Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

The official story says Building 6 was damaged and set afire

by falling debris from the Twin Towers. These two photos

show the fire at Building 6 had already been extinguished

before either building fell.

Jack

This was effectively addressed in the other thread.

Check out Bob and Bri's home video filmed from an apartment in Battery Park. It's high resolution, and includes several close zooms on building six at various stages of the attacks. No evidence at all of fire in the building before the south tower collapsed.

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/video.html

I've also previously shown a comparison between 2 of Bill Biggart's photos, showing that what is perceived to be a burn mark MUST be a reflection due to the slight change in angle between the two photos.

wtc6-gif.gif

How do reflections CAUSE SOOT ON THE BUILDING?

Jack

First its only your OPINION that what you see is soot. So tell us HOW soot moves and soot disappears as the camera position changes? Answer, it does not because there IS no soot, only reflections of items and buidings across the street as demanded by Angle of Incidence.

Please try again next time.

NOT OPINION...here are the BEFORE and AFTER photos...again.

Jack

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

Top Posters In This Topic

The official story says Building 6 was damaged and set afire

by falling debris from the Twin Towers. These two photos

show the fire at Building 6 had already been extinguished

before either building fell.

Jack

This was effectively addressed in the other thread.

Check out Bob and Bri's home video filmed from an apartment in Battery Park. It's high resolution, and includes several close zooms on building six at various stages of the attacks. No evidence at all of fire in the building before the south tower collapsed.

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/video.html

I've also previously shown a comparison between 2 of Bill Biggart's photos, showing that what is perceived to be a burn mark MUST be a reflection due to the slight change in angle between the two photos.

wtc6-gif.gif

How do reflections CAUSE SOOT ON THE BUILDING?

Jack

First its only your OPINION that what you see is soot. So tell us HOW soot moves and soot disappears as the camera position changes? Answer, it does not because there IS no soot, only reflections of items and buidings across the street as demanded by Angle of Incidence.

Please try again next time.

NOT OPINION...here are the BEFORE and AFTER photos...again.

Jack

When in doubt, lather, rinse and repete. Perhaps someone might believe you if post it for the fifth time. Or not. OPINION? YES. How can there be soot if none of the windows are broken? Answer. It cannot be soot. How can we tell the windows cannot be broken? They show reflections. IS SOOT opinion? Oh yes, really BAD opinion.

When in doubt, lather, rinse and repete. I'm sure we will see 6.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This one is really strange...aluminum vs steel...and aluminum wins.

Jack

That is a strange one Jack! If that video is real that plane was one 'tough old plane!' It was a day when the usual laws of physics, logic, cause and effect were all on holiday! In fact it is hard to find too many things that happened as one would 'expect' - given the events. [sort of like Dallas or the RFK assassination or many another 'magic-show-jobs'].

I do fear, however, that a few of the strange pieces of evidence have been planted by the very people behind the event to cast doubt and allow ridicule of those who would question the official account - just as they did with Dallas - endlessly throwing in new suspects and spurious theories and information - making it seem as if it were coming from serious researchers or from real evidence, when it often was not.

The superficiality of the 'investigation' is shown in that many/most of these anomalies you bring up [and they are others - even ones presented in written form to the Commission] that were not even addressed. Same patterns as before.

There are two schools of thought. There are those, who even though they have repeatedly been lied and hoodwinked by power/government/investigations/etc. before, will always believe their next pronouncment - and there are those who have learned not to trust; but verify and prove from one's own examination of the facts. Those who implicitly give their officials and oligarchy the benefit of the doubt [or unerring support]; and those who question what any official says - especially in situations like this. Ever was thus and sadly, seem ever will be. Independant thinking is a rare commodity these days...and not appreciated by many. Patterns not learned; dots not connected and past history ignored by all too many IMO.

Possible, Peter...but UNLESS THOUSANDS OF AMATEUR PHOTOS WERE FAKED,

there are many things that do not fit conventional thinking. My first posting

showed a MELTED MAIL TRUCK in the absence of debris or fire. There is a

melted bus nearby. These things are shown in numerous photos hard to fake

and coordinate, unlike the JFK case when the few photos were controlled. I

tend to think most of the WTC photos are genuine...but most of the Pentagon

photos were fabricated and/or altered.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this time, with 8 votes cast, the results are:

37.5% - All lies (3 votes)

25% - Mostly lies (2 votes)

12.5% - Believe most of it, but have doubts (1 vote)

25% - Overall believe (2 votes)

With 8 people responding, most do not believe anything about the report.

Link to post
Share on other sites
At this time, with 8 votes cast, the results are:

37.5% - All lies (3 votes)

25% - Mostly lies (2 votes)

12.5% - Believe most of it, but have doubts (1 vote)

25% - Overall believe (2 votes)

With 8 people responding, most do not believe anything about the report.

Or are afraid that all actions and posts on the internet are no longer private.....

If that is the case, then I'd advise them to stay inside and never interact with the outside world, never go outside again.

It's an opinion - nothing more, nothing less. People should stand up and make theirs known. Besides, the vote so far is ANTI-government, not pro. People who do not agree with the report are speaking up, it would seem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This one is really strange...aluminum vs steel...and aluminum wins.

Jack

I thought we had dealt with that nonsense already? perhaps it was on a different forum. I'll check...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, I was right; it was discussed a couple of months ago.

As is to be expected, Jack simply recycles old claims that have already been proven wrong (or doubtful).

Please go through the oddities in this thread and demonstrate every "recycled old claim"

that "HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG OR DOUBTFUL".

None has been "proved wrong". Only one was presented previously, and it was

in a changed format. There is nothing wrong with repetition of valid evidence.

There are new members of the forum who did not see things presented months

or years ago.

As is to be expected, Burton never presents research...only "debunking".

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, I was right; it was discussed a couple of months ago.

As is to be expected, Jack simply recycles old claims that have already been proven wrong (or doubtful).

Please go through the oddities in this thread and demonstrate every "recycled old claim"

that "HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG OR DOUBTFUL".

None has been "proved wrong". Only one was presented previously, and it was

in a changed format. There is nothing wrong with repetition of valid evidence.

There are new members of the forum who did not see things presented months

or years ago.

As is to be expected, Burton never presents research...only "debunking".

Jack

The problem is Jack is that you will not admit your work is wrong even when faced with unimpeachable empirical evidence. Instead you let the false claims stand only to recycle them again and again. In my eyes that is not an intellectually honest way of doing things.

One prime example:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry116938

Burton has provided far more research that you can ever imagine producing. Evan actually does RESEARCH, instead of making wild and unfounded claims and calling it "research"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lemkin sez: "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." - A. Shickelgruber

Did you recite this quote as you were looking in the mirror, is it based on your own personal experience or perhap the reason you believe the drool you post claiming to be evidence?

Inquiring ( and open and honest) minds really want to know.....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

I consider that last post to be a personal attack and have made it invisible. I'll alert other mods and see if they agree.

Please do NOT make such posts - address the issues raised, please. First and only warning.

Thank you.

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...