FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Dave Greer]

Dr. Judy Wood exposes fake 911 videos...in sync with genuine videos.

http://drjudywood.com/videos/videos.html#destroy

Jack

Here's a direct link to Judy Woods video.

http://www.livevideo.com/media/playvideo_f...421B4871A5B9BCD

Here's a screenshot so we can see what being discussed. Judy Wood asserts that the two video feeds on the left are genuine, the two on the right are fake (tyhe planes have been added in since they aren't visible in the left hand clips).

For the time being I'll restrict my analysis to the bottom two images.

You can see a more extended version of the bottom left "Chopper 4" feed at the following link.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zQTsiLX3XbA

It shows several extra seconds of footage before Judy Woods footage starts. At 00:11, something comes into view (albeit difficult to see due to the distance from the camera, and mpg artefaction. I've highlighted it below in a still.)

You can see something (not identifiable as a plane, or anything else), fly towards the south tower. It disappears from view (blocked by the north tower) at about 00:18. The explosion comes out of the near side of the south tower at about 00:21, some three seconds after the "object" disappeared from view.

Now look at the Judy Wood "bottom left" video. The explosion comes out of the north side of the south tower approximately 2 seconds after the clip starts. It is impossible to see whatever hit the south tower in her clip because it is occluded by the north tower, as proven by the Youtube Chopper 4 footage.

I've summarised this in an animated GIF below. There is a slight drop in quality which makes it even harder to see the "flying object", but you can confirm it's existence and it's flight path, and the timings, by checking the video link above.

It seems as if Judy Wood has edited the Chopper 5 footage so that the "flying object" simply was not visible in the clip she claims to be genuine, and is using this as proof that the right hand clip showing a plane from a different angle must be faked. The exact words from her website are:-

If you think both videos on the right are real, you must have rather serious mental problems.

Really. I'd suggest something else. Judy Wood has been deliberately deceptive in order to try and deceive people who didn't have access to the longer clip. I'd expect little else from someone who claims the towers were destroyed by death rays from CIA satellites.

[Len Colby]

Colby says the smoke on Vesey Street was from one of the collapsed towers.

Here is what Vesey Street looked like then. Do the look the same?

Jack

Jack’s “photo analysis” in this case suffers from the same type of blatant errors recently caught by Tink, Matthew and me. He concluded that the traffic lights seen in the image on the left above were at the intersection of Vesey and West streets. They are indeed on Vesey but even a cursory examination reveals they are closer to camera than (i.e. west of) the building in the foreground on the right which is World Financial Center 3 (WFC3). This can be seen even more clearly in the blown-up crop below.

In the uncropped photo we can see the entire north face of WFC 3, the 2 northern most window rows of the west face and the connection that leads to WFC 4

We can see many of the same features in Google Maps street view. Note the crosswalk at the bottom of the image

Note also that in Jack’s image above the ambulance is a good distance away from the traffic light. It was about 1000 feet from the North Tower and about 500 from where Jack’s 2nd photo was taken which is why neither debris nor dust are visible.

.

Jack and Peter you high school physics review is irrelevant I’ve already posted 3 video clips showing heavy smoke coming out of the south face of 7 WTC

EDIT TYPOS FIXED, INCORRECT PHOTO SUBSTITUTED

Edited July 11, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Building 7 looks OK in this photo...but why did this bus burn to a crisp?

Jack

The phot shows the side of the building furthest from and least affected by the collapse of 1 WTC.

Jack's photo (from another post) showing the south face of 7 WTC is as even Jack acknowledges of very low quality, too low to determine if it has been damaged. Strong fires are only reported to have developed several hours after the collapse

[Jack White]

What a crock of irrelevant non-sequiturs by the un-truthers!

They are afraid of my quiz and its yes or no answers.

The photo shows a huge hole in the Vesey face of Building 6.

It shows firemen in West Street spraying water.

The building is on fire.

The un-truthers are afraid to admit to the explosion in Building 6,

because it does not fit the official story.

Jack

[Jack White]

Dr. Judy Wood exposes fake 911 videos...in sync with genuine videos.

http://drjudywood.com/videos/videos.html#destroy

Jack

Here's a direct link to Judy Woods video.

http://www.livevideo.com/media/playvideo_f...421B4871A5B9BCD

Here's a screenshot so we can see what being discussed. Judy Wood asserts that the two video feeds on the left are genuine, the two on the right are fake (tyhe planes have been added in since they aren't visible in the left hand clips).

For the time being I'll restrict my analysis to the bottom two images.

You can see a more extended version of the bottom left "Chopper 4" feed at the following link.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zQTsiLX3XbA

It shows several extra seconds of footage before Judy Woods footage starts. At 00:11, something comes into view (albeit difficult to see due to the distance from the camera, and mpg artefaction. I've highlighted it below in a still.)

You can see something (not identifiable as a plane, or anything else), fly towards the south tower. It disappears from view (blocked by the north tower) at about 00:18. The explosion comes out of the near side of the south tower at about 00:21, some three seconds after the "object" disappeared from view.

Now look at the Judy Wood "bottom left" video. The explosion comes out of the north side of the south tower approximately 2 seconds after the clip starts. It is impossible to see whatever hit the south tower in her clip because it is occluded by the north tower, as proven by the Youtube Chopper 4 footage.

I've summarised this in an animated GIF below. There is a slight drop in quality which makes it even harder to see the "flying object", but you can confirm it's existence and it's flight path, and the timings, by checking the video link above.

It seems as if Judy Wood has edited the Chopper 5 footage so that the "flying object" simply was not visible in the clip she claims to be genuine, and is using this as proof that the right hand clip showing a plane from a different angle must be faked. The exact words from her website are:-

If you think both videos on the right are real, you must have rather serious mental problems.

Really. I'd suggest something else. Judy Wood has been deliberately deceptive in order to try and deceive people who didn't have access to the longer clip. I'd expect little else from someone who claims the towers were destroyed by death rays from CIA satellites.

Greer is trying to mislead...or he did not comprehend Dr. Woods. SHE DID NOT PRODUCE THE

VIDEOS. She is merely endorsing them. Both videos are plainly credited to the two different

producers. Accusing her of "editing" the videos is grossly misleading.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

You posted a photo with the caption, "Building 6 before the tower collapsed." The photo was taken after the collapse of both towers. Why? Because in the photo hoses are spraying water on Building 6 and this did not happen until after both towers had collapsed. Of course, Building 6 is on fire. It was hit by the North Tower. Of course, there was damage to its north wall. It was hit by the North Tower. Why not just admit that you were mistaken and the photo does not make the point you were trying to make because it was taken after the collapse of both towers? You are not gaining credibility by continuing say over and over again the same thing. A genuine discussion requires that if you're wrong you admit you're wrong. Why not try it?

What a crock of irrelevant non-sequiturs by the un-truthers!

They are afraid of my quiz and its yes or no answers.

The photo shows a huge hole in the Vesey face of Building 6.

It shows firemen in West Street spraying water.

The building is on fire.

The un-truthers are afraid to admit to the explosion in Building 6,

because it does not fit the official story.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

You write: " I personally think that Jack has found a big possible discrepancy in the hole in WTC6 before the collapses."

The point is that either Jack White or someone else miscaptioned the photograph. It was taken after the collapse because it shows streams of water being trained on WTC6, something which did not happen until after WTC6 was virtually demolished by the collapse of the North Tower. The photo offered as evidence is not evidence of what Jack believes it to be since it was taken after the collapse not before it. Pointing this out is not any sort of personal attack but the sort of thing that intelligent people expect in discussion of historical events. Isn't this exactly what you have in mind when you advise us to "stick to the facts." I would add that in disregarding this point you are in fact disregarding your own advice.

Secondly, the claim that people who disagree with the "truthers" interpretation of events are backing some "official version" and hence are some sort of pawns of the Bush administration... that claim itself is both insulting and way off the mark. I happen to be investigating this for one side in a lawsuit. If the "truthers" claims were remotely plausible, I'd jump on their bandwagon in a minute. Why? Because if Larry Silverstein and persons unknown brought down WTC7 with controlled demolitions and this was demonstrable. we'd win the case in a New York minute. The fact is that the truthers claims about the collapse of WTC7 just don't pass the elementary smell test when one tries to prove them in terms of witness testimony and photos. We know with fair exactitude now what happened to bring down WTC7 and it has to do with negligence not criminal conspiracy. None of this has anything to do with being government pawns or with political persuasions. It has to do with boring factual analyses and engineering calculae.

Amazing, but not unexpected, is the rather endless character assassination by those who support more generally the official version against those who dare to question it. Attacks against Jack White by Colby and others; attacks against Fetzer, the point of this thread; attacks against various witnesses [and highly selective about which ones]; attacks against Woods who, I think, is just trying to make sense of the garbled and illogical offical versions - even if I don't buy her deathray idea, it bears examination as a possible explanation - even if then rejected; attacks against me and others for posting in challenge to the official version rather than genuflecting to the authorities and their pronouncements of officially sanctioned facts [after all, they've never lied to us before!]. And one could go on, and on. Are you there who believe the official version out to find the truth or do you already know it [like those who 'know - just know!' Oswald did it and all others are nuts and need to be expsosed as such. Your types would have told the explorers not to sail as they'd fall off the edge of the world - and when they came back and said they hadn't falled off, you'd have tried character assassination on them. Do you have an agenda other than the pursuit of the objective truth? Stick to the facts - best we can determine them - and stop the personal attacks, I'd suggest. The lack of civility of some gives away their real motive, IMO. Anyone who claims their are not multiple unanswered questions, deep mysteries, unexplained failures of men and buildings, odd happenings and a long chain of peculiar (some think suspicious) 'coincidences' on 9/11/01 are blind, cognitively impaired, in denial or complicit, IMO. Anyone who thinks objective, uncontrolled and/or complete investigations were done, likewise, IMO. I'd love to be wrong on 9/11. I'd love to be wrong on Dallas, RFK, MLK, many other 'events'....but I see in both the evidence (in my considered judgement up to this time) that I'm not, and in the endless repeating patterns and similar m.o.'s. You obviously differ, but do so with the facts and stop with the attacks - my humble suggestion. Also try to look past your 'patriotism' and mythology about the 'goodness' of the society and its leaders. Look at the facts and the physics and past your predjudices and blindnesses.

Josiah is correct in saying that many [even most] of the photos and films have not been objectively defined in time - part of the incomplete [i'm being kind] 'investigation'. I think, however, generally people try to make a logical deduction from the photo as to when. Others can differ, but base it on some facts and not on wishfull thinking or scenario continuity. I personally think that Jack has found a big possible discrepancy in the hole in WTC6 before the collapses. Bottom line. EVEN IF WTC7 had been a raging inferno [it was not] it should not have collapsed; and not as it did; nor would anyone have any reason to suspect it would. Ditto the twin towers. Then there are the small matters of the flights not being stopped by the airforce and the strange events at the Pentagon and Hanksville; not to mention the behavior of many officials from Rumsfeld to Chaney to W. You official versioners have a lot of explaining to do, I think. So do we who question it all. No one can deny it was a massive event. It will take time and work - sadly the officials are not helping - but just trying to make it all go away - from the funding and connections to the 'attackers'; through the attacks; to the anthrax; to the controlled investigations; destruction of evidence, classification and witholding of evidence/ documents, IMO. You might ask why - if you dare. You might look at the Gestalt - unless that offends your 'religious' views about American Governance. Looks to me like Dallas and a host of other false-flag operations writ large. And look how each of these events was used to change the society and the polity/policies. A pattern some just don't want to see. More and more are slowly awakening, however. In the end, I think these analyses are not just academic, but a fight for the future of humanity. Nothing less.

[Dave Greer]

Greer is trying to mislead...or he did not comprehend Dr. Woods. SHE DID NOT PRODUCE THE

VIDEOS. She is merely endorsing them. Both videos are plainly credited to the two different

producers. Accusing her of "editing" the videos is grossly misleading.

Jack

You are correct Jack, she didn't produce them herself. But as you say she does endorse them by hosting them on her website. You did, however, introduce the clip by saying "Dr Judy Wood exposes fake 911 videos".

Either she didn't bother to research the claims, in which case why host them on her website, or she did research the claim and hoped it would get past the casual viewer.

Regardless, the premise of the video itself has been shown to be false, since it is impossible for the plane to have been visible in the clip shown in the bottom left. Did you research the claim yourself, or did you assume it to be correct? Do you agree the claim has been shown to be false (at least the clip I addressed?)

[Evan Burton]

Secondly, the claim that people who disagree with the "truthers" interpretation of events are backing some "official version" and hence are some sort of pawns of the Bush administration... that claim itself is both insulting and way off the mark. I happen to be investigating this for one side in a lawsuit. If the "truthers" claims were remotely plausible, I'd jump on their bandwagon in a minute. Why? Because if Larry Silverstein and persons unknown brought down WTC7 with controlled demolitions and this was demonstrable. we'd win the case in a New York minute. The fact is that the truthers claims about the collapse of WTC7 just don't pass the elementary smell test when one tries to prove them in terms of witness testimony and photos. We know with fair exactitude now what happened to bring down WTC7 and it has to do with negligence not criminal conspiracy. None of this has anything to do with being government pawns or with political persuasions. It has to do with boring factual analyses and engineering calculae.

[Len Colby]

Secondly, the claim that people who disagree with the "truthers" interpretation of events are backing some "official version" and hence are some sort of pawns of the Bush administration... that claim itself is both insulting and way off the mark. I happen to be investigating this for one side in a lawsuit. If the "truthers" claims were remotely plausible, I'd jump on their bandwagon in a minute. Why? Because if Larry Silverstein and persons unknown brought down WTC7 with controlled demolitions and this was demonstrable. we'd win the case in a New York minute. The fact is that the truthers claims about the collapse of WTC7 just don't pass the elementary smell test when one tries to prove them in terms of witness testimony and photos. We know with fair exactitude now what happened to bring down WTC7 and it has to do with negligence not criminal conspiracy. None of this has anything to do with being government pawns or with political persuasions. It has to do with boring factual analyses and engineering calculae.

Sorry Evan - You're a moderator applauding other members posts is purile!

[Len Colby]

What a crock of irrelevant non-sequiturs by the un-truthers!

Yeah Jack you gave a similar reply after I showed that you had completely misidentified the impact pont of the Pentagon, I believe you exact words were “meaningless mass of crap” not long afterwards though you were forced to admit I was right. Sorry but the location you IDed as the intersection of West and Vesey was actually half a block west.

They are afraid of my quiz and its yes or no answers.

The photo shows a huge hole in the Vesey face of Building 6.

It shows firemen in West Street spraying water.

The building is on fire.

The un-truthers are afraid to admit to the explosion in Building 6,

because it does not fit the official story.

I can’t speak for the others but I didn’t take your “quiz” because it seemed like a nonsensical waste of time

1] Yes,

2] Yes it was caused by falling debris from WTC 1,

3] Yes the building caught on fire

4] No, the location is about 1000 - 1200 feet from were the north tower used to be. That’s straight line distance, 3 WFC was in the way.

5] Yes see reply to question 3]

You see Jack no one disputes that the building caught on fire. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) / FEMA report:

"WTC 4, 5, and 6 are eight and nine story steel-framed office buildings,…Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed, as well as the fires that developed from the debris…WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch4.htm

Some have complained that report only focused on the fires in WTC 5 but ithey ignored the following:

"This chapter describes the design and construction features of these buildings and observed damages. Site observations of damage in WTC 5 and WTC 6 were conducted by team members, although access in WTC 6 was severely limited. WTC 4 was declared unsafe, and no access was allowed.

All three buildings were designed by Leslie E. Robertson Associates and had similar design features, although their configurations were somewhat different. Therefore, because most site observations were made in WTC 5, the following discussion focuses primarily on this building, and is assumed to be applicable to all three structures."

[ibid]

About 2 dozen of the emergency responders mention seeing 6 WTC after the 2nd crash (when you claim the explosion took place) none say anything about the building being blown up or damaged before the collapse of the North Tower:

I was probably like somewhere around Barclay Street when the second building got hit. I didn’t see the building get hit. We just heard the building got hit. Then I came across this way and I came to—towards the front of the World Trade Center.

[…]

…I ended up going behind what’s 6 World Trade Center, which I never knew what number that was, but I ended up going behind the 6 World Trade Center, came in front of the building here where the old hotel was and that’s where they had set up a lot of those command centers right there. When that first wall collapsed, I just pulled away from there. I mean I just pulled away from there when that wall collapsed, and at that point, one of the EMTs who was with me in the front who was very upset, you know, he said, you know, should we go back, should we go back.

WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEW: PARAMEDIC GEORGE BURBANO

Interview Date: October 11, 2001 pgs 9 – 10

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives...pts/9110056.PDF

We looked left and right, could see the devastation on the street [from the collapse of the south tower]. We saw a couple of rigs collapsed and cars and again still not realizing what the nature was. We reached the plaza. We were underneath…We were walking underneath

number 6 World Trade Center.

[…]

As we reached the corner of the 6 World Trade Center, the customs building, like in the plaza area when you walk in and then the building, the corner of it, we turned the corner and we saw this large mass of people.

WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEW: EMS DIVISION CHIEF JOHN PERUGGIA

Interview Date: October 25, 2001 pgs. 24 – 6

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives...pts/9110160.PDF

Peruggia did say 6 WTC was "fully involved" just before WTC 1 collapsed but be also said he saw burning debris fall on the building. I believe he was mistaken he even admitted "at this point things get a little cloudy" and his account is at variance with all others.

[shortly after the 2nd collapse] 7 World Trade Center was on fire…there was a lot of work going on over in the entrance to the – I don't know if it was an entrance. I think it was a wall. There was just a ton of debris over here, 6 World Trade Center. They were working just to search,to see if they could find anybody. But the Tower Ladder was operating right here at this corner, West and Vesey, and it was taking people off 6 World Trade Center, I believe off the roof.

WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEW: FIREFIGHTER KEVIN MARTIN

Interview Date: December 5, 2001

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives...pts/9110232.PDF

at that time, I think it was the lobby of the building behind us [2 WTC] blew out. Everybody started running, … I started running towards the West Side Highway, and there was another building on the corner, I guess it was a federal building, cause it was all the green and gray uniforms with the Smokey the Bear hats, the cops in there. I went to run in the lobby cause all of a sudden you couldn't see anything. There was smoke, there was debris, there was everything flying around. I ran into the lobby cause I had no idea what had happened and the cops that were in there were telling everybody get out, get out, get out.

WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEW: EMT PATRICIA ONDROVIC

Interview Date: October 1 1, 200 1

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

We started walking north to just about the second footbridge, which would be 6 World Trade, and all of a sudden we heard the explosion and the building [2 WTC] started to come down… I met up with Craig Monahan again and he said come on, come on, let's take 5 Truck's rig because there's guys on 6 World Trade, on the Customs Building,there's a little balcony there. So we moved the tiller. He told me turn the wheel all the way to the right. We backed the rig up. We put the rig up. We put the ladder up. There was a couple of Port Authority cops, a couple of firemen, I'm not too sure from where.

We got up the pedestal, and then the second one came down, and once it started to come down, we ran.

[…]

I met with Ray Reilly, who was a Lieutenant in 248, and we were trying to get up onto 6 World Trade because there was a guy on the top floor of 6 World Trade hanging out the window.

WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEW: FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH RAE

Interview Date: December 10, 2001 pgs 3 -5

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110294.PDF

Click these links for the rest: http://tiny.cc/WT6 , http://tiny.cc/wtc6. Interviews with civilians who saw the building after the 2nd crash were posted on the other thread.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

What are the white oblong objects seen in so many of the windows?

I know it may have been a dumb question (hence no response), but can anyone identify for me these objects in WTC7 windows?

[Jack White]

What are the white oblong objects seen in so many of the windows?

I know it may have been a dumb question (hence no response), but can anyone identify for me these objects in WTC7 windows?

Ron...no response because NO idea what they are.

Jack

[Jack White]

I did not misidentify the intersection of West and Vesey. I specified that

it was where the traffic light is seen. Such nitpicking is a misdirection trick

meant to avoid the question of whether Building 6 has a huge hole on

the Vesey Street side, and firemen in West Street are spraying water

on Building 6. The south tower has not yet fallen, because the firemen

could not have been in that location.

Attached is what Vesey looked like when the south tower collapsed, a

few blocks east of Building 7. West Street, much closer, would have

been even worse. Firemen would not be standing and spraying water

on Building 6 if the collapse had occurred...they would be fleeing to

survive.

Jack

Edited July 11, 2008 by Jack White

[Ron Ecker]

Ron...no response because NO idea what they are.

Jack,

Thanks. Imagine that, an unanswered question about 9/11.