Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Seems like nobody wants to address this.

Jack

Jack, I believe you once posted a lightened-up version of the 'before with explosive cloud near WTC6' photo once - where both towers can be seen. Perhaps it is time to repost it. Anyone looking at images of the collapse of the first tower, however will, IMO, be hard pressed to say that it is happening or has just happened in that photo. That cloud near WTC6 is, IMO, another event at another point in time. The very fact this is hard to pin down - l like mercury blobs on the floor reminds me of so much that happened at Dallas and I believe for the same reasons. Those who believe the official version find it innocent confusion or confusion in the minds of those who challenge the official version. Others find it a tad more sinister as to who is trying to confuse whom [here I'm not referring to anyone on the Forum but for example BBCs 'explanation' of the 20 min before-the-fact piece on WTC7 collapse - things like that. I don't know about the time stamp and would NOT trust CNN to give a straight and true answer - but one can find the answer independantly, I'm sure].

Explosion at WTC Complex

Despite the fact that the horrible events of Sept. 11 occurred in broad daylight and were widely photographed, significant aspects of the attacks have been completely suppressed by a media blackout.

Exclusive to American Free Press

By Christopher Bollyn

A massive explosion, witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, evidently devastated World Trade Center 6, the eight-story U.S. Customs building, although no national newspaper, other than American Free Press, has written a word about it.

Before the smoke had cleared from around the stricken South Tower, a mysterious explosion shot 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at WTC 6.

The unexplained blast occurred between the burning North Tower and the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the South Tower, at about 9:03 a.m.

The explosion at WTC 6 was shown afterward on CNN. But because it was not broadcast as it happened there has been some confusion about when it actually occurred.

The large amount of smoke seen cascading around the South Tower in the video led some observers to mistake the blast for a dust cloud from the subsequent collapse of the tower.

TIMING CONFIRMED

American Free Press contacted CNN to determine exactly when the footage was filmed.

CNN’s Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist said “that’s correct.”

When asked if CNN could offer any explanation about what might have caused the blast that soared higher than the 47-story WTC 7 in the foreground, the archivist said: “We can’t figure it out.”

The affected space between WTC 7 and the North Tower was occupied by the Customs House building, also known as WTC 6. The building housed the offices of 760 employees of the Customs Service, a part of Treasury. Other federal

agencies had offices in the building, including the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. They did not return calls to AFP about the matter.

A spokesman for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which had an office with four employees on the sixth floor of the Customs House, confirmed the time of the explosion and told AFP that the employees had survived and been relocated. One private company, Eastco Building Services, Inc., reportedly leased space in the building.

Some 800 workers from WTC 6 were safely evacuated within 12 minutes of the first plane hitting the North Tower at about 8:46 a.m., according to a Sept. 18 Washington Post article by Stephen Barr.

The Barr piece is the only known article published about WTC 6. However, Barr failed to mention the explosion that apparently devastated the building just minutes after the workers had escaped with their lives.

AVOIDING THE SUBJECT

Although the Customs House apparently exploded at 9:04 a.m., the government-sponsored investigation was steered away from looking into what had actually happened.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency funded an investigation by the American Society of Civil Engineers. However, investigators were reportedly blocked from the building by an order from the New York City’s Department.

of Design and Construction .

Kenneth Holden is commissioner of the DDC, having been appointed by the former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani on Dec. 7, 1999.

Regarding the investigation of WTC 4, 5, and 6, FEMA’s “Building Performance” report says, “WTC 5 was the only building accessible for observation.” But, it adds, “the observations, findings, and recommendations are assumed to be applicable to all three buildings.”

A spokesman for FEMA told AFP that because the building was considered by DDC to be “very dangerous,” there was “no data collection” from WTC 6.

Dr. Gene Corley, one of the engineers who led the investigation, told AFP that concerns about loose gold bullion and cash prevented investigators from entering WTC 4.

The FEMA report says, “The buildings [4,5,6] responded as expected to the impact loadings.” Although the report says, “most of the central part of WTC 6 suffered collapse on all floors,” it adds, “damage was consistent with the observed impact load.”

The Customs House had a huge crater in its center. Corley told AFP that he had not seen the CNN photos before and called them “interesting.”

Corley, like other experts, thought the damage at WTC 6 was caused by the collapse of the North Tower. However, not one of the experts could recall seeing the CNN footage before.

A spokesman for the Customs Service told AFP, “It did not blow up. When the tower collapsed it caved in.”

Corley said he had not seen the photos of the extremely high-speed missile-like object seen streaking toward WTC 6 from behind the North Tower as the second plane hit the South Tower.

He noted that parts of the plane’s landing gear and an engine passed through the South Tower, and landed several blocks away.

These objects, however, had a distinctly different trajectory from the streaking missile-like object. Another investigator, Jonathan Barnett, told AFP, “The debris from Tower 2 hit Building 5, not 6.”

This may be the photo Peter is thinking of.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

David writes, "Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious."

This stinks, David. With brilliance, Matt Lewis has demonstated that Jack White erroneously advertised the still as taken at 9:04 AM when it was taken at 9:59 AM. The dust cloud shown which Jack claims is an explosion in WTC6 is really from the collapse of the South Tower. Nothing could be clearer. It doesn't matter if Matt Lewis turned out the be the Director of the CIA. His point is true independent of who he is or whatever else he believes or who he works for. It simply stinks for you to attempt to smudge his reputation by innuendo. Fetzer tried the same with me some time ago and got his ass kicked by the community at large. You should be enough a person to recognize that what you did is ignoble and apologize for it. Otherwise, you end up appearing to be a punk! Is that how you want to appear?

[...]

It is not until 9:04 and into 9:05 that they realize that a second plane even hit. It is not until 9:06 that they reshow the second impact. Why can't you just admit that you are wrong about that still that you purport shows an cloud from an explosion in building 6 from the CNN video that was mislabled as 9:04?

Brilliance is in the eyes of the beholder

What proof is there that the still you have is from 9:04?

not to be picky but, mislabled (sic)? Can you provide verification/cite CNN mislabeled any graphics or lower third supers? Are you aware as to how international news organizations time-stamp their tv feeds and what free running time-code means? Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious.

Actually Dr. Thompson what stinks is the overabundance of spoon fed media BS and pap that resonates from WCR apologists and their organizations which, by-the-way continues to this day. Too many years and too many lies.... you just can't use more lies to cover up past lies eventually the house of cards collapses... Old LHO could come back from the dead tomorrow and admit being part of a plot to assassinate the President of the United States and no one would believe him... Why? Because we've multiple LHO's these days...

We've come a long way baby, eh? Lies and more lies.....

I notice Matt Lewis can't answer a few simple CNN "time" related [non-military] questions, I now wonder why you felt a need to rise in his behalf... Your beef with Dr.Jim Fetzer is your gig, frankly I see it as two Philosophy professors each with a titanic ego clashing. Each with a bit envy of the other.....

As to the point at hand, I'm ALWAYS interested in what active-duty personnel think of conflict. Being patriotic doesn't always mean dressing up in a flag, ANY flag. If Matt Lewis can't or won't respond to the question, that's his choosing. No need to bring up Dr. Jim Fetzer every chance you get...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Lewis cited the CNN broadcast which covered the 9:04 AM time cited as the time of the video broadcast by Jack White. The actual video contained the label that Clancy was being interviewed. Clancy was interviewed around noon and the very video cited by White was run then. That video in addition to showing the cloud White cited as the 9:04 AM "explosion" in WTC6 also shows the collapse of the South Tower which occurred at 9:59 AM. As many networks did that day, CNN was simply running a tape of the collapse which they had. All of this is apparent to anyone who wants to take the time to look at it. Nothing about how "CNN time stamps their TV feeds" or "what free running time code means" has anything to do with this. If you can show that it does, then you may have a point. But you haven't shown that. You simply ignored the point put out there and asked about things that no one outside the broadcast industry would know. Then you ask if he is on active duty which was simply a way of trying to smear the messenger, a technique pioneered by your pal, Fetzer. Is it really a sign of a big ego to enjoy puncturing pomposity?

Up to this point you haven't said a thing about the facts Matt Lewis brought out and documented. Do you have anything to say about those or are they untouchable? If they are as bullet-proof as I think they are, why don't you say so instead of trying to smear the guy who brilliantly brought them out? I've never met Matt Lewis or seen his posts before but I can recognize when someone devastates an argument and he did. If you have any criticism of his arguments, let's hear 'em!

David writes, "Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious."

This stinks, David. With brilliance, Matt Lewis has demonstated that Jack White erroneously advertised the still as taken at 9:04 AM when it was taken at 9:59 AM. The dust cloud shown which Jack claims is an explosion in WTC6 is really from the collapse of the South Tower. Nothing could be clearer. It doesn't matter if Matt Lewis turned out the be the Director of the CIA. His point is true independent of who he is or whatever else he believes or who he works for. It simply stinks for you to attempt to smudge his reputation by innuendo. Fetzer tried the same with me some time ago and got his ass kicked by the community at large. You should be enough a person to recognize that what you did is ignoble and apologize for it. Otherwise, you end up appearing to be a punk! Is that how you want to appear?

[...]

It is not until 9:04 and into 9:05 that they realize that a second plane even hit. It is not until 9:06 that they reshow the second impact. Why can't you just admit that you are wrong about that still that you purport shows an cloud from an explosion in building 6 from the CNN video that was mislabled as 9:04?

Brilliance is in the eyes of the beholder

What proof is there that the still you have is from 9:04?

not to be picky but, mislabled (sic)? Can you provide verification/cite CNN mislabeled any graphics or lower third supers? Are you aware as to how international news organizations time-stamp their tv feeds and what free running time-code means? Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious.

Actually Dr. Thompson what stinks is the overabundance of spoon fed media BS and pap that resonates from WCR apologists and their organizations which, by-the-way continues to this day. Too many years and too many lies.... you just can't use more lies to cover up past lies eventually the house of cards collapses... Old LHO could come back from the dead tomorrow and admit being part of a plot to assassinate the President of the United States and no one would believe him... Why? Because we've multiple LHO's these days...

We've come a long way baby, eh? Lies and more lies.....

I notice Matt Lewis can't answer a few simple CNN "time" related [non-military] questions, I now wonder why you felt a need to rise in his behalf... Your beef with Dr.Jim Fetzer is your gig, frankly I see it as two Philosophy professors each with a titanic ego clashing. Each with a bit envy of the other.....

As to the point at hand, I'm ALWAYS interested in what active-duty personnel think of conflict. Being patriotic doesn't always mean dressing up in a flag, ANY flag. If Matt Lewis can't or won't respond to the question, that's his choosing. No need to bring up Dr. Jim Fetzer every chance you get...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The WTC 6 exploded at 9:04 “theory” was already extensively debate on this thread starting with post # 32

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119138

As with the more recent thread the sequence of stills from the one Jack used was posted showing the dust plume (which he IDed as WTC 2) it shows the plume thinning which obviously a standing building couldn’t do.

As then a link to the complete video was posted which when viewed in movement obviously shows WTC 2 collapsing at 9:59 not it a minute or two after being hit. But is being ignored by Jack.

As then Jack et. al haven’t found A SINGLE WITNESS who:

- Says WTC6 exploded at any time

- Mentions seeing any damage to the building before the collapse of WTC 1.

The best they can come up with is an EMT who was completely terrified by the south tower collapse and thinks she saw 2 planes explode over NJ shortly after 10 AM who makes no mention of seeing and damage to the building but claims she heard and saw pops reminiscent of popping light bulbs in the lobby an HOUR AFTER Jack claims the building was cratered.

The contrary evidence on this thread is overwhelming.

• Video stills and photos show WTC6 INTACT well after WTC 2 collapse and even until just before WTC 1 collapsed.

• The blob behind WTC 1 in Jack’s “photo study” can’t be WTC2 for several reasons

• As mentioned above when the clip as opposed to individual stills is seen it is obvious that there is downward motion in the blob and it thins.

• the blob can be seen widening below the roof line of WFC 3. Duane tried to argue it was smoke from the impact of flight 175 but the smoke is coming from well below the impact floors (78 – 84).

• I did a line of sight (LoS) study which showed that from the angle the video was shot WTC 2 would have been directly behind WTC 1 not to it’s side.

• Several witnesses who were in or around WTC 6at or after 9:04 mention the building of any explosions. One of those was the building’s elevator operator who was in the building when WTC 2 was hit and when it collapsed who said nothing about feeling any explosions.

• This theory has been rejected by wany prominent truthers including:

• Jim Hoffman who is cited by Griffin, Fetzer, Gage, Barrett, Jones and just about everyone else in the “truth movement”

• The person who 1st proposed this “theory” in 2001 (several years before Jack) who after seeing the clip admitted error and acknowledged it is of the collapse of WTC 2.

• The openly racist Chris Bollyn was fired by his neo-Nazi bosses for reporting “false stories”

Link to post
Share on other sites
The CNN dustcloud overlaid over Hudson skyline view, to scale.

Jack

That dust cloud doesn't correspond with the location of WTC 6, it is west of the building's location. The plume is dust from WTC 2 being pushed up by WTC 5.

Your ridiculous "theory" was already throughly debunked on 2 other threads. The one with the Biggart photos already linked and another one I just bumped.

So Jack's let's see the replacement photo which your buddy Fetzer said on the 5th you'd already sent him. Did you really do so or did he make that up?

Are you willing to acknowledge that the wtc 6 "hole photo" was taken PM?

Are you willing to admit the traffic lights in it are mid-block on Vesey and not at the corner of West St.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I notice Matt Lewis can't answer a few simple CNN "time" related [non-military] questions, I now wonder why you felt a need to rise in his behalf... Your beef with Dr.Jim Fetzer is your gig, frankly I see it as two Philosophy professors each with a titanic ego clashing. Each with a bit envy of the other.....

I did not answer the CNN "time related questions as they are not relevant to the discussion. The 9:04 was not on the original video. I have never claimed that CNN mislabeled the footage. It was added by someone else. Josiah Thompson has well summarized the situation.

As to the point at hand, I'm ALWAYS interested in what active-duty personnel think of conflict. Being patriotic doesn't always mean dressing up in a flag, ANY flag. If Matt Lewis can't or won't respond to the question, that's his choosing. No need to bring up Dr. Jim Fetzer every chance you get...

I responded to the questions that were relevant and some that weren't.

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to post
Share on other sites
When it was broadcast on CNN is not the issue. When it was filmed is. The issue is very foggy, at best. How do you explain this below [which certainly could contain erroneous information], but seems to confirm things are not so clear as you make them Josiah:

American Free Press contacted CNN to determine exactly when the footage was filmed.

CNN’s Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist said “that’s correct.”

When asked if CNN could offer any explanation about what might have caused the blast that soared higher than the 47-story WTC 7 in the foreground, the archivist said: “We can’t figure it out.”

As noted in the bumped thread Bollyn was canned for dishonest reporting

You keep saying the cloud by WTC6 is part of the first tower's collapse, but I don't see in the image the collapse of the tower - I see two towers on fire with some smoke from that.

A few months ago you said you make many typos because you can't afford new glasses and can't "see the screen properly", has that problem been rectified?

I'm poor [i was relieved of over $1,000.000 at one time - to nothing] and still can't afford reading/computer glasses to see the screen properly - sorry.] I went from having enough money to not have to work again, to homeless in a matter of weeks...and have now a roof, but have never really recovered and the little men in the darkened rooms keep me from that in many ways.....but it was not Russell [who I put in jail for his con] who destroyed me....far bigger entities, indeed!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=122051

EDIT QUOTE AND LINK ADDED

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archive footage from several news channels is available for review from this link.

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

I reviewed the images from ABC and BBC for several minutes after the secondplane struck the south tower. I couldn't see any evidence at all of an explosion coming from WTC6. Jack, can you or anyone else find any corrobarating evidence for your claim that a dust cloud from WTC6 rose above WTC7 almost immediately after the second pplane struck? (Or at any time prior to the collapse, for that matter?)

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Archive footage from several news channels is available for review from this link.

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

I reviewed the images from ABC and BBC for several minutes after the secondplane struck the south tower. I couldn't see any evidence at all of an explosion coming from WTC6. Jack, can you or anyone else find any corrobarating evidence for your claim that a dust cloud from WTC6 rose above WTC7 almost immediately after the second pplane struck? (Or at any time prior to the collapse, for that matter?)

This theory is so unsupported by evidence and contradicted by the known facts that is hard to believe a reasonable person could take it seriously – and I’ve seen no evidence that any do. All that Jack has is

  • A photo that shows a damaged WTC 6 that he thinks was taken before the collapse of either tower but due to the sunlight on the west facades of the buildings was obviously taken in the afternoon.
  • Another photo taken toward the end of the 1st collapse that he incorrectly thinks shows fire in and damage to WTC 6 - and
  • A video still that upon examination of the clip is obvious show the collapse of the South Tower that he thinks shows a dust clould arising from WTC6 but is in fact coming from closer to WTC 5

This is contradicted by dozens of witnesses and several videos and still images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, a quick review of the bidding.

This thread started by calling attention to a photo in Fetzer’s latest book which claims to show WTC7 “during the attack on the twin towers... undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” The photo was actually taken years before 9/11 and the “modest fire at street level” is a colorful sculpture on the mezzanine level.

Next, the Larry Sileverstein interview was discussed. Silverstein claimed he talked to “the fire commander” on the afternoon of 9/11 and told him “to pull it” because of the massive loss of life earlier in the day. The “fire commander” was Chief of Department Daniel Nigro. Nigro made a public announcement that he never talked to Silverstein that day. In addition, he says he would have given no heed to any request an owner made anyway.

For reasons that still remain unclear to me, the discussion shifted away from WTC7 to Jack White’s claim that WTC6 blew up at 9:04 PM. White produced a photo down Vesey Street which, he said, showed a hole in the side of WTC6 caused by the 9:04 AM explosion. He said the photo was made while the North Tower was still standing. The South Tower dropped at 9:59 AM; the North Tower dropped at 10:28 AM. The photo itself shows the west face of the Verizon Building in direct sunlight. As Len Colby made clear, this means that the photo was taken in the afternoon of 9/11 probably about the time the collapse zone around WTC7 was established by Chief Nigro’s “pull-back” order. The damage to WTC6 shown in the photo was caused by the impact of the North Tower dropping on it at 10:28 AM which collapsed the roof and part of the north wall. Aerial photos show the roof of WTC6 intact and undamaged at about the time the South Tower dropped at 9:59 AM.

White posted another photo showing the debris cloud from the South Tower collapse at 9:59 AM about to engulf the west end of WTC6. He said this photo shows that WTC6 was already damaged by an earlier internal explosion at 9:04 AM. Why? Because the photo shows windows broken, drapes blowing out of the broken windows, a glow that may be interior fire and soot between the windows. Another photo taken by the same photographer a second or two later discloses that the windows are unbroken, there are no drapes flapping in the breeze, the “glow” is a reflection of the debris cloud off the unbroken windows and the “soot” may well be just what the building looked like.

White then posted several frames from the CNN broadcast on 9/11. The frames were marked by either White or someone else with the label “9:04.” White claimed that these frames were broadcast at 9:04 AM and show a white cloud arising from the location of WTC6 evidencing the explosion he’s been arguing for. The frames posted by White contain the legend “Earlier” and “Voice of Tom Clancy Author.”

Matt Lewis tracked down and posted the CNN coverage for the period around 9:04 AM. It did not contain the frames posted by White. Much later, at about 11:53 AM, he found the frames posted by White with the legend “Earlier” and “Voice of Tom Clancy Author.” Indeed, the white cloud was present because the frames were of the collapse of the South Tower which CNN had been running over and over again that morning. The cloud was produced by the collapse of the South Tower at 9:49 AM and had nothing to do with any explosion in WTC6.

Since I’m only an occasional visitor to this site, I was appalled to learn that the frames Jack White posted had been debunked by Matt Lewis’ work some ten months earlier in September 2007. Back then, the critical photo showing the undamaged roof of WTC6 at 9:59 AM was also posted. All of this leads me to ask the following question: Why post an argument that was thoroughly debunked ten months earlier? If new facts had come to light which saved the earlier argument I can see why one would post it again. But no new facts were offered. It was a case of “same old... same old.” Why do this? Isn’t the premise of intelligent discussion namely that arguments are offered, counter-arguments made, and, if one or the other is proven correct, the proponent of one or the other admits the point and the discussion moves on. These arguments aren’t about obscure theological points as to whether God is singular or a trinity but about a historical event, about whether something happened. Inquiry proceeds by disposing of bad arguments and moving forward on the shoulders of good arguments. It seems difficult to imagine what further documentation could be offered to show the falsity of Jack White’s claim concerning an explosion at 9:04 AM in WTC6. Why then not abandon it and move on? You tell me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All of this leads me to ask the following question: Why post an argument that was thoroughly debunked ten months earlier?

Good question - why do you persist with that "Zapruder film is genuine" nonsense? Have a stern word with yourself.

An English well-wisher.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A member who mostly reads without posting much emailed me today with

a suggestion. He reads everything he can about the events of 9-11 and

finds the NOT-TRUTHERS personal attacks and counter-information both

disruptive and a detriment to learning. He asked me to suggest the following

to Mr. Simkin to make this forum more user friendly and informative:

1. Establish 9-11 as a separate category, apart from Political Conspiracies.

2. Have two sub categories under 9-11, TRUTHERS and NOT-TRUTHERS.

3. In the Truther category, allow only postings of Truther research.

4. In the Non-Truther category, allow only postings of Non-Truther research.

This would stop all the repetitive name-calling, but would not stop replies,

since research in either category could be replied to with ANTI-RESEARCH

in the other category. Members or other readers could then choose whether

to read only one category or both...and avoid dealing with all the ad-homs,

misinformation, disputes and lies.

If you do not like my titles, make up others...such as PRO-OFFICIAL STORY

and ANTI-OFFICIAL STORY...or GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY vs ARAB

CONSPIRACY. A moderator could enforce the split posting, assuring that

ONLY RESEARCH or COUNTER RESEARCH is posted in each category.

Something should be done to curb the name-calling and disputes.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
All of this leads me to ask the following question: Why post an argument that was thoroughly debunked ten months earlier?

Good question - why do you persist with that "Zapruder film is genuine" nonsense? Have a stern word with yourself.

An English well-wisher.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=149702

...and I'll let Jack speak for himself......

I don't know if you really ever captured the real essence of philosophy - or only the debating style it all too often embodies its devotees. Your self-proclaimed TKO seems to me to be only a light blow to the mat - not even the opponents......and some of your 'corner men' from this Forum are highly suspect IMO - beware the company you are keeping. While your book SSID was my entree to the theatre and lies of Dallas, I think now you begin to loose your way, sadly.....[my humble and biased opinion only]. 911 was, like Dallas, a magic show....don't be fooled by the magician's 'active' hand - it is the other one that is doing the 'deeds'......misdirection is the tradecraft of magician and intelligence operative, both.

On target, Peter. SSID to me ranked second behind Sylvia's "Accessories After The Fact" in early JFK books.

Meagher, Thompson, Lane, Ferrell, and Jones were my early guideposts to the JFK affair. Alas, he seems

to have lost his way now, and switched to the side of the conspirators, abandoning those of us who still

search for truth. He is now an investigator working to support the NON-TRUTHER side of 9-11.

Contrary to his constant repetition, so far NONE of my 9-11 work has been "debunked" by any credible

counter-research. Much of what is posted here is plainly untrue. The motives of some who post such tripe

are not clear...largely persons who do not live in the US or who work for government entities. They

keep throwing punches, but haven't landed a punch yet. Their constant claims of "debunking" simply

are not true. The believe that constant repetition of something will finally make it acceptable, a tactic

once employed by Herr Goebbels. In that case, the TRUTHERS won out over the BIG LIE.

Thanks to you dedication to TRUTH, Peter.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I left the professional world of philosophy about thirty years ago but I thought I had a pretty good idea of what it was. Maybe you have a better one.

However, I can see where this particular attitude/behavior leads. This attitude/behavior destroys the possibility of any genuine discussion. Also, the paranoid view supporting this attitude/behavior makes it impossible to ever know anything about anything since both the evidence and the deliverer of the evidence are tainted. Finally, of course, the paranoid ends up on top in any discussion since he is the only one to know "how things really are" and all the rest of us are chumps. It's simply a complicated language game which we see enacted here in living color. It leads to nothing except the end of discussion. But discussion, I thought, was what this site was for.

That's the bad part.

The good part is that everyone gets to judge who has something to say and who doesn't. Since the bankruptcy of an argument is something anyone can see who bothers to follow the back and forth of argument and counterargument, no one really has to admit they're wrong. Bankruptcy shows. And so finally the game of paranoia, suspect all evidence and all deliverers of evidence, ends up exposed for what it is.... itself logically bankrupt.

You may say that the above remarks aren't good philosopy. I think they are.

All of this leads me to ask the following question: Why post an argument that was thoroughly debunked ten months earlier?

Good question - why do you persist with that "Zapruder film is genuine" nonsense? Have a stern word with yourself.

An English well-wisher.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=149702

...and I'll let Jack speak for himself......

I don't know if you really ever captured the real essence of philosophy - or only the debating style it all too often embodies its devotees. Your self-proclaimed TKO seems to me to be only a light blow to the mat - not even the opponents......and some of your 'corner men' from this Forum are highly suspect IMO - beware the company you are keeping. While your book SSID was my entree to the theatre and lies of Dallas, I think now you begin to loose your way, sadly.....[my humble and biased opinion only]. 911 was, like Dallas, a magic show....don't be fooled by the magician's 'active' hand - it is the other one that is doing the 'deeds'......misdirection is the tradecraft of magician and intelligence operative, both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...