Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

How about Colby's constant attacks?

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

How about Andy Walker's abusive ageist posts accusing me of senility. He said I was 101. I find this hateful and abusive.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also a difference in time and in framing between the two photos. The debris cloud from the collapse of the South Tower changes second by second. It would be useful if someone could track down the original broadcasts of these frames as part of an effort to nail down the time difference.

At a certain point one becomes weary of attempts to put a dead horse back on its feet.

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.

JW-wtc6-1.jpg

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).

map-2.jpg

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.

wtc1-angle-compare-1.jpg

I'd grant that somewhere around 40 degrees might be about the difference in angle of the two cameras toward the towers, but to me the smoke plume at the top [from the fires] are off more than 40 degrees IMO - way off...indicating somewhat different times and different wind direction, most likely. Overhead photos of all this from planes or satellites [i'm sure they exist] would solve all this in a minute...but someone in power doesn't seem to want to solve it...why [one might ask]?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo, Dave Greer. This is just what ought to be said. If the "truther" movement continues to propogate dead arguments, anything they say of merit will be submerged by the junk. Hence, the great importance in discussion of being willing to admit when an argument is truly dead. Nice post!

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

How about Colby's constant attacks?

Jack

Exactly! Mr. C [via the moderators] is Provacteur General of the Forum - with most every post a slam/provocation/attack/ad-hom/etc. [though I see Mr. L is back today] has taken another victim - a good voice of reason and real investigative power and knowledge - the loss is to the Forum loosing Charles Drago! The 'political correctness' of protecting the provacateurs and NOT those who respond to them will kill this Forum IMO....and I've been in conversation with many who privately feel it is slowly - dying and the likes of Mr. C [or their protection via the 'rules'] are the reason. There are pro provocateurs here on this Forum, who know just how to get the responder in trouble and just miss getting so themselves. Bravo for the wrong side. Justice and Reason have lost. Again. It is NOT a matter of opinions - but of 'technique' and 'constant attack'. Look who starts it - or never stops it and not reaction that was cultivated/planned/connived/reactive. This entire thread is a provacation/taunt - as are almost all the person who started this one creates. Some apparently can't see the pattern. We all loose. Most on the Forum will be very sad loosing Charles and being stuck with you-know-who [remember the cheers at the weeks he went 'a missin']. Shame on this outcome. If any mods feel they need to 'protect' a contant problem person because they are sometimes attacked in response - just look at how they court it - desires it - cultivates it - plans it - provokes it - intentionally, IMO. Charles, don't go away. Just cease and desist with that warning label. It became a focus of controversy - and we wouldn't want that here.....

It is odd indeed that provocateurs receive favored treatment and that respected gentlemen like

Charles Drago are shown the exit. Makes one wonder. The reputation of Drago as a JFK researcher

is very high. None of the provocateurs has a reputation as a researcher or gentleman. Makes one

wonder what the purpose of this forum is. That provocateurs have been made moderators gives one

cause to stop and think.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering where people would vote on this proposition:

The Official 9/11 Report was flawed but at this point it is better for the US government to act in accordance with its conclusions and

recommendations instead of opening a new US Government investigation into the causes of 9/11.

I disagree with this proposition, but am curious as to what others think.

The reason I post this is because I notice so much debate on here about one of the alternative conspiracy theories on this forum, but almost never do

I see a take it or leave it type of evalution on the government's conspiracy theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is visual (photo) evidence that at one time the wind at the WTC was from

the north.

However, apparently at some point the wind shifted direction, if this passage

I found today on the internet is reliable:

"From the Seattle Times

Dust choked downtown for nearly 20 minutes, blocking out the sun and leaving a layer of film on cars, streets and storefronts. The dust cloud reached nearly as high as the top of the Bank of America Tower and drifted northwest about 8 miles an hour."

Note that it says the dustcloud DRIFTED NORTHWEST. Early photos show it going SOUTH.

Was there a wind shift?

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wondering where people would vote on this proposition:

The Official 9/11 Report was flawed but at this point it is better for the US government to act in accordance with its conclusions and

recommendations instead of opening a new US Government investigation into the causes of 9/11.

I disagree with this proposition, but am curious as to what others think.

The reason I post this is because I notice so much debate on here about one of the alternative conspiracy theories on this forum, but almost never do

I see a take it or leave it type of evalution on the government's conspiracy theory.

"Better" FOR WHOM?

Bush and his handlers?

The people?

It is improper to say "the US Government", since the vast majority consists

of loyal people following orders. If the "government" was involved, name

the criminals within it...not just the patriotic workers doing their bidding.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is visual (photo) evidence that at one time the wind at the WTC was from

the north.

However, apparently at some point the wind shifted direction, if this passage

I found today on the internet is reliable:

"From the Seattle Times

Dust choked downtown for nearly 20 minutes, blocking out the sun and leaving a layer of film on cars, streets and storefronts. The dust cloud reached nearly as high as the top of the Bank of America Tower and drifted northwest about 8 miles an hour."

Note that it says the dustcloud DRIFTED NORTHWEST. Early photos show it going SOUTH.

Was there a wind shift?

Jack

I think now there were at least three directions for the wind [and obviously all the intermediate directions] and there must be times and directions known that would help time-position some of the photos]. Most of us have seen the satellite [where are the ones from the time OF the attacks and just after!*] photo showing the entire lower manhattan and a smoke plume going off toward the Southwest. I believe that was quite a bit after the attacks but before the collapse - but of the time it was taken I am really not sure. The direction and general time matches the photo with the Statue of Liberty - although in that one it may be headed more toward the South. I also found this report that the wind changed direction 180 degrees - BUT WHEN?!

*In looking for the photo it mentioned that the satellite that took the photo [and one can get a much more detailed image of it] has the resolution capability of seeing things one meter/yard!!!! How helpful would the images of the planes attacking and the fires and explosions be?!...and why are they not being released or asked for in court cases!? I believe this was from a commercial/scientific satellite. The military/intelligence ones have higher resolutions - that are classified. It might be that for the highest resolutions one needs to be purposely watching [zoom in] - but that is not known and highly classsified. It is my understanding, however, that these are constantly taking shots of everything at about the one meter range, at least. Certainy NYC and DC. As with Dallas the 'officials' never solved the cases [i'm being kind here]; but only gave the appearance of solving the case to molify the Public. Many are not molified in either!

Peter...I googled the statue of liberty and it is exactly SW of the WTC,

like the satellite smoke...but your photo of the statue and smoke show

at least a 90 degree shift AWAY FROM THAT DIRECTION.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wondering where people would vote on this proposition:

The Official 9/11 Report was flawed but at this point it is better for the US government to act in accordance with its conclusions and

recommendations instead of opening a new US Government investigation into the causes of 9/11.

I disagree with this proposition, but am curious as to what others think.

The reason I post this is because I notice so much debate on here about one of the alternative conspiracy theories on this forum, but almost never do

I see a take it or leave it type of evalution on the government's conspiracy theory.

Absolutely not. Though, of course, there never was and will never be a real investigation by the US government into 911. That would never do. A real investigation and its conclusions and recommendations would be altogether different from the pulp fiction that was printed. Most of the recommendations are just a full blown police state green light. Total information control. Orwell's 1984 on steroids. ( http://grumet.net/911/recommendations.html ) The whole report is more than flawed. It is a travesty of the truth and if I was a US citizen I would be insulted that the government thought me sooooo stooopid. But given that my own government considers itself a US poodle (and so we cop the consequences too) I feel I can have a say in this.

If the report was flawed then the conclusions are too. Why implement recommendations based on flawed conclusions?

The whole thing was created by US policies. Even if you just start at the arbitrary place (ignoring the very large elephant in the room - Israel) of US creation and funding ( http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Brzez...5-interview.htm ) of the mujahideen used to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan first against the Afghan government then against the Soviet forces that were INVITED by the Afghan government to help them in their fight against US terrorism on Afghan territory. What was so bad about the Afghan government that the US conducted a terror campaign against it? They wanted land reform. To distribute the land amongst all the Afghans not just a few feudal families who had it all. They wanted free education for both boys and girls. Illiteracy was 90%. 600 schools were opened. Now there's something subversive for you. Trade unions. Lower working hours. Higher wages. Life expectancy of 35 years. Free health care was established. Banned forced marriages for women. Universal sufferage. Abolition of debt bondage. Nothing there that most of us on this forum would not take for granted in our own lives but was unacceptable to the US. Once again the US supported the rights of feudal male elites and fought every democratic policy the Afghan government tried to introduce. Other sources of funding for this suppression and undermining of democratic and human rights came from the bastion of freedom and democracy (and the good friend of the US) Saudi Arabia whose own royal parasites no doubt felt vulnerable. And, of course, the US would never have been motivated by the loss of their poppy fields either.

Leaving aside the whole issue of whether or not the US was an active participant in 911 or just let things happen that day their own conspiracy theory says that 19 hijackers motivated by Islamic fundamentalism flew planes into these buildings. The US has done more than any other country in the world to promote Islamic fundamentalism. In the first place by nurturing and funding it and then by inflaming their sensibilities (support of Israel against Palestinian people, bases in Saudi Arabia etc) So when the chickens came home to roost in the guise of American and United Airlines hijacked flights why be surprised? When the World Trade Centre was bombed (by the FBI but blamed on Muslim 'terrorists') in 1993 hundreds of calls were received from different groups all claiming responsibility. There are a lot of people out there somewhere real angry with US policies. Those policies do not serve the interests of the US people but do serve the interests of some especially those who profit from the MIC. Follow the money.

The US policies that lead to terrorism are not now nor will they ever be on the table for change or even debate. Too much money to be made by some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is visual (photo) evidence that at one time the wind at the WTC was from

the north.

However, apparently at some point the wind shifted direction, if this passage

I found today on the internet is reliable:

"From the Seattle Times

Dust choked downtown for nearly 20 minutes, blocking out the sun and leaving a layer of film on cars, streets and storefronts. The dust cloud reached nearly as high as the top of the Bank of America Tower and drifted northwest about 8 miles an hour."

Note that it says the dustcloud DRIFTED NORTHWEST. Early photos show it going SOUTH.

Was there a wind shift?

Jack

I think now there were at least three directions for the wind [and obviously all the intermediate directions] and there must be times and directions known that would help time-position some of the photos]. Most of us have seen the satellite [where are the ones from the time OF the attacks and just after!*] photo showing the entire lower manhattan and a smoke plume going off toward the Southwest. I believe that was quite a bit after the attacks but before the collapse - but of the time it was taken I am really not sure. The direction and general time matches the photo with the Statue of Liberty - although in that one it may be headed more toward the South. I also found this report that the wind changed direction 180 degrees - BUT WHEN?!

*In looking for the photo it mentioned that the satellite that took the photo [and one can get a much more detailed image of it] has the resolution capability of seeing things one meter/yard!!!! How helpful would the images of the planes attacking and the fires and explosions be?!...and why are they not being released or asked for in court cases!? I believe this was from a commercial/scientific satellite. The military/intelligence ones have higher resolutions - that are classified. It might be that for the highest resolutions one needs to be purposely watching [zoom in] - but that is not known and highly classsified. It is my understanding, however, that these are constantly taking shots of everything at about the one meter range, at least. Certainy NYC and DC. As with Dallas the 'officials' never solved the cases [i'm being kind here]; but only gave the appearance of solving the case to molify the Public. Many are not molified in either!

Peter...I googled the statue of liberty and it is exactly SW of the WTC,

like the satellite smoke...but your photo of the statue and smoke show

at least a 90 degree shift AWAY FROM THAT DIRECTION.

Jack

There is a great current site that lists the wind direction in NYC every hour - but I couldn't find the data for 9/11/01 and maybe the site did not exist then. The information must exist somewhere and would be very helpful in determining times in photos. It now seems that the winds were both brisk and moving in different directions at different times. The stronger the wind the greater the Venturi effect sometimes seen - as well as its direction. Strangely, a few shots after the collapse of the towers seems to show the smoke and dust just hanging there, with little apparent wind.....perhaps as the wind direction was changing or an artifact of a moment captured in time. The force of the explosions [oh, excuse me collapses] may also have caused local winds. Again computer modeling of all of this, while complex, would be helpful. The authorites clearly don't care to do it. They took the best evidence [the steel and other debris] and quickly got rid of it....just like in Dallas.

Peter...they did not dispose of ALL the steel. You need to go to the Judy Woods

site to see what happened to much of it...UNBELIEVABLE. I just spent 3 hours

looking at photos of the strange things that happened to iron and steel but

did not affect aluminum nor paper. One steel beam was reduced in thickness

to the thinness of paper.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wondering where people would vote on this proposition:

The Official 9/11 Report was flawed but at this point it is better for the US government to act in accordance with its conclusions and

recommendations instead of opening a new US Government investigation into the causes of 9/11.

I disagree with this proposition, but am curious as to what others think.

The reason I post this is because I notice so much debate on here about one of the alternative conspiracy theories on this forum, but almost never do

I see a take it or leave it type of evalution on the government's conspiracy theory.

"Better" FOR WHOM?

Bush and his handlers?

The people?

It is improper to say "the US Government", since the vast majority consists

of loyal people following orders. If the "government" was involved, name

the criminals within it...not just the patriotic workers doing their bidding.

Jack

==========

The people of course.

I did not say the US Government in the context of involvement in the conspiracy itself, but rather in the context of accepting following its recommendations and accepting its conclusions. In this context there are so many different departments involved, as well as the Legislative Branch, that I don't know of a better term.

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...