FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Jack White]

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.

Colby obviously does not know what he is talking about. The

Cushman photo is in the original printing of the Fetzer book,

to show no fires or smoke at Building 7. The resolution of the

photo is quite sufficient to show that, as high resolution is not

needed to see smoke or fires. Instead, blue sky is seen instead.

The time is clearly AM, since the sunshine is on the east face

of the building. Since there were no fires at the time of this

photo, it is absurd to claim that without cause, the entire

building became engulfed in flame late in the afternoon.

Colby states that numerous photos and videos show heavy

smoke and flame from the building. I suggest that he show us

these, as I have never seen such photos or videos.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

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.

Some few of the videos, all but none of the still images seem to have timestamps. A problem for all. What I was saying, however, was that the USA [and world] are covered by recon satellites that can see things down to 0.5m resolution. They certainly have every moment of WTC and DC and Shanksville, not to mention the planes and [potential] interceptors - but since the photos shown during the Cuban Missile Crisis [when the resolution was horrible], I don't think they ['they'] have ever released much and they certainly are NOT releasing those on 9/11 [which from their directly above viewpoint would contain much important information and they ARE timestamped]. With work almost all photos and videos can be objectively set in time. It is a lot of work and I'd like to see people on 'both sides' work on this.

I'm curious. Do you have a reference to the US having satellite coverage of the world at all times? That would seem to contradict what is known as a shortcoming of recon satellites ie their orbits are known by other governments and objects can be hidden when the satellites are overhead. This is one of the reasons to still have spyplanes and UAVs. To cover everything at all times would require a lot more satellites than what the world seems to think is up there.

[Charles Drago]

I'm curious. Do you have a reference to the US having satellite coverage of the world at all times? That would seem to contradict what is known as a shortcoming of recon satellites ie their orbits are known by other governments and objects can be hidden when the satellites are overhead. This is one of the reasons to still have spyplanes and UAVs. To cover everything at all times would require a lot more satellites than what the world seems to think is up there.

I'm curious: Do you know how many satellites are up there? Is your "knowledge" based upon information released by the USG and/or mainstream trade press sources? Is it your position that such "official" sources are to be trusted to provide accurate data on highly sensitive subjects? Do you accept official and mainstream analyses of recon satellites "shortcomings" without question? Do you understand how and why technological capabilities are both oversold and undersold by governments?

[Jack White]

Why is Lewis in non-compliance with the recent avatar ruling?

Why does Colby say a photo taken from a thousand feet away (?)

is unreliable, when satellite photos are taken from many miles away?

Jack

Edited July 12, 2008 by Jack White

[Josiah Thompson]

Len Wrote: "The location of Jack’s photo is “clean because it is about 1000 feet around the corner from where WTC 1 once stood."

He's quite correct about this. The photographer took this photo very nearly from the east bank of the Hudson River. Many post collapse photos show that this area was clean of debris. Jack's photo was taken considerably after the collapse of both towers as firefighting crews began fighting the fires that had broken out. No mystery here. Just Jack's (or somebody's) mistake in the caption for the photo.

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

[Matthew Lewis]

I'm curious. Do you have a reference to the US having satellite coverage of the world at all times? That would seem to contradict what is known as a shortcoming of recon satellites ie their orbits are known by other governments and objects can be hidden when the satellites are overhead. This is one of the reasons to still have spyplanes and UAVs. To cover everything at all times would require a lot more satellites than what the world seems to think is up there.

I'm curious: Do you know how many satellites are up there? Is your "knowledge" based upon information released by the USG and/or mainstream trade press sources? Is it your position that such "official" sources are to be trusted to provide accurate data on highly sensitive subjects? Do you accept official and mainstream analyses of recon satellites "shortcomings" without question? Do you understand how and why technological capabilities are both oversold and undersold by governments?

Charles is both correct and wise in his statement about "why technological capabilities are both oversold and undersold by governments?". the USG has publicly [if not prominently] disclosed that they have a complete Earth-cover of surveillance satellites that can read a licence plate [hinted they can sometimes have even better resolution]. These are in geosynchronous orbit and some classified number of them are mobile [can be moved to be above a specific target]. I'm sure many NOT involved in the 911 conspiracy [yes, you heard me correctly!] who are in charge of these satellites just don't want [or are under orders to not let] civilians to know their exact capability or to set a president and show images on Public demand. I could prove the above, but maybe it is time for you to do your homework yourself.

Here is the most pleb site of all with its intelligence overseerers, to boot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_satellite and this ten year-old site {!] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1482...ever-sleep.html so ancient data and now they CAN read your license plaet or ID card......

I could could post other sites that would curl your toes. Curl your own....I think you and some others don't want to know the truth of the state of the Planet and American Polity and MIC. Cynical me/evil them.

Your own links say reading license plates is a myth. But no matter as that wasn't the subject or question anyway and I don't really care. The second link does indeed mention continuous coverage of a battlefield when using higher orbits. It also mentions those higher orbits lowers the resolution to a meter or less.

Interesting though and thank you for the prompt answer without the hostility that often accompanies posts in this board (from all parties). It is refreshing to say the least.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

SOMEONE IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION. It was asked whether there is a photo

which unambiguously shows Building 6 already damaged with the North Tower

still standing. I have posted this numerous times, and it is on my website (which

is criticized by people who have not looked at it). Here it is again! Pay attention.

It shows heavy damage to Building 6, the North Tower still standing (said to

be the source of all damage to Building 6) and the South Tower collapsing.

Photographer Bill Biggert lost his life taking these photos.

Building 6 is seen heavily sooted with drapes hanging out of broken windows.

This cannot be caused by the collapse of EITHER tower.

The thing with the Quebec sign is the pedestrian bridge over West Street from

Building 6.

This is unambiguous.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

Jack would you be so kind as to give the provenance of the photo you posted. Where did you find it on the Internet? Or could you provide a higher resolution copy. Thanks.

SOMEONE IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION. It was asked whether there is a photo

which unambiguously shows Building 6 already damaged with the North Tower

still standing. I have posted this numerous times, and it is on my website (which

is criticized by people who have not looked at it). Here it is again! Pay attention.

It shows heavy damage to Building 6, the North Tower still standing (said to

be the source of all damage to Building 6) and the South Tower collapsing.

Photographer Bill Biggert lost his life taking these photos.

Building 6 is seen heavily sooted with drapes hanging out of broken windows.

This cannot be caused by the collapse of EITHER tower.

The thing with the Quebec sign is the pedestrian bridge over West Street from

Building 6.

This is unambiguous.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Josiah,

try here:

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart_intro.htm

or here:

http://www.billbiggart.com/911_1.html

I don't know if higher resolutions are available.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Evan Burton
Added URL

[Evan Burton]

Jack, Josiah,

Please be very cautious about reproducing those images on this site. According to the Biggart website, the images are copyrighted. Jack also mentioned that is his study, but I am unsure if permission has been gained to use them, or if they are considered to be in the public domain, etc.

If possible, place a link to the image / website rather than displaying the image here. In other words, do not use the image tags (img)(/img).

Thanks

[Evan Burton]

There are two images for people to study. The first is the one Jack provided:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/ima...Biggart1748.jpg

the second appears to be taken seconds / minutes later:

http://www.billbiggart.com/images/911_4.jpg

The title on the second images says it was taken at 9:59:35 AM.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Evan Burton
Corrected URL

[Josiah Thompson]

Thanks very much, Evan. I was about to post the three photos I found, and, because of your advice, I won't.

There are two photos taken within seconds of each other that show the South Tower collapsing and a portion of WTC6. Both are higher resolution than the one Jack posted. The pattern of light and dark on the wall of WTC6 changes between the two photos. Hence, what Jack takes to be smoke marks on the exterior wall are probably just a reflection. I see no drapes hanging out the window or other features that Jack associates with damage. The third photo was taken after the South Tower had completely collapsed and shows the North Tower with its fires and a portion of WTC6. Again WTC6 shows no damage.

In addition to the firemen's recollections posted by Len who were in or around WTC6, there are additional reports which indicate no explosion in WTC6.

With the best will in the world, I can't see how the photos produced by Jack show anything like that. What they do show is a sharply biased attempt at photo analysis to prove a point nothing else supports.

I started this thread to criticize the latest Fetzer tome which charges controlled demolition of WTC7. Now I'm debunking photos that are supposed to show an explosion in WTC6. I never paid much attention to WTC6. Why would anyone blow WTC6 to begin with?

In any case, thanks for your warning, Evan.

Jack, Josiah,

Please be very cautious about reproducing those images on this site. According to the Biggart website, the images are copyrighted. Jack also mentioned that is his study, but I am unsure if permission has been gained to use them, or if they are considered to be in the public domain, etc.

If possible, place a link to the image / website rather than displaying the image here. In other words, do not use the image tags (img)(/img).

Thanks

[Jack White]

Burton, being an Australian, does not understand the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the

copyright laws. All uses I have made of the Biggert photo fall under FAIR USE as

educational non-profit non-commercial research, and has a laudable purpose.

For Burton's better understanding, I quote:

..........

U.S.C. TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS

CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a

commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the

copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

In practice, largely as follows:

1. The copier is a nonprofit, educational organization, or is doing work for such an organization;

2. The purpose of copying is for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, conservation or preservation;

3. The amount copied is small in relation to the size of the original work;

4. The copying will have no adverse effect on the market for the original work;

5. The number of copies made is small;

6. The work copied is a factual, informational or functional work rather than a work of fiction (the more creative the original work, the more difficult it is to justify copying it);

7. The copying is not done in a commercial context - - i.e. the copying work is not being used directly or indirectly to sell products or services;

8. The copying work performs a public benefit or has a laudable purpose;

9. The copying is for private rather than public use;

10. The copying work is itself a creative or transformative work, not just a copy of the original work;

11. The copying in question represents an isolated event, not a systematic or routine practice;

12. The amount copied is no greater than necessary to accomplish the copier's legitimate purpose; and

13. The copied work is not an unpublished work.

If ALL or most of the above thirteen points are true for a given case, then the copying falls under the doctrine of fair use.

If any of the above points cannot be answered affirmatively, then seek permission from the copyright holder.

And, of course, you may quote federal government statutes, because works of the United States government have no such copyright protection (see 17 USC 105).

Edited July 12, 2008 by Jack White

[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.

Colby obviously does not know what he is talking about. The

Cushman photo is in the original printing of the Fetzer book...

Jack I asked you a question I didn’t make an assertion. Fetzer said you had “found a replacement photograph” if so let’s see it or was he making that up? Since the “Calder” photo supposedly showed the building sans damage its replacement should as well.

…to show no fires or smoke at Building 7. The resolution of the

photo is quite sufficient to show that, as high resolution is not

needed to see smoke or fires. Instead, blue sky is seen instead.

The time is clearly AM, since the sunshine is on the east face

of the building.

Thanks for pointing out that the photo was clearly taken well BEFORE heavy fires were reported. I’m also glad you brought up the issue of sun angle and time of day because in your WTC 6 hole photo the sun is on the west faces of WFC 3, WTC 7 and the Verizon building (1st photo) thus it is clearly PM. The shadows in fact are pointed almost due east (2nd photo) suggesting it is late afternoon. My best guess it was taken just before the collapse zone was cleared around WTC 7 at around 3pm. In any case it was taken well after 12:52 PM which was the time of solar noon in NYC on 9/11/01*.

I flipped the detail from Jack’s photo (above) so that it’s orientation matched that of the map. Coincidentally (as the black line shows) when this is done the median strip perfectly aligns with the east-west streets on the map.

* http://tinyurl.com/9-11-noon

Since there were no fires at the time of this photo, it is absurd to claim that without cause, the entire building became engulfed in flame late in the afternoon.

Not “without cause” because numerous firefighters at the scene and other witnesses reported this. Nor “absurd” since normally fires take time to build up. The Twin Towers was an exceptional case because thousands of gallons of jet fuel were injected into the building and ignited in a few seconds.

Colby states that numerous photos and videos show heavy

smoke and flame from the building. I suggest that he show us

these, as I have never seen such photos or videos.

I’ve posted several examples in this thread but you chose to ignore them.

Vídeos: Smoke and heavy flame can be seen coming out of the south face in this video which I believe was filed by Steve Spak. At 1:33 Min into the video someone probably a firefighter says "Look at the hole in that building... 7 world... that might come down".

Heavy Smoke can be seen these videos:

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi (5mg)

http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi (700KB)

from Steve Spak

[Len Colby]

SOMEONE IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION. It was asked whether there is a photo

which unambiguously shows Building 6 already damaged with the North Tower

still standing. I have posted this numerous times, and it is on my website (which

is criticized by people who have not looked at it). Here it is again! Pay attention.

It shows heavy damage to Building 6, the North Tower still standing (said to

be the source of all damage to Building 6) and the South Tower collapsing.

Photographer Bill Biggert lost his life taking these photos.

Building 6 is seen heavily sooted with drapes hanging out of broken windows.

This cannot be caused by the collapse of EITHER tower.

The thing with the Quebec sign is the pedestrian bridge over West Street from

Building 6.

This is unambiguous.

Jack

You're correct Jack you have posted that before and then just as now it doesn't show what you claim there are no broken windows or soot see posts 18 and 23 on the page linked below. It seems that you're the one who needs to pay attention. Rebut Dave's an my debunkings of you analysis here or on the other thread and we can proceed from there. Given your track record of late your simple opinion proves nothing.

:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11261&view=findpost&p=122785

Edited July 12, 2008 by Len Colby