FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

I did not misidentify the intersection of West and Vesey. I specified that it was where the traffic light is seen.

You indicated that the traffic lights were at that intersection they weren't they were about 500 feet west of the intersection and about 1000 feet from the north tower which explains the lack of visible dust and rubble.

Such nitpicking is a misdirection trick

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

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

on building Six

.

Incorrect I acknowledged this. 500 feet isn't nitpicking

The south tower has not yet fallen, because the firemen

could not have been in that location

A claim you have provided no evidence for. The photo was taken some time between the collapse of the north tower and when the WTC 7 collapse zome was cleared (around 3 pm IIRC). Several firemen mentioned operations in the location after the 1st collapse. One or more firemen went into 6 WTC after first collapse and were rescued from it after the 2nd (see the quotes above)

Ron

The white things in the windows of 7 WTC are curtains see the third video I posted they can bee seen fluttering. Jack obviously didn't bother to look at the video. If he had he would have see heavy smoke and flame coming out of the building

EDITS - TYPOS FIXED

Edited July 11, 2008 by Len Colby

[Dave Greer]

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

My guess (and it is only a guess Ron) is that they are actally reflections. They seem to be present wherever a window is broken, possibly due to deformation of the glass panes and changing the angle of incidence relative to the camera compared to unbroken panes.

[Josiah Thompson]

I appreciate very much Peter Lemkin's response. It is through such responses as his that we can make progress in discussion.

I did not take his earlier post as an attack on me. I only meant to point out that labeling people who disagree with the truthers claims to be some sort of government stooges is just a canard.

I have no unified field theory about what happened on 9/11. I was hired to find out why WTC7 collapsed and I think that job has largely been done. As for the rest... why the towers collapsed, why the CAP did not arrive at NYC in time, how it was that an airliner managed to get through air defenses to hit the Pentagon, whether the final airliner was shot down or brought to earth by a fight in the cockpit... I'm interested in all these questions but have no special knowledge or expertise. However, I find that the truther's claims about the collapse of WTC7 are debunked when you get down to a level of demonstrable fact.

I had seen something like this go on with respect to Dallas when a number of easily falsiable claims about alteration of the Zapruder film gained currency. In that case, spirited debate showed rather swiftly that the claims of alteration were based on ignorance of technical details concerning the film or a mistaken preference for witness testimony over photographic evidence. Ultimately, a simple idea proved the authenticity of the Zapruder film and other films taken in Dealey Plaza: If you film the same event from multiple standpoints, all the different films have to fit together seamlessly with no anomalies beyond their difference in location. Since the Zapruder film fits seamlessly with all other films taken in Dealey Plaza that day, it is authentic (as are all the other films and photos). Their veracity trumps whatever various eye or ear witnesses say happened that day.

The tone of suspicion (even paranoia) that gripped examinations of the Zapruder film a decade ago is replicated here in the discussion of WTC7. The North Tower devastated WTC6. Part of that devastation involved what has been described as "the hole" in the north wall of WTC6. No one doubts that the north wall of WTC6 was breached. What is doubted is that this damage was caused by an explosion and not just the collapse of the North Tower. Thus discussions of smoke emanating from the south face of WTC7 morph into questions as to whether the damage to WTC6 was caused by an explosion. In the background, one discerns the same atmosphere of suspicion that earlier characterized discussions of the Zapruder film.

And, of course, the personnel are the same... Jack White and James Fetzer, Ph.D. Notable is the fact that in a thread which names Professor Fetzer, he has chosen not to defend his book or his views. This task he has left to Jack White. The adequacy of White's defense of Fetzer's book any of us can assess. I find it regrettable that Professor Fetzer, once again, has declined to defend his own work.

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.

It wasn't an attack on you Josiah, just generally and to some pretty tough characters on this subject on this Forum. You've been sensible and civil [mostly].

While WTC 6 did suffer a large 'defect' due to falling debis from the collapse, I don't see the dust/paper/debris that should be there if that photo is post collapse. There were also so many reports of explosions in various buildings and fires in buildings other than the twin towers before the collapse. It would be great if a group of decent souls would get all the photos and videos and try to find the times involved - but not likley. Like the JFK investigation it is this crazy kind of back and forth, with most of us having lots of other things to do in our lives, as well. Part of the reason IMO it is difficult in Dallas and at the WTC to definitively demonstrate something was the way the evidence was handled (sic) and efforts to obstruct access to information. Yes, in both there is much 'out there' and certainly contradictory. No easy job - either one. Good luck with the lawsuit. There should be many more..... But I still hold that the official version smells very fishy. I don't believe all those who hold to parts of it are in cahoots with the government or with those who did it or are covering it up. The truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes. As a scientist I find much of the official version simply beyond belief - violating physics, laws of thermodynamics and general deductive logic. You obviously believe otherwise or are not yet to a conclusion. As I said, I'd love not to feel, as I do now, that it was an inside job [no doubt by a very few who knew how to manipulate the systems involved]. I felt a knife in the back with Dallas and 911 is another similar blow - not to mention the sequelae of the (un)Patriot Acts and War without end on (of) 'terror'. I'd suggest reading Debunking 911 Debunking.

[Josiah Thompson]

Jack, please tell us why you think this latest photo is of Vesey Street. I don't think it is.

You write: ".. 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... Firemen would not be standing and spraying water on Building 6 if the collapse had occurred...they would be fleeing to survive..."

First off, as other photos make clear, the firemen are not spraying water from West Street but from a lower parapet next to WTC6. Secondly, since the photo you cite was taken after the collapse of both the South Tower and the North Tower the firemen, of course, could be in the location where they are shown to be. They wouldn't "be fleeing to survive" since both collapses were in the past. Are you mistaking smoke from fires in the aftermath of the collapse to be the debris cloud?

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

[Charles Drago]

I had seen something like this go on with respect to Dallas when a number of easily falsiable claims about alteration of the Zapruder film gained currency. In that case, spirited debate showed rather swiftly that the claims of alteration were based on ignorance of technical details concerning the film or a mistaken preference for witness testimony over photographic evidence [emphasis added by Drago]. Ultimately, a simple idea proved the authenticity of the Zapruder film and other films taken in Dealey Plaza: If you film the same event from multiple standpoints, all the different films have to fit together seamlessly with no anomalies beyond their difference in location. Since the Zapruder film fits seamlessly with all other films taken in Dealey Plaza that day, it is authentic (as are all the other films and photos). Their veracity trumps whatever various eye or ear witnesses say happened that day.

The tone of suspicion (even paranoia) that gripped examinations of the Zapruder film a decade ago is replicated here in the discussion of WTC7. The North Tower devastated WTC6. Part of that devastation involved what has been described as "the hole" in the north wall of WTC6. No one doubts that the north wall of WTC6 was breached. What is doubted is that this damage was caused by an explosion and not just the collapse of the North Tower. Thus discussions of smoke emanating from the south face of WTC7 morph into questions as to whether the damage to WTC6 was caused by an explosion. In the background, one discerns the same atmosphere of suspicion that earlier characterized discussions of the Zapruder film.

And, of course, the personnel are the same... Jack White and James Fetzer, Ph.D. Notable is the fact that in a thread which names Professor Fetzer, he has chosen not to defend his book or his views. This task he has left to Jack White. The adequacy of White's defense of Fetzer's book any of us can assess. I find it regrettable that Professor Fetzer, once again, has declined to defend his own work.

Josiah, et al,

I long have advocated for the applications of all we learn through our respective studies of the JFK murder as templates -- negative as well as positive, depending upon circumstances -- to our investigations of all deep political phenomena.

To the degree that you have embraced this approach in a most practical manner for your WTC 7 work is hardly surprising. It makes sense, and since Six Seconds so, for the most part, have you.

I am somewhat less enthusiastic about the segment of your response that I have highlighted above. Do you not agree that, in the JFK case, there are multiple, highly significant instances in which witness testimony not only is preferrable to photographic evidence, but in fact incontrovertibly trumps and puts the lie to certain officially sanctioned films?

Need we move beyond the posterior post mortem JFK head views -- from conventional and X-ray films -- in their conflict with descriptions of that area by multiple, unimpeachable, truly expert first-hand observers and more contemporary analysts in order to make this point?

In regard to Z-film alteration, I remain an agnostic. We agree that a counter-productive feeding frenzy resulted from initial arguments over falsification; I would go farther down that road and suggest that the misplaced energies and hard feelings that were generated by these conflicts may, in part, have been originated, directed, and/or encouraged by, and to this day neatly serve the agendas of the murderers of JFK, whose continued freedom and socio-political dominance are based upon similar manipulations of the majority's minds and emotions.

But that is a tale for another cyber-campfire.

Why my Z-film agnosticism, especially in light of your simple and compelling argument for multiple-film consistency? Quite simply, there are two reasons.

1. Not all motorcade films are created equal; if, for example, one were to obfuscate a massive wound of exit on JFK's posterior skull in the Z-film, one need only identify those few frames on those few alternate films' views of the rear of the head that need to be altered, and relatively quickly do so in order to maintain the consistency of which you write.

2. There are simply too many variances between witness statements and Z-film actions to dismiss with broad strokes and bromides.

Yes, some pictures tell a thousand lies.

Best,

Charles

Edited July 11, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Jack White]

I was a block off. The panic scene was one street over from Vesey...Fulton.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

[...]

I had seen something like this go on with respect to Dallas when a number of easily falsiable claims about alteration of the Zapruder film gained currency. In that case, spirited debate showed rather swiftly that the claims of alteration were based on ignorance of technical details concerning the film or a mistaken preference for witness testimony over photographic evidence. Ultimately, a simple idea proved the authenticity of the Zapruder film and other films taken in Dealey Plaza: If you film the same event from multiple standpoints, all the different films have to fit together seamlessly with no anomalies beyond their difference in location. Since the Zapruder film fits seamlessly with all other films taken in Dealey Plaza that day, it is authentic (as are all the other films and photos). Their veracity trumps whatever various eye or ear witnesses say happened that day.

[...]

I suspect a few of the lawyers on this board might have a few comments concerning witness testimony and photographic evidence.....

I doubt there'll be progress or resolution regarding Zapruder film alteration. At least until; forensic testing of the alleged in-camera NARA Zapruder properties and composition is performed; newly created, and complete first generation set of the Z-film frames (verified as authentic) in either 4x5 trannie or 35mm slides format released to qualified film-video compositing professionals for their review and professional opinion. Any assistance is greatly appreciated....

Until the above is achieved, discussion concerning *other* DP films is pap (so, so, many questions concerning those *other* films). Again, till a benchmark is set and verified utilizing the NARA housed, Zapruder Kodacolor II in-camera original double 8mm film), any discussion concerning the Zapruder film (not to mention *other* DP films) is futile.

Edited July 11, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Josiah Thompson]

Thank you for making the correction.

I was a block off. The panic scene was one street over from Vesey...Fulton.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

Charles,

Thank you for your extremely thoughtful and intelligent response.

You are certainly correct that the photos which surfaced from the government are filled with contradictions both internal and external. David Mantik has clearly shown that at least one of the head x-rays is a copy while all were supposed to be originals. There are conflicts between the x-rays and the autopsy photos. There are even valid doubts as to whether the socalled autopsy photos were taken with the same camera in use at Bethesda on November 22nd. I couldn't agree with you more that with this suspect x-ray and photo material it is extremely important to listen to what the eyewitnesses of the autopsy say, let alone the testimony of the Parkland witnesses. In addition, other pieces of physical evidence in government possession (just starting with CE 399, for example) are deeply suspect.

My belief in the authenticity and probative value of photographs is restricted to those taken by press photographers and private individuals in Dealey Plaza. They form a tapestry of photo evidence that is self-authenticating. The indictment of these photos when they conflict with witness testimony is misplaced. For example, take the claim that the Zapruder film never shows the limousine to have come to a complete stop in Dealey Plaza while various witnesses said they saw it stop. Elizabeth Loftus, in her world-renowned book on eyewitness testimony, points out that reports as to the movement of motor vehicles is notoriously unreliable. I don't doubt for a minute given what was going on in Dealey Plaza that many witnesses believed they saw the limousine come to a halt. As in many violent or dramatic events, time seems to slow down or even stop for observers caught in the middle of such a situation. Then too, the Zapruder film shows that the limousine did slow down from 12 mph to 8 mph when the driver looked back over his right shoulder. Anyone with experience in the world of criminal defense knows the perils of using eyewitness testimony as a paradigm of objective truth. Many innocent people are languishing in jail cells because of its unreliability. Hence, if we're talking about Dealey Plaza... and only about Dealey Plaza... I think the self-authenticating web of photo evidence trumps eye-witness reports and hence should be seen as bedrock in the JFK shooting.

Given the surreal nature of the 9/11 site, photographs gain even more importance when compared with eye or earwitness testimony. That's why full attribution of the photo with attention paid to the photographer, the place where he/she took the photo and the time when he/she took it is so important. In large part, then, I think we agree.

I had seen something like this go on with respect to Dallas when a number of easily falsiable claims about alteration of the Zapruder film gained currency. In that case, spirited debate showed rather swiftly that the claims of alteration were based on ignorance of technical details concerning the film or a mistaken preference for witness testimony over photographic evidence [emphasis added by Drago]. Ultimately, a simple idea proved the authenticity of the Zapruder film and other films taken in Dealey Plaza: If you film the same event from multiple standpoints, all the different films have to fit together seamlessly with no anomalies beyond their difference in location. Since the Zapruder film fits seamlessly with all other films taken in Dealey Plaza that day, it is authentic (as are all the other films and photos). Their veracity trumps whatever various eye or ear witnesses say happened that day.

The tone of suspicion (even paranoia) that gripped examinations of the Zapruder film a decade ago is replicated here in the discussion of WTC7. The North Tower devastated WTC6. Part of that devastation involved what has been described as "the hole" in the north wall of WTC6. No one doubts that the north wall of WTC6 was breached. What is doubted is that this damage was caused by an explosion and not just the collapse of the North Tower. Thus discussions of smoke emanating from the south face of WTC7 morph into questions as to whether the damage to WTC6 was caused by an explosion. In the background, one discerns the same atmosphere of suspicion that earlier characterized discussions of the Zapruder film.

And, of course, the personnel are the same... Jack White and James Fetzer, Ph.D. Notable is the fact that in a thread which names Professor Fetzer, he has chosen not to defend his book or his views. This task he has left to Jack White. The adequacy of White's defense of Fetzer's book any of us can assess. I find it regrettable that Professor Fetzer, once again, has declined to defend his own work.

Josiah, et al,

I long have advocated for the applications of all we learn through our respective studies of the JFK murder as templates -- negative as well as positive, depending upon circumstances -- to our investigations of all deep political phenomena.

To the degree that you have embraced this approach in a most practical manner for your WTC 7 work is hardly surprising. It makes sense, and since Six Seconds so, for the most part, have you.

I am somewhat less enthusiastic about the segment of your response that I have highlighted above. Do you not agree that, in the JFK case, there are multiple, highly significant instances in which witness testimony not only is preferrable to photographic evidence, but in fact incontrovertibly trumps and puts the lie to certain officially sanctioned films?

Need we move beyond the posterior post mortem JFK head views -- from conventional and X-ray films -- in their conflict with descriptions of that area by multiple, unimpeachable, truly expert first-hand observers and more contemporary analysts in order to make this point?

In regard to Z-film alteration, I remain an agnostic. We agree that a counter-productive feeding frenzy resulted from initial arguments over falsification; I would go farther down that road and suggest that the misplaced energies and hard feelings that were generated by these conflicts may, in part, have been originated, directed, and/or encouraged by, and to this day neatly serve the agendas of the murderers of JFK, whose continued freedom and socio-political dominance are based upon similar manipulations of the majority's minds and emotions.

But that is a tale for another cyber-campfire.

Why my Z-film agnosticism, especially in light of your simple and compelling argument for multiple-film consistency? Quite simply, there are two reasons.

1. Not all motorcade films are created equal; if, for example, one were to obfuscate a massive wound of exit on JFK's posterior skull in the Z-film, one need only identify those few frames on those few alternate films' views of the rear of the head that need to be altered, and relatively quickly do so in order to maintain the consistency of which you write.

2. There are simply too many variances between witness statements and Z-film actions to dismiss with broad strokes and bromides.

Yes, some pictures tell a thousand lies.

Best,

Charles

[Len Colby]

Jack claims that the photo showing the hole in the side of 6 WTC must have been taken before either tower collapsed because (so he claims) firefighters would be trying to extinguish fires in that building after. Perhaps he should explain that to Firefighter Eugene Kelty, Jr. and the other firefighters who were bravely trying to put out fires in that building even after the nearby north tower collapsed:

There was no access on West Street due to the World Trade Tower 1 coming down, part of 3 was down on West Street and there was no way up Liberty Street due to World Trade 2 that collapsed.

[…]

I remember the super satellite from Engine 9 was there, in front of the 6 World Trade Center. There were people climbing all over the place trying to get into there and there were some fires. They looked for surface victims and stuff.

[…]

We then had another break in the block on West Street heading southbound that we were hooking into to try to boost the pressure up to get water into the satellite units so we could extinguish fires that were going on right now in 6 World Trade, which is the Federal building, the Customs building. We couldn’t the get pressure up on it. It would only reach so much pressure and because it was 3-inch, 3-and-a-half-inch lines, we couldn’t get enough water down there to provide the pressure to use the satellite gun. And that’s where we spent most of the day, was just trying to attack the fires, put whatever we put out in the area.

There was units searching in 6 World Trade.

WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEW: FIREFIGHTER EUGENE KELTY, JR.

Interview Date: December 6, 2001 pgs 8 – 10

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110261.PDF

Jack did you claim in Aulis that firefighters wouldn’t have been putting out fires after the 1st collapse? If so you should make a correction because they were doing so even after the 2nd collapse. I won’t hold my breath you still haven’t corrected your erroneous claim that the engine CORE found on on Church St. was a jet engine.

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies75.htm

[Brian Smith]

These photos show WTC6 after the collapses. I don't think they match the image Jack White has posted as firefighters fighting fire in hole in WTC 6 BEFORE. If one is going to try to argue it was between collapses - only one tower had collapsed - I think you are going to have to prove that and the burden is on you. It looks to me, at this time, as a BEFORE collapses hole and fire - do to what?! The street is too clean and the firefighters and others too calm - not to mention the damage to the building while major is not as major as after the collapses.

The sad think is the USG has detailed time-stamped satellite photos of all of this event - and has released not a one - why. They will claim 'National Security'. I don't buy it.

Building 6 was adjacent to the North Tower. In fact, it looks like it was blocked from the South Tower by it -

Could the collapse of the South Tower have thrown enough debris to cause the damage to Building 6 in Mr White's photo? It looks like you are correct that the photo was taken before the North Tower collapse, as there doesn't seem to be antwhere near enough debris lying around.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Brian Smith

[Evan Burton]

The sad think is the USG has detailed time-stamped satellite photos of all of this event - and has released not a one - why. They will claim 'National Security'. I don't buy it.

Peter,

Are you positive there are no date / time details associated with the images, or is it just speculation because your copies do not have one / you have been unable to find one?

Not saying if one exists, but want to see what your investigations have determined.

[Len Colby]

These photos show WTC6 after the collapses. I don't think they match the image Jack White has posted as firefighters fighting fire in hole in WTC 6 BEFORE. If one is going to try to argue it was between collapses - only one tower had collapsed - I think you are going to have to prove that and the burden is on you. It looks to me, at this time, as a BEFORE collapses hole and fire - do to what?! The street is too clean and the firefighters and others too calm - not to mention the damage to the building while major is not as major as after the collapses.

There is nothing incompatible between what is seen in Jack’s photo whose WTC 6 portion is very low resolution and the damage that building sustained due to collapse of WTC 1. Below are photos of the building taken on and after 9/11 by Steve Spak. We can’t discount the possibility that chunks of the Vesey St. façade fell off before the 2nd photo was taken

http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc.html

http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc3.html

The location of Jack’s photo is “clean because it is about 1000 feet around the corner from where WTC 1 once stood. The people are “calm” because they are emergency personnel accustomed to dangerous situations and are about 500 feet from the nearest fires. We can’t really tell what their emotional states are because we only see the backs of their heads.

There were hundreds of people in the area including many with cameras -

If WTC 6 blew up before the collapse of the North Tower why do we have no witness accounts I provide links to dozens of FDNY/EMT interviews that mention the building most or those mention it before the 2nd collapse none mention and explosion in or damage to the building. Jack claims it blew at 9:03 or 9:04 but and EMT said she tried to enter the building during or just after the collapse and said there were police in park ranger style uniforms who wouldn’t let her in. Why would they still be there if building had been extensively damaged? The EMT who had parked in front of the building after the 2nd crash (i.e. after 9:03-4) said nothing about damage to the building.

Why aren’t there any photos (apparently) which unambiguously show damage to 6 with 1 still standing?

EDITED TO FIX A FORMATING ERROR

Edited July 12, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Jack has found a replacement photograph that we will use in the second printing of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY

After the towers fell, this photo was taken showing the

south face of Building 7. Detail is not good enough in this

small version to show damage, BUT is good enough to

show NO FIRES or smoke coming from the building.

I have been searching for a larger version so far without

success.

Jack

Is this the photo Fetzer is going to run with in his book? LOL it’s way too low resolution to prove anything and is contradicted by numerous other photos and videos showing heavy smoke and flame. Does anyone know when the photo was taken? Large fires are only believed to have developed several hours after the collapse. If you submit this photo and Fetzer prints it without acknowledging this you’re being dishonest.

[Charles Drago]

Josiah,

I'll attempt to address certain of your points directly -- and while being ever mindful of the focus of this thread.

Elizabeth Loftus, in her world-renowned book on eyewitness testimony, points out that reports as to the movement of motor vehicles is notoriously unreliable.

Dr. Loftus is justifiably celebrated and respected for her life's work. But we must be vigilant in stipulating that, in any given case, even the Loftiest of standards must be challenged to address the specifics at hand. It was David Mantik who brought to our attention research indicating (I'm about to quote a cetain James Fetzer from Assassination Science, so I hope you're not operating heavy machinery) that, based on analyses of over 150 subjects, "when subjects considered what they were observing to be salient (or significant), they were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their observations -- reinforcing their importance as evidence and offering more indications that popular opinions are true." But enough of JFK for now.

Given the surreal nature of the 9/11 site, photographs gain even more importance when compared with eye or earwitness testimony. That's why full attribution of the photo with attention paid to the photographer, the place where he/she took the photo and the time when he/she took it is so important. In large part, then, I think we agree.

Indeed we are in agreement on many issues. I must add that, as a sacrosanct rule in the investigations of deep political events, we also must consider the chain of custody of photographers' work (and the agendas of the custodians) -- especially in the period before that work is made public or offered for analyses and reviews to honorable investigative and judicial bodies.

I am most decidedly not implying that the sort of 9-11 photos you herein reference have been altered. But if compelling (quantitatively as well as qualitatively) eyewitness and earwitness testimony standing in contradiction to the photographic record is forthcoming, I will not be tempted, in essence, to make an argument from false authority and automatically side with the images.

One more 9-11 observation: I am not aware of any extant photographs of WTC 7 that support earwitnesses' reports of explosions in WTC buildings immediately prior to its collapse. Yet the so-called "squibs" spurting from the sides/corners of at least one of the twin towers and captured on video tape as the building(s) fell remain unexplained and troubling. Since we can pinpoint the times of the squib phenomena's appearances, can we find earwitnesses who report concurrent explosions within the structure?

Charles