FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

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

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

Jack as always you missed the point. I never said the photo was unreliable because of the distance but rather that it doesn't show dust or debris because of the distance from the north tower. The area around the abulance and the "calm" people are about 1000 feet from the North Tower and about 500 feet from WTC 6

[Dave Greer]

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

Here's my comparison of the two Bill Biggart images he took as the south tower collapsed. It's a cropped GIF with the two crops aligned for easier comparison.

Look at the area on the building circled in green. The dark/light areas clearly change from one crop to another. This is evidence that what we're seeing is a reflection, not smoke damage (the photos were taken from slightly different positions). I've highlighted a similar effect on the fire engine for comparison.

There doesn't appear to be any broken windows, at least none that I can identify. Looking at the second image compared to the first, you can see the reflection of the dust cloud in several windows, as highlighted below.

Edited to show images rather than links

Edited July 13, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Josiah Thompson]

This is a really elegant piece of analysis and demonstration, Dave Greer. When I looked at the two photos I saw something of what you demonstrated but I wasn't swift enough to figure out how to show it. This was really elegant... conclusion, no windows broken! A tip of the hat!

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

Here's my comparison of the two Bill Biggart images he took as the south tower collapsed. It's a cropped GIF with the two crops aligned for easier comparison.

Look at the area on the building circled in green. The dark/light areas clearly change from one crop to another. This is evidence that what we're seeing is a reflection, not smoke damage (the photos were taken from slightly different positions). I've highlighted a similar effect on the fire engine for comparison.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...11/wtc6-gif.gif

There doesn't appear to be any broken windows, at least none that I can identify. Looking at the second image compared to the first, you can see the reflection of the dust cloud in several windows, as highlighted below.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...11/wtc6-iii.jpg

[Jack White]

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

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

Jack as always you missed the point. I never said the photo was unreliable because of the distance but rather that it doesn't show dust or debris because of the distance from the north tower. The area around the abulance and the "calm" people are about 1000 feet from the North Tower and about 500 feet from WTC 6

Colby's eyesight is plainly deficient. He fails to see the sunlight on the phone building and on

people standing at West and Vesey. The south tower has not fallen, because other photos show the

huge dustcloud blocked sunlight from reaching ground level. Instead he attempts misdirection

by misstating what I am showing, AND REFUSING TO ADMIT THERE IS A HUGE HOLE IN

BUILDING 6. These are tactics of someone trying to obscure the truth.

There IS a hole in the building. It faces away from both towers, so no debris from either of them

could have caused the hole. Colby's refusal to admit the photo shows a hole exposes his mission

here.

Jack

[Jack White]

This is a really elegant piece of analysis and demonstration, Dave Greer. When I looked at the two photos I saw something of what you demonstrated but I wasn't swift enough to figure out how to show it. This was really elegant... conclusion, no windows broken! A tip of the hat!

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

Here's my comparison of the two Bill Biggart images he took as the south tower collapsed. It's a cropped GIF with the two crops aligned for easier comparison.

Look at the area on the building circled in green. The dark/light areas clearly change from one crop to another. This is evidence that what we're seeing is a reflection, not smoke damage (the photos were taken from slightly different positions). I've highlighted a similar effect on the fire engine for comparison.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...11/wtc6-gif.gif

There doesn't appear to be any broken windows, at least none that I can identify. Looking at the second image compared to the first, you can see the reflection of the dust cloud in several windows, as highlighted below.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...11/wtc6-iii.jpg

The professor also has deficient eyesight. The soot on the building is

invisible to him.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

This is getting sillier and sillier. Yes, there is sunlinght on the west face of the Verizon Building (the telephone building) because it is afternoon. The North Tower collapsed at 10:29 AM hours before this photo was taken. Other photos post collapse (posted today on this thread) show that what Jack calls a "hole" is in fact part of a center and north face "hole" (if you will) that was caused by large parts of the North Tower dropping on WTC6. The photo shows no sign whatsoever of any explosion and was taken in the afternoon not the morning. Why not just admit that this, Jack, was just another "whoops!" on your part? Why continue to defend the indefensible with silliness?

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

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

Jack as always you missed the point. I never said the photo was unreliable because of the distance but rather that it doesn't show dust or debris because of the distance from the north tower. The area around the abulance and the "calm" people are about 1000 feet from the North Tower and about 500 feet from WTC 6

Colby's eyesight is plainly deficient. He fails to see the sunlight on the phone building and on

people standing at West and Vesey. The south tower has not fallen, because other photos show the

huge dustcloud blocked sunlight from reaching ground level. Instead he attempts misdirection

by misstating what I am showing, AND REFUSING TO ADMIT THERE IS A HUGE HOLE IN

BUILDING 6. These are tactics of someone trying to obscure the truth.

There IS a hole in the building. It faces away from both towers, so no debris from either of them

could have caused the hole. Colby's refusal to admit the photo shows a hole exposes his mission

here.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Thank you, Jack. I was vaguely aware of it, but the reminder is well-taken and I agree with you. I think it's use here on the Forum for non-commercial, educational & research reasons does constitute "fair use".

Thanks again for reminding me.

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).

[Jack White]

Eye examinations needed.

Jack

(I missed my typo of OPTHALMOLOGIST)

Edited July 13, 2008 by Jack White

[Jack White]

My building six studies, a page at a time:

[Jack White]

next page....

[Jack White]

another...

[Jack White]

another

[Jack White]

another one....

[Jack White]

nearly finished...

[Jack White]

...