FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Craig Lamson]

The question of the wind direction and thus the direction of the smoke...as it applies to this discussion...spans only the space of just a few seconds. Wind at other times are outside the scope of the question at hand.

Jacks claims that smoke is blowing two different directions in the photos in his study has been shown to be false.

Now the proper thing for him to do is to admit his error and remove his claim.

The proper thing for you to do, as a self-proclaimed truth seeker, is to urge Jack to admit his error and remove his claim.

[Jack White]

The 911 "Fetzer silliness" thread is exhaused and does not fit the series of

studies I am working on, so I am starting this new thread on strange

happenings of 9-11. It will mostly be photos, but other strange happenings

may also be included, such as the IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls from

jetliners flying at 30,000 feet and 500 mph. Add in any strange things

about 911 you think cannot be explained.

Standard laws of physics did not work on that day. Many things happened

which cannot be explained.

Here is a good one. Parts of this mail truck simply evaporated without

a trace. This does not look like a burned vehicle. It looks like a MELTED

truck...which would take INTENSE HEAT, yet parts of the vehicle were

unaffected. This defies known laws of physics.

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is another melted car.

Jack

[Jack White]

deleted for revision

Edited July 18, 2008 by Jack White

[Len Colby]

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.

BS - Moderator Kathy Beckett objected to it on the moderation tread started and deleted by Steve Turner

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.

I don’t remember ever making such remarks about Drago`s “warning”. I did however request that this rather distasteful post of his not be erased because it put him a much worse light than me.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=127049

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

Irrelevant, even if Drago`s claims were true, a moderator would be in their rights removing, editing or “invisiblising” a post they held to be in breech of the rules

[Len Colby]

Throwing out accusations is easy, anyone can and several people here do so without regard to providing evidence of their claims. Am I really the Phantom of the Forum like to potray me as or are my detractors full ****?

Dawn wrote:

“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.”

Perhaps then you can tell us who some of those “many good people” were and provide evidence they “left this forum due to the admins always taking the side of the Colby crew”

“This is most unfortunate.”

What I find `unfortunate’ is that all too many members of this forum toss out acusations against other members without providing any evidence.

“I do not know what CD wrote…”

Really? How long have you been a members of this forum? You never saw one of his idiotic “warnings”?

“…but I was in agreement with what Jack was posting.”

So you don’t think that “wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make”? I that case you should take it up with John and tell him that members should be able to make claims here and be under no obligation to provide evidence.

Jack wrote:

“How about Colby's constant attacks?”

Perhaps you can list some of my “constant (personal) attacks” pointing out that you have made numerous gross errors in your claimed area of expertise doesn’t qualify.

“It is odd indeed that provocateurs receive favored treatment and that respected gentlemen like Charles Drago are shown the exit.”

• As has already been pointed out Drago “left” of his own volition and almost certainly won’t be gone for long. As John pointed out some people like to fake their own deaths to see what people’s reaction will be, Charles it seems likes to fake his own self-exile for the sympathy. I wonder how it will take for the “forum member who cried ‘I quit’ principle to come into effect?
  
• I guess Jack forgot about the incidents when I’ve had my posts edited, been given warnings and forced to edit my signature and all the personal attacks against me made by him, Lemkin, Drago, Guyatt etc that resulted in no moderator intervention.
  

Peter wrote:

“Exactly! Mr. C [via the moderators] is Provacteur General of the Forum - with most every post a slam/provocation/attack/ad-hom/etc.”

I don’t suppose Mr. L is willing to document this claim by taking a representative sample of my posts and showing that “most every post” of mine constitutes “a slam/provocation/attack/ad-hom/etc”

Steve M. - Drago's "warning" can be found here

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...olby+%2Bopinion

[Len Colby]

So Jack are you ever going to get around to giving us a reasonable explanation for you and Fetzer not wanting to post the photo?

You:

- were desperately trying to show that the photo, video and eyewitness evidence that the south façade was damaged was false

- Had just be humiliated by Tink.

But you had that photo and rather than vindicate yourself and provide evidence in support of your claims you sat on it?

Edited July 18, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

So Jack did it occur to you that those vehicles might have been struck by HEAVY oieces of debris?

[Len Colby]

More German engineering.

Jack

This is dumb even by truther standards planes carry most of their fuel in their wings and he just demonstrated that the explosion was exactly were we'd expect it. What kind of engineer is this guy supposed to be?

Edited July 18, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

A German engineer calculates:

Jack

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/...-1216163800.jpg

Just what kind of engineer is this guy supposed to be? Where are his calculations?

Edited July 18, 2008 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Poll questions added.

[Evan Burton]

I can't make a poll within the thread, so I have started a new poll. Let me know if you are unhappy with the question and / or choices.

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

You mention "impossible cellphone calls".

Could you detail the specific calls you have issues with?

Thanks.

[Dawn Meredith]

Suggestion:

Ignore Colby/Lamson. Just carry on as if they are not even here.

To get into it with them just brings the fourm down to the level of

__________________ (you decide).

Dawn

[Len Colby]

What I find `unfortunate’ is that all too many members of this forum toss out acusations against other members without providing any evidence.

(Edited for brevity.........)

So you don’t think that “wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make”? I that case you should take it up with John and tell him that members should be able to make claims here and be under no obligation to provide evidence.

In the chemtrails thread, post#371, Colby directed the following at me:

The ‘your opinion is invalid because you haven’t read the book’ argument is of limited value. Should someone refraining from debating a Holocaust denier just because they haven’t read one of the books he cites?

Of course the sources I cited destroyed Colby's argument.

I don`t really want to get into a totally unrelated subject on this thread, but whether or not “the sources [you] cited destroyed [my] argument” is quite a debatable proposition especially since the book you cited provides no documentation for its claims. You made an objectively false claim and refused to admit error when this was pointed out.

It's just he decided he'd rather suggest - offensively & ludicrously - that I was a "holocaust denier" in a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with the holocaust rather than bother reading the raw material.

Wrong on both accounts 1) I looked at whatever evidence you provided I just didn’t believe it disproved my position 2) I never suggested you were “a Holocaust denier” I was making the point that one doesn’t have to read a book promoting a theory to know that the theory is false if there is sufficient information on the subject elsewhere. That would go more than doubly for a book like Cook’s which provides no documentation. I could have selected any number of theories but I wanted one that everyone here (now that Sid Walker is gone) recognized as false. I thought about citing creationism but feared that might cause one member to go on again about how “evolution was a hoax”.