Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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.?

I "admit" to none of those things, because none of them is true.

Jack

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

Top Posters In This Topic

I "admit" to none of those things, because none of them is true.

Jack

Jack

Can you explain why there are is no video showing this dust cloud soon after the south tower was struck? The only footage I can find showing these large billowing clouds is immediately after each tower collapses.

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

The only evidence I've seen is the video frame mislabelled "9:04", which is clearly taken after the south tower collapsed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wrote: "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."

It's interesting that you bring up the first generation of researchers on the Kennedy assassination. Specifically, you were kind enough to mention Sylvia Meagher and me. Sylvia and I were good friends up to the time of her death. We had wonderful discussions. Any disagreements we had were always worked out in terms of "where's the best evidence." The whole point of the critique of the Warren Report was that its conclusions were not based on the evidence in the case. Once you took a look at that evidence, it was clear that the proper conclusions lead in a different direction from what the Warren Commission said. They still do. But the critical point was evidence.

In the present case, various pieces of evidence are put forward and then it turns out they self-destruct... they turn out not to be evidence for what you say they are. I haven't "lost my way" or "switched to the side of the conspiritors" or working to support "the NON-TRUTHER side of 9-11." What drivel!! Actually, I'm working for ConEd and its insurance companies whose substation was destroyed when WTC7 came down. If Larry Silverstein or the Port Authority or some shadowy cabal of unknown persons brought down WTC7 with controlled demolitions, it would make my job easier. All I'd have to do is find someone who for money would roll on the rest of the conspiracy. The problem is that that didn't happen. Hence, one has to build a case brick by brick, interview by interview, photograph by photograph. However, in a way this was just what Sylvia and I did forty years ago. We built up a critique of the Warren Commission piece by piece, witness by witness, physical evidence by physical evidence, photograph by photograph. In short, we concentrated on evidence and used evidence to show the falsity of the government version of events.

If your evidence was any good, Jack, I'd buy it. The problem is that your evidence comes apart as soon as it's subject to examination. Give me some real evidence and I'll pay attention to it. If Sylvia Meagher were alive now, she'd tell you the same thing.

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 "admit" to none of those things, because none of them is true.

Jack

Jack

Can you explain why there are is no video showing this dust cloud soon after the south tower was struck? The only footage I can find showing these large billowing clouds is immediately after each tower collapses.

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

The only evidence I've seen is the video frame mislabelled "9:04", which is clearly taken after the south tower collapsed.

Here's the footage as broadcast on CNN (they didn't show it "live").

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216

The time-stamp 19:14 (into the clip) shows the same scene that Jack claims was filmed at 9:04 EST, a minute after the south tower was struck. (This equates to a time of 11:54 EDT). I agree with Peter that the time it was shown on CNN is (almost) irrelevant, the time of the event is what is important. So, the only way to judge for yourself is to look at the video around the timestamp I indicated, and decide for yourself whether it was taken just after the south tower was hit, or whether it was taken just after the south tower started collapsing.

Sorry Jack, but your claim is wrong. The time-stamp you claim of 9:04 is way off beam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack

There's always the Report button if you believe someone has over-stepped the mark.

I don't think your proposal would be workable in practice. Splitting the discussion onto two threads wouldn't prevent name calling, it would just make any semblance of a discussion more difficult to follow.

Some important issues have been raised concerning your claim about the "WTC6 dust cloud" video clip, could you address them on the other thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites
another

post-667-1215922538.jpg

I don't think this one has been addressed yet.

http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912

Look at the time stamp from 39:34 to 39:55. No sign of any smoke in this 21 second clip.

Further, what you say is a dust cloud is not in the correct position as you claim. Your red circle is in front of 3WF (labelled WFC 3 in tyhe map below). WTC6 is sandwiched in between WTC1 and WTC7.

486px-WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg.png

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.?

I "admit" to none of those things, because none of them is true.

Jack

I’m confused do you believe that the western faces of buildings could be in the sunlight 9:04 – 9:58 AM or any time before solar noon (12:52 PM in NYC on 9/11/01) how do you correlate that with your earlier correct statement about one of the same buildings that “The time is clearly AM, since the sunshine is on the EAST face of the building” if that is true (and it is) then so is the converse “The time is clearly PM, since the sunshine is on the WEST faces of the buildings”

Were your wrong then or are you wrong now?

Answer 3 more questions

Is the right traffic light closer to the camera than WFC 3 OR is it on the corner of West St.?

Is the left traffic light essentially the same size as or much smaller than the right one?

If you chose the 1st option to both questions above how do you explain traffic lights hubdreds of feet apart being the same size?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Contrary to his constant repetition, so far NONE of my 9-11 work has been "debunked" by any credible counter-research… Their constant claims of "debunking" simply are not true… They keep throwing punches, but haven't landed a punch yet.

I haven’t seen such denial since the “Black Knight” scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail in which the knight says "'tis but a scratch" after loosing one arm and "it's only a flesh wound" after loosing the other and finally "I'll bite off your legs off!" while desperately flopping around after losing his legs with King Arthur riding away. I can’t remember a previous example in real life.

Since Jack obviously won’t be swayed no matter how overwhelming the contrary evidence and the only person who seems to believe him admitted he is “biased” and “can’t “see the [computer] screen properly” there really is no reason to continue.

Much of what is posted here is plainly untrue.

That I can agree with 100%

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.

So the opinions of people who don’t live in the US or “work for government entities” are suspect? What about Peter, Paul and Maggie*? What about Jan sans Dean? What about John Simkin and Steve Turner? What about Cyril Wecht (corner’s office), Kevin Barrett (UW), Fetzer (US Army and various state universities)? By your logic your buddy Costalla has two strikes against him because he lives in Australia AND worked for his countries Defense Department.

* Sorry to drag you in to this Maggie but you don’t live in the US and your name is close to Mary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious.

David,

Unintentional as it may have been, the question can cause offense to Forum members who currently serve in the military. Because some people in the past have questioned why military people would post here, and have alluded to them having less than honest motives, it has become a case of questioning the posters motive - which is against the Forum rules. If you wish to know if someone is an active duty, serving member, then read their profile or ask them via PM. It is not a matter for public posting. Military member can face certain risks if their identities, current employment, and location are known. If you want to know if someone is employed by a certain industry or employer, ask them via PM.

If you feel the matter is of such importance that it must be publicly exposed, then CHECK WITH A MOD BEFORE POSTING.

I hope this will be the last I have to say on the matter - address the post, not the poster.

Thanks everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
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...

David, your above reply is verging on personel insult, and can we please leave Mr Oswald out of a debate on 911, he has some extensive threads somewhere else on this Forum. Gentlemen, lets try and keep it nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestion is that the member PM John Simkin directly. In the meantime I'll let John known about this thread but I am going to close it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Background:

July 4 - Tink Thompson started the thread Fetzer’s Folly in which he pointed out that a photo from a study back Jack published in a book edited by Fetzer which was captioned “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.”

July 5 – Jack facing irrefutable proof makes a half hearted admission of error (emphasis mine)

The "fault" if any is mine. Jim asked me to do the photo section on a very rush

basis after the book was already typeset, and the publisher insisted on a photo

section. I hurriedly put together the eight page section. The WTC 7 image I chose

was one I had saved several years earlier from a website which had described

the red at the bottom of the building as a fire. There are many similar photos

showing a small fire in the same location…

A few hours later Fetzer posted the following:

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

Since then I have asked for clarification on 6 occasions: July 8, 12, 13 (2x), 14 (2x) but neither Jack nor Fetzer posted the supposed “replacement photograph” or responded to my inquiries.

So I’ll try one more time:

1) Did Jack really find “a replacement photograph that [they] will use in the second printing of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY”?”

2) If so why hasn’t said photo been posted to the applicable thread? If, as I suspect, this was not the case, why did Fetzer make this false claim?

Since I asked politely 6 times on the applicable thread and gotten no response I feel justified in starting this one. I hope that it will not breakdown into a discussion about other 9/11 issues but be reserved for the specific point of Fetzer’s claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, though separating topics IMO is worthy. The point I would like to make is that if you disagree with a poster's viewpoint, then argue your opinion demonstrating why another's post / opinion is wrong / should be disregarded. Deal with the points they put forward. Give reference to support your views.

Simply saying someone is wrong with nothing to support that opinion is poor debating style. IMO.

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. [...]y.

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

Jack

Quite ironic that Jack claims that those who disagree with him are all intentionally deceptive, compares them to Goebbels and objects to the fact that most don't live in the US and/or work for the government - then starts a thread complaining about "personal attacks" "a-homs" and "name-calling"

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...