazel

There was a car that we drove by that the driver's door and the passenger door were open, and there was a plane motor on the back half of the car. Two inches more, and both these guys would have been dead too. That was their ticket. It was amazing. The car was actually cut right in half with this motor, right there back of the front seat. I sat there in amazement.

FDNY firefighter Richard Saulle

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

The linked page has numerous references from eye witnesses to large amounts of airplane debris being scattered immediately after os seen shortly after the crashes.

As for the wheel in the window:

“Since architect Yamasaki was afraid of heights, he decided that in order to make everyone feel secure, the windows should be set just 18 inches across. “ the widows in the towers were only 18 inches wide”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa53...11/ai_n21480592

Someone else in ther same article said they “were only about 22 inches wide." but the narrower distance is confirmed by other sources:

“windows are only 18 inches wide, set between 18-. inch-wide columns and sheathed in aluminum. alloy that project 12 inches from the surface of. the glass”

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ll38154352141165/

ALSO www.newsweek.com/id/76083

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm

* Video seaches:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=v...amp;btnG=Search

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22p...amp;sitesearch=

[Evan Burton]

Soooo - have we heard an outcry of MIT people in support? No?

Wonder why that would be - perhaps because it is unsupportable? Hmmm?

[Evan Burton]

Seems Richard Gage has agreed to debate Mark Roberts on 'Hardfire' 18 JUN.

This will be very interesting... if he turns up. So far 9 prominent people - who believe there is some type of conspiracy - accepted invitations then backed out at the last minute. I note that Prof Fetzer is one that DID appear on the show.

[Evan Burton]

Just a reminder: Richard Gage will be on Hardfire in a few days, on 18 Jun.

On a related note, Hardfire also did a special on the claims surrounding WTC7. It featured Ron Wieck, Mark Roberts, and Arthur Scheuerman - FDNY Battalion Chief (Retired). It was no surprise that no "people who substantially disagree with the official 9/11 Report findings" wanted to be involved in the debate.

[Evan Burton]

From Mark Roberts:

I don't expect the shows to be on the web for a couple of weeks. Gage had them videotaped on his end. He'll send the tape to the Hardfire producer, who will combine it with the tape shot in the NY studio...a good idea which I assume was Gage's. He was connected by telephone to us. There were a few audio glitches.

The host was John Clifton, an amiable guy. I had thought he was merely sympathetic to truther claims, but he's actually a a hardcore truther. He doesn't seem to be aware of much of the evidence on the...er...evidence-based side. I kept inviting him to check out my website. He didn't seem to go out of his way to show bias against me, though. I talked with him quite a bit before and after the taping but don't think I made a dent. He's a believer in many conspiracy theories, with the overriding belief that the government controls so much information that it's impossible to know what's true. Well, the government doesn't control the physical laws of the universe, which are what falsify Richard Gage's claims.

It was originally to be one show, about the three WTC skyscraper collapses, with Gage choosing the topics. Most of my preparation was about the Twin Towers, since that's what Gage spends most of his time on and makes his most extreme claims about.

To give the show some structure and to insure equal time, last week I proposed this format:

1) Mr. Gage would choose his five best pieces of evidence in favor of controlled demolition. I would not know the topics in advance.

2) Each topic would receive a two-minute summary of evidence by the first presenter, then a two-minute rebuttal, then a 15-second response by the first presenter.

3) We would alternate being the first to present on a topic, to avoid the same person doing a rebuttal each time (assuming that I'd learn the topics when the show started). Considering overruns and topic introductions by John, that format should have taken about 24 minutes, leaving about 3 minutes for guest introductions and other topics.

That proposal was rejected.

Before we took our seats, I was informed by John Cifton that the subject was going to be restricted to WTC 7. I was not pleased by this, since I had prepared to discuss all WTC topics and had done a Hardfire show with Ron and Arthur Scheuerman about WTC 7 in February...for which we could find no prominent truther opponent. I would rather have covered new ground. However, since my policy is that I'll debate any prominent non-insane truther on their own turf, I went along with this change of plans.

As it turned out, producer Gary Popkin made time for two shows, and we did cover some Twin Towers ground in the second, although not in the detail necessary. By that time the debate had gotten pretty heated, and Gage was jumping around from claim to claim a bit. In retrospect, one show would have been almost comically insufficient, so I thank Gary for squeezing two in. Three would have been far better, but then I'd be wanting four.... As I explained to someone yesterday, I could easily do a 10-hour solo presentation on all Gage gets wrong, with no preparation. Condensing everything to a few minutes is difficult.

It was amusing hearing Gage being coached about WTC 7 specifics before the show. He didn't know we could hear him and at that point he couldn't hear us. Let's just say that he was...confused about important points with only two minutes to go.

Gage requested just before the show started that we adhere to my suggested 2-minute presentation format after all...too bad I hadn't prepared for that format. But Gage didn't want to alternate being the first to present on a topic as I had suggested. This put me at a bit of a disadvantage since I had to always respond to what he said on the show, as opposed to being able to raise the many other – and nuttier – things he says about each topic in his other presentations. There was no time to argue this point since the show was starting.

John began the show with a statement that consisted of two quotes by Ron Paul, one of which was misleading and irrelevant (the 9/11 Commission didn't discuss the collapse of WTC 7), and the other of which was wrong and irrelevant (Bin Ladens were flown out of the US after 9/11 before airspace was open to others). We were not asked to comment on those quotes. Because I didn't want to immediately embarrass a host who was already biased against me, I held my tongue. That was not easy to do.

I don't think we adhered closely to the 2-minute debate/rebuttal format, but I could be wrong about that. These shows go by so fast that they're mostly a blur. The second show was more free-form.

Gage used part of his time to play vldeos that we in New York couldn't see and for the most part couldn't hear. Although I know the context of the videos, I would rather have dealt with Gage directly.

Unlike the other Hardfire shows I've done, each of these shows was interrupted midway by a promotion for the New York Libertarian Party...more time lost.

I never got to use my two most devastating responses because Gage didn't raise the topics. I was very surprised, since he'd raised them in every presentation I'd seen him give. Perhaps he understands his vulnerability there.

The sheer volume of Gage's wrongness can be mind-numbing: in his online Powerpoint presentation I cataloged 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies. There were lots of important points I missed during the shows, but that's always the case and I don't kick myself too much about it. People will be directed to my website, where I'll have a page dedicated to these shows and links for investigating each claim. I wanted to have a graphic added for bolo's ae911truth.info site, but the producer wouldn't allow it since I hadn't mentioned it during the shows.

People shouldn't get too excited about seeing the shows. Although the debate got heated at times, I was bored stiff throughout since Gage was being more cautious than usual and no new ground was covered. With a few exceptions, they're the same old claims that had been debunked long before AE911truth existed.

There's quite a bit of editing to be done after Gary gets Gage's tape, so I don't imagine the shows will be up soon. Although it took getting him a sympathetic host, Gage gets credit for showing. It's been over a year since anyone's agreed to debate me. A couple of times, after he said certain evidence didn't exist and I explained that it did, he seemed open to reviewing that. A glimmer of light in the dark, perhaps.

[Evan Burton]

Although we are yet to view the debate, I do find it (apparently) interesting that Richard Gage did not use the opportunity to highlight the "errors" that we 'official government version believers' suffer from; instead he did not try to show the "errors" of Mark Roberts. Perhaps it was because he did not wish to highlight those areas because he avoid talking about them?

[Jack White]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...dead_bodies.htm

[Evan Burton]

Now that I'm back home with our slow internet, i don't do YouTube.

Could you summarise the claims and who they are made by?