FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Dave Greer]

This appears to prove that the CNN frame was earlier than the collapse of the South Tower.

Let the scoffing begin.

Jack

There's a change in angle between the 2 photos as evidenced by the relation of WTC7 to WTC1.

Here are the 2 images from your study.

Here's a plan of the WTC complex, showing the approx location of the smoke cloud, and the approx direction the cameras were pointing in when the 2 photos were taken. Different sides of the smoke cloud are visible depending on the viewpoint of the camera (the cloud is in exactly the same position in both images).

EDIT Reversed the positions of the 2 maps so they correspond to the photos as shown in Jack's montage.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Jack White]

The whole idea of this forum is to encourage dialogue between people with different views. The idea that some threads can be reserved for certain groups of people is completely unacceptable.

John did not understand the proposal.

It did not suggest banning anyone from any forum. It suggested

a section for posting TRUTHER RESEARCH. It suggested a section

for posting UN-TRUTHER RESEARCH. It did not propose banning

anyone. Anyone could post on either section, but could not engage

in name calling, personal attacks, etc. except by offering COUNTER

RESEARCH in a different place.

The person who suggested this to me is interested in LEARNING

FROM RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT. To him it is very distracting

to wade through tons of vituperative ad hominems to find the few

bits of research. He does not want to post any thoughts on the

subject because he does not want ridicule from the UN-TRUTHERS.

Jack

[Jack White]

This appears to prove that the CNN frame was earlier than the collapse of the South Tower.

Let the scoffing begin.

Jack

There's a change in angle between the 2 photos as evidenced by the relation of WTC7 to WTC1.

Here are the 2 images from your study.

Here's a plan of the WTC complex, showing the approx location of the smoke cloud, and the approx direction the cameras were pointing in when the 2 photos were taken. Different sides of the smoke cloud are visible depending on the viewpoint of the camera (the cloud is in exactly the same position in both images).

Aha...the very response I anticipated. See attached.

Jack

[Jack White]

This appears to prove that the CNN frame was earlier than the collapse of the South Tower.

Let the scoffing begin.

Jack

There's a change in angle between the 2 photos as evidenced by the relation of WTC7 to WTC1.

Here are the 2 images from your study.

Here's a plan of the WTC complex, showing the approx location of the smoke cloud, and the approx direction the cameras were pointing in when the 2 photos were taken. Different sides of the smoke cloud are visible depending on the viewpoint of the camera (the cloud is in exactly the same position in both images).

Does anyone have the data from the USWB - did wind direction change during the time between first stike and second? It now seems the wind did changing both the direction of smoke plume general air clarity in region of towers. Something is not fitting and at this point. Dave your images don't seem to explain the top plume blowing away into the distance. IMO What might be helpful is someone with the right software and honest intent to take some of the videos and put a running timestamp on them - so these captures can have a timeframe to them. This would be best done from live video of known broadcast or points in time in them [such as collapse / strike of plane / etc.]. Remember this is a 4 dimentional event and the photos we post are two dimentional - only hinting at the other dimentions, at times. Sometimes the others are clear - not always.

While anyone can be wrong - even CNN - I've yet to see anyone try to explain away or get a retraction from the CNN archivist as to the original taken at about 9:04. To add one more layer of complexity. I found on the internet someone who thinks the explosion seen over [or near] WTC6 happened about the same time as the first tower began collapse, BUT THAT IT IS UNRELATED and NOT part of the cloud of the tower's collapse. Jack's photos showing the collapse features and the photo [from any angle] of the upward moving cloud above or near WTC6 don't match and seem to not be connected. Those of you who want to explain it away, seem to assume [without explicitly saying so] that it is some extension of the collapse cloud. However, the collapse features and the cloud that formed immediately after, and spread-out, never have that 'look'. Such a collapse cloud could/should be modeled on a computer - but not on just any computer. Such a computation in 3D is quite complex and takes an expert. To my eye, however, they don't match and the cloud over WTC6 white and rising-up doens't fit the mostly gray to dark gray falling cloud that then dissipated widely. I see no other feature that looks like the 'top of a thundercloud' or explosive event in the collapse cloud.

Every now and then I sit back and ask - why the hell are we citizen researchers having to once again do this kind of research with meager resources and lives to live [just as with Dallas]....because the officials didn't [want to] answer all the questions and left many [and growing] with a sense that they lied and covered-up something(s). Dallas redux, and I'm surprised many fail to see it.....so it goes...so it goes...

Again satellite images would help. By the way, I need to correct myself. Several of the images of the debris field well after the collapse and of the Pentagon after the fire are satellite photos, it turns out. Where are the photos DURING the events!?!~

Below from another site - indicating either two exlosions over WTC6 area - or event different from collapse event [but perhaps coordinated in time?]..... It seems to me, like Dallas, this was a complex event and not easy to pin down as some think....but the official version, taken as a whole, is nothing but a sinister fairytale.

Peter...some of these people are divorced from reality. They think they are playing

some sort of internet game of GOTCHA with the "experts", instead of something

deadly serious affecting the fate of the world. It reminds me of the early days of

the internet when some pipsqueak "JfK researcher" bragged on another forum

how "he had made a fool of the great Jack White" on the DellaRosa forum. Perhaps

in his mind, he had...but to him it was a case of "shooting down an expert", not

part of a serious investigation. I do not even remember the fool's name...he had

his "fun" and moved on to some other "game".

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

Please read John's reply again, because I believe it is you who has misunderstood.

No-one has mentioned anything about banning any members.

The idea behind posting research is - in part - to see if it can withstand scrutiny. You may have personally witnessed something, and know that you are accurately reporting such, but find that other people disbelieve your account, giving reasons why they disbelieve it. You may be unable to offer any evidence of your account except for "I was there". Peoples disbelief does not mean you are wrong or inaccurate - it means that you cannot prove to others your account is accurate. That would be its weakness, and so you could seek to find evidence to support your account.

So if people post things they believe to be true, or maintain are recorded fact, it should be able to withstand the scrutiny of those who disagree. People of different opinion should find it difficult to offer evidence as to why something should be given more weight than another when thinking about the accuracy of a statement. "Lurkers" or people of no particular opinion on a subject should be able to read the arguments on either side of a debate, and decide for themselves which viewpoint they support.

In fact, anyone who believes they have accurate information, etc, should WELCOME other people trying to disprove the argument.

That is healthy debate.

I totally agree that name-calling and personal attacks are to be forbidden... and within the bounds of allowing people to act as adults and not imposing an excessive amount of censorship.

Lastly, there is no reason why the member whose idea this was could not have sent John a PM, making the suggestion. They would not have to have made their name or ideas public.

The whole idea of this forum is to encourage dialogue between people with different views. The idea that some threads can be reserved for certain groups of people is completely unacceptable.

John did not understand the proposal.

It did not suggest banning anyone from any forum. It suggested

a section for posting TRUTHER RESEARCH. It suggested a section

for posting UN-TRUTHER RESEARCH. It did not propose banning

anyone. Anyone could post on either section, but could not engage

in name calling, personal attacks, etc. except by offering COUNTER

RESEARCH in a different place.

The person who suggested this to me is interested in LEARNING

FROM RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT. To him it is very distracting

to wade through tons of vituperative ad hominems to find the few

bits of research. He does not want to post any thoughts on the

subject because he does not want ridicule from the UN-TRUTHERS.

Jack

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Charles, I have deleted your post as it contained an attack on Len Colby that you have been told previously not to repeat. Any complaints to John/Andy.

[Craig Lamson]

This appears to prove that the CNN frame was earlier than the collapse of the South Tower.

Let the scoffing begin.

Jack

There's a change in angle between the 2 photos as evidenced by the relation of WTC7 to WTC1.

Here are the 2 images from your study.

Here's a plan of the WTC complex, showing the approx location of the smoke cloud, and the approx direction the cameras were pointing in when the 2 photos were taken. Different sides of the smoke cloud are visible depending on the viewpoint of the camera (the cloud is in exactly the same position in both images).

Aha...the very response I anticipated. See attached.

Jack

Sigh... Jack tells us the "angles are very similar" when in fact they are almost 45 degrees different, as can be seen by viewing the face of the still standing North tower. The wind has NOT shifted nor is the smoke moving in a different direction. What we see is the just result of the camera angle changing approx 45 degrees. For a vivid example of this camera angle change, take a look at the spire on the right of the North tower in both views and then tell us the "angles are very similar".

Those claiming building 6 exploded are flogging a very dead horse.

Added on edit: Jack says it is impossible for one frame to have a clear blue sky and the other to contain haze. Clearly to anyone who has used an extreme telephoto lens or a telescope viewing terrestrial objects know Jack is very mistaken. One of the common pitfalls of using an extreme telephoto lens and shooting over long distances is the effects of atmospheric haze.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NoTKcsQTF...1&ct=result

Edited July 16, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

This appears to prove that the CNN frame was earlier than the collapse of the South Tower.

Let the scoffing begin.

Jack

There's a change in angle between the 2 photos as evidenced by the relation of WTC7 to WTC1.

Here are the 2 images from your study.

Here's a plan of the WTC complex, showing the approx location of the smoke cloud, and the approx direction the cameras were pointing in when the 2 photos were taken. Different sides of the smoke cloud are visible depending on the viewpoint of the camera (the cloud is in exactly the same position in both images).

Aha...the very response I anticipated. See attached.

Jack

Jack

What do you mean when you say both cameras are pointing South? Do you mean "Due South", or do you mean "in a vaguely southerly direction". The way you've constructed your argument seems to indicate you mean "due South", since otherwise there's plenty of wiggle room for the change in angle between the two photos as I've indicated ("in a vaguley southerly direction" covers a field of at LEAST 90 degrees, or 180 if you're being very generous).

Clearly both images cannot be pointing either due South, or indeed in the same direction (other than a very generalised "in a southerly manner"), as shown below.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Charles Drago]

Charles, I have deleted your post as it contained an attack on Len Colby that you have been told previously not to repeat. Any complaints to John/Andy.

The following was sent to Stephen via PM:

Stephen,

You are ill-informed and out of line.

1. I was NEVER "told" (asked) not to post my warning.

2. "Colby" himself is on record -- via a public post on this Forum -- stating that he has no problem whatsoever with the warning being posted.

Accordingly, I am "telling" (asking) you to replace my post immediately.

Charles

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Charles, I have deleted your post as it contained an attack on Len Colby that you have been told previously not to repeat. Any complaints to John/Andy.

The following was sent to Stephen via PM:

Stephen,

You are ill-informed and out of line.

1. I was NEVER "told" (asked) not to post my warning.

2. "Colby" himself is on record -- via a public post on this Forum -- stating that he has no problem whatsoever with the warning being posted.

Accordingly, I am "telling" (asking) you to replace my post immediately.

Charles

Charles, you have my answer via P/M. John or Andy can adjudicate. i, however, have no intention of replacing a post which contains an attack on a fellow forum member.

[Dave Greer]

Peter...some of these people are divorced from reality. They think they are playing

some sort of internet game of GOTCHA with the "experts", instead of something

deadly serious affecting the fate of the world. It reminds me of the early days of

the internet when some pipsqueak "JfK researcher" bragged on another forum

how "he had made a fool of the great Jack White" on the DellaRosa forum. Perhaps

in his mind, he had...but to him it was a case of "shooting down an expert", not

part of a serious investigation. I do not even remember the fool's name...he had

his "fun" and moved on to some other "game".

Jack

Jack

911 is a turning point in Human history, with repercussions that will affect us all for who knows how many decades.

If the truth movement is right, and the US Government or its agencies are guilty of some kind of complicity in 911, then that needs to be brought to the attention of the world in the form of unimpeachable evidence. Along the road to finding that crucial evidence, many claims will be made that are shown to be false by analysis of the evidence itself. Once that's been done (as has been done with your claims about WTC6), flawed arguments should be consigned to a dusty shelf until such a time as new evidence emerges to support the original claim, and energies should be focussed on other aspects of evidence. If you insist on including the bogus WTC6 claim as part of the canon of evidence, then questions are raised about the validity of the entire canon. In your determination to include your WTC6 claim as part of the canon, you're actually hurting the 911 truth movement, in the same way that Judy Wood's continued espousal of her "death ray" hurts the truth movement, and those insisting on the use of holograms are hurting the truth movement.

Dave Vonkleist has the right appoach. He made the same claim you did about WTC6 in his video "911 In Plane Sight", until such a time when the claim was proven to be false, using the same evidence as has been presented on this thread. Now he can direct his energies in a more fruitful direction, rather than wasting his own time and energy chasing a red herring with wild geese. You could do worse than take a leaf out of his book.

As for anyone's claims to being an expert, I tend to take such things under advisement and let people's words and actions speak for themselves. Your Apollo and 911 studies have more than adequately confirmed the validity or otherwise of your "expert" status.

[Charles Drago]

The "answer" Turner references follows:

"I don't care whether Len 'Has a problem with it', I do, Please desist from making personal attacks on fellow forum members. as i said, if you don't like it, take it up with John/Andy."

My come-back to Turner:

"Your likes and dislikes are of no interest to me whatsoever.

"The fact that you won't admit that you are either misinformed or disingenuous regarding what I allegedly was "told" surely "tells" me all I need to know about you.

"The fact that John's Forum is set up so that you can pass judgment on my work is precisely the reason why, once again, I'm taking my leave of it.

"Bye bye."

I trust all of you good and decent folk who are offended by my "Colby" warning will be immensely pleased by all this: You get "Colby." I get lost.

And no, "Colby" doesn't win. I do.

Bye bye.

Charles

Edited July 16, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Guest Stephen Turner]

The "answer" Turner references follows:

"I don't care whether Len 'Has a problem with it', I do, Please desist from making personal attacks on fellow forum members. as i said, if you don't like it, take it up with John/Andy."

My come-back to Turner:

"Your likes and dislikes are of no interest to me whatsoever.

"The fact that you won't admit that you are either misinformed or disingenuous regarding what I allegedly was "told" surely "tells" me all I need to know about you.

"The fact that John's Forum is set up so that you can pass judgment on my work is precisely the reason why, once again, I'm taking my leave of it.

"Bye bye."

I trust all of you good and decent folk who are offended by my "Colby" warning will be immensely pleased by all this: You get "Colby." I get lost.

And no, "Colby" doesn't win. I do.

Bye bye.

Charles

Its not my likes or dislikes Charles, its forum rules. Goodbye old bean.

[Dawn Meredith]

The "answer" Turner references follows:

"I don't care whether Len 'Has a problem with it', I do, Please desist from making personal attacks on fellow forum members. as i said, if you don't like it, take it up with John/Andy."

My come-back to Turner:

"Your likes and dislikes are of no interest to me whatsoever.

"The fact that you won't admit that you are either misinformed or disingenuous regarding what I allegedly was "told" surely "tells" me all I need to know about you.

"The fact that John's Forum is set up so that you can pass judgment on my work is precisely the reason why, once again, I'm taking my leave of it.

"Bye bye."

I trust all of you good and decent folk who are offended by my "Colby" warning will be immensely pleased by all this: You get "Colby." I get lost.

And no, "Colby" doesn't win. I do.

Bye bye.

Charles

I am on record as saying that many good people have left this forum due to the admins always taking the side of the Colby crew. This is most unfortunate. I do not know what CD wrote but I was in agreement with what Jack was posting.

When I saw that CD had posted I was really glad, alas....he is silenced again.

The forum is the loser imho.

Dawn

[Guest Stephen Turner]

The "answer" Turner references follows:

"I don't care whether Len 'Has a problem with it', I do, Please desist from making personal attacks on fellow forum members. as i said, if you don't like it, take it up with John/Andy."

My come-back to Turner:

"Your likes and dislikes are of no interest to me whatsoever.

"The fact that you won't admit that you are either misinformed or disingenuous regarding what I allegedly was "told" surely "tells" me all I need to know about you.

"The fact that John's Forum is set up so that you can pass judgment on my work is precisely the reason why, once again, I'm taking my leave of it.

"Bye bye."

I trust all of you good and decent folk who are offended by my "Colby" warning will be immensely pleased by all this: You get "Colby." I get lost.

And no, "Colby" doesn't win. I do.

Bye bye.

Charles

Its not my likes or dislikes Charles, its forum rules. Goodbye old bean.

A reminder of this rule..."YOU WILL NOT USE THIS BULLETIN BOARD TO POST ANY MATERIAL WHICH IS KNOWINGLY FALSE, DEFAMATORY INACCURATE, ABUSIVE VULGAR HATEFUL, HARASSING, OBSCENE, PROFANE, SEXUALLY ORIENTATED,THREATENING, INVASIVE OF A PERSONS PRIVACY, OR OTHERWISE VIOLATIVE OF ANY LAW....MEMBERS WHO FAIL TO ABIDE BY THESE SIMPLE RULES WILL HAVE THEIR MEMBERSHIP RESCINDED, AND THEIR POSTS DELETED.

I posted a thread last week warning all members that from now on I intended to apply this rule without "FEAR OR FAVOUR"