Terry Mauro Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Much as it is tempting to respond in kind I won’t debase the forum by stooping to your level. I am not at all surprised you identify with Drago you are “flour from the same sack” as they say in Brazil – you inability to make a cogent argument in favor of your position is more than made up for by your vituperative tendency to insult and attack those who hold opposing viewpoints. How ironic that Jack who continuously complains of such attacks although he is rarely a victim of them applauded you. It seems that Barry Jennings didn't see dead bodies, etc. Seems that the Loose (with the truth) Change crowd decided to interpret things differently that Jennings intended. He stepped over people - not dead people, just people (probably awaiting movement to another area).Barry Jennings WITHDREW his permission for the interview to be used because they (LC) were distorting the truth! Actually in this case I'll side with Bemas and Avery he said "I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect but now he is changing his story again. Was he intimidated as truthers claim or are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable? ******************************************************************************** ""I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect...' Get it completely right, or don't bring it up at all. You were obviously looking for any lame excuse to attack me, show how the differences between my paraphrasing and his exact words affected the point I was making – namely that I though Evan was wrong and the Loose Changes (in this case) had not distorted the truth and accurately quoted Jennings. "are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable?"And, your speculative antics leave a lot to be desired, BTW. I doubt you bothered to read through the thread, in it I documented how Jennings’ story in 2007 was very different from the one he told September 11 – 18, 20001. There’s little speculation involved. The fact that he is now back tracking IMO makes him even less reliable. I can’t tell if he is intentionally making things up or if he is simply confused. In any case he seems to have a very active imagination. If you can refute the evidence I’ve presented and will present get back us. If all you have to offer is insults expect no further replies from me. You're exactly what CD pegged you as, and probably worse. But, Simkin believes in allowing all "comers and players" equal opportunity to misinform and disinform the work here, in the name of "debate." Accuracy isn’t your forte. John clearly indicated he wants posts on this forum to be accuruate, he also indicated he wanted members to avoid making personal attacks against others. Your fail on both accounts Therefore, you'll obviously continue to spout your reams of incessant drivel, designed to intimidate other forum members, here. But, you don't fool me, or any of the others with your flagrantly enormous attitude and equally high opinion of yourself. Get a life! That you resort to personal attack rather than rebut my points speaks volumes. Your mentality seems to be limited to “X, Y and Z say what I already believe they must be correct, A, B and C are sayings I don’t believe to be true they must be wrong ****************************************************************** "Your mentality seems to be limited to “X, Y and Z say what I already believe they must be correct, A, B and C are sayings I don’t believe to be true they must be wrong..." WRONGO, BUCKO! I've read thoroughly through this thread and find your insufferable remarks to be totally unacceptable, as well. Therefore, I won't go into the many times I've witnessed a building being razed in Manhattan, or the lines of detonation, so OBVIOUSLY apparent on the Murrah Building after its attempted demolition by, supposedly one Timothy McVey. Why? Because they're at such odds with your assessment of the situation and would only serve to fuel your ridicule against any opinion that differs from the government's findings. But, your weak and impotent attacks on deductive reasoning, along with your hyperinflated assessment of your own research abilities only serves to prove that you can dish it out, but God help anyone who would choose to refute you. It's always been that way. Everybody knows it, yet as I've stated above, it only serves to prove one point. Yours, and others, which are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but become cannon fodder for you and Lamson. Both of you have always been the ones to attack first, and like a couple of rabid dogs, at that. Of course, people are going to react defensively. Yours and Lamson's condescending attitudes are designed to elicit that exact response. I'm just trying to expose your tactics for the underhanded charade they really are. Tisk. tisk BUCKO! If you can't refute the evidence, attack. Thats pretty much your standard response BUCKO! At least this one was not laced with the profanity that is so common in your rants. I guess we can be thankful for that at least. ************************************************* Oh, have I struck a nerve by any chance, Lamson? Come to think of it, I can understand what Colby's trying to put across. But, when he teams up with you it might as well be compared to that of a pack of junkyard dogs. Oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Macbeth V,V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack "Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! " Jack, your inability to understand even the basic tenents of photography is well documented. Your inability to analyse photographic images is well documented. You have YOURSELF cast your reputation into the dustbin. Don't blame anyone else.... "tenents of photography" oh brother.... give it a rest, will ya.... without Jack White you'd be banging around that studio of yours taking pic's of trailers, boats and chairs 24/7.... and when a university, ANY university houses YOUR photos for posterity, give us a call. We'll then determine the breadth of your work... (Which I'm sure in the catalog biz, is outstanding)... Admitted Ed Forum space buffs certainly have a lot of opinion, eh? Edited July 22, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack "Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! " Jack, your inability to understand even the basic tenents of photography is well documented. Your inability to analyse photographic images is well documented. You have YOURSELF cast your reputation into the dustbin. Don't blame anyone else.... "tenents of photography" oh brother.... give it a rest, will ya.... without Jack White you'd be banging around that studio of yours taking pic's of trailers, boats and chairs 24/7.... and when a university, ANY university houses YOUR photos for posterity, give us a call. We'll then determine the breadth of your work... (Which I'm sure in the catalog biz, is outstanding)... Admitted Ed Forum space buffs certainly have a lot of opinion, eh? Well look who is here! Guard dog II! Well dave old bean, Jack is truly ignorant of the basic tenents of photography, as he has proven time and time again. The proof is all over the net. So tell us dave, exactly what knowlege does housing a bunch of snapshots similar to that produced by your garden variety tourist armed with a p&s confer to Jack White? Oh yes, the answer is none. When the man fails the very basics of how a simple shadow works, well I guess my term "basic tenents of photography" is quite apt. BTW, nice to see you add something meaningful to the debate..any debate...not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Much as it is tempting to respond in kind I won’t debase the forum by stooping to your level. I am not at all surprised you identify with Drago you are “flour from the same sack” as they say in Brazil – you inability to make a cogent argument in favor of your position is more than made up for by your vituperative tendency to insult and attack those who hold opposing viewpoints. How ironic that Jack who continuously complains of such attacks although he is rarely a victim of them applauded you. It seems that Barry Jennings didn't see dead bodies, etc. Seems that the Loose (with the truth) Change crowd decided to interpret things differently that Jennings intended. He stepped over people - not dead people, just people (probably awaiting movement to another area).Barry Jennings WITHDREW his permission for the interview to be used because they (LC) were distorting the truth! Actually in this case I'll side with Bemas and Avery he said "I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect but now he is changing his story again. Was he intimidated as truthers claim or are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable? ******************************************************************************** ""I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect...' Get it completely right, or don't bring it up at all. You were obviously looking for any lame excuse to attack me, show how the differences between my paraphrasing and his exact words affected the point I was making – namely that I though Evan was wrong and the Loose Changes (in this case) had not distorted the truth and accurately quoted Jennings. "are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable?"And, your speculative antics leave a lot to be desired, BTW. I doubt you bothered to read through the thread, in it I documented how Jennings’ story in 2007 was very different from the one he told September 11 – 18, 20001. There’s little speculation involved. The fact that he is now back tracking IMO makes him even less reliable. I can’t tell if he is intentionally making things up or if he is simply confused. In any case he seems to have a very active imagination. If you can refute the evidence I’ve presented and will present get back us. If all you have to offer is insults expect no further replies from me. You're exactly what CD pegged you as, and probably worse. But, Simkin believes in allowing all "comers and players" equal opportunity to misinform and disinform the work here, in the name of "debate." Accuracy isn’t your forte. John clearly indicated he wants posts on this forum to be accuruate, he also indicated he wanted members to avoid making personal attacks against others. Your fail on both accounts Therefore, you'll obviously continue to spout your reams of incessant drivel, designed to intimidate other forum members, here. But, you don't fool me, or any of the others with your flagrantly enormous attitude and equally high opinion of yourself. Get a life! That you resort to personal attack rather than rebut my points speaks volumes. Your mentality seems to be limited to “X, Y and Z say what I already believe they must be correct, A, B and C are sayings I don’t believe to be true they must be wrong ****************************************************************** "Your mentality seems to be limited to “X, Y and Z say what I already believe they must be correct, A, B and C are sayings I don’t believe to be true they must be wrong..." WRONGO, BUCKO! I've read thoroughly through this thread and find your insufferable remarks to be totally unacceptable, as well. Therefore, I won't go into the many times I've witnessed a building being razed in Manhattan, or the lines of detonation, so OBVIOUSLY apparent on the Murrah Building after its attempted demolition by, supposedly one Timothy McVey. Why? Because they're at such odds with your assessment of the situation and would only serve to fuel your ridicule against any opinion that differs from the government's findings. But, your weak and impotent attacks on deductive reasoning, along with your hyperinflated assessment of your own research abilities only serves to prove that you can dish it out, but God help anyone who would choose to refute you. It's always been that way. Everybody knows it, yet as I've stated above, it only serves to prove one point. Yours, and others, which are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but become cannon fodder for you and Lamson. Both of you have always been the ones to attack first, and like a couple of rabid dogs, at that. Of course, people are going to react defensively. Yours and Lamson's condescending attitudes are designed to elicit that exact response. I'm just trying to expose your tactics for the underhanded charade they really are. Tisk. tisk BUCKO! If you can't refute the evidence, attack. Thats pretty much your standard response BUCKO! At least this one was not laced with the profanity that is so common in your rants. I guess we can be thankful for that at least. ************************************************* Oh, have I struck a nerve by any chance, Lamson? Come to think of it, I can understand what Colby's trying to put across. But, when he teams up with you it might as well be compared to that of a pack of junkyard dogs. Oh well... A nerve? Clearly you jest. Your posts are like a mere pimple on an old woman's behind. The problem is you simple can't refute Len. Edited July 22, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Bet you never heard that hurricane ERIN, bigger than Katrina, was headedtoward NYC on November 11, 1991. That is because there was a seeming blackout of news of the hurricane for some reason. Wonder why. Jack Jack Can I ask what is the point of this study? Are you seriously suggesting that there was some kind of conspiracy to cover up Hurricane Erin on 9/11? (I'm assuming you meant Sept 11th 2001, not Nov 11th 1991). Why? Whatever your motives for posting this "study", it's yet another that's well wide of the mark. Check out this weather forecast from around 8:30am on the morning of Sept 11th 2001. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 "To the east of the country, no problems except... <snip>, North East will see a little rough seas along the New England coastline, from that hurricane that's going away." Why do you say there was a news blackout of the hurricane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Oh, have I struck a nerve by any chance, Lamson? Come to think of it, I can understand what Colby's trying to put across. But, when he teams up with you it might as well be compared to that of a pack of junkyard dogs. Oh well... A nerve? Clearly you jest. Your posts are like a mere pimple on an old woman's behind. The problem is you simple can't refute Len. **************************************************** Hell, I'm just playing you along seeing as how you've always got to get the last word in, edge-wise. I can refute Colby any damned time I want, if it's all the same to you, but I have a day job that has a tendency to put a crimp in any all-out debate I may want to present. In any event, it's all been rehashed ad nauseum across the board here, as it is, from what I've been able to deduce. It must be nice having nothing to do all day, but this. And, if you were such a highly intelligent, or halfway competent debater, you wouldn't even be wasting the bandwidth to answer this "pimple on an old woman's behind," now would you? Where's your pride? That's why I'll never take any of your ilk seriously. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 (edited) This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack "Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! " Jack, your inability to understand even the basic tenents of photography is well documented. Your inability to analyse photographic images is well documented. You have YOURSELF cast your reputation into the dustbin. Don't blame anyone else.... "tenents of photography" oh brother.... give it a rest, will ya.... without Jack White you'd be banging around that studio of yours taking pic's of trailers, boats and chairs 24/7.... and when a university, ANY university houses YOUR photos for posterity, give us a call. We'll then determine the breadth of your work... (Which I'm sure in the catalog biz, is outstanding)... Admitted Ed Forum space buffs certainly have a lot of opinion, eh? Well look who is here! Guard dog II! Well dave old bean, Jack is truly ignorant of the basic tenents of photography, as he has proven time and time again. The proof is all over the net. So tell us dave, exactly what knowlege does housing a bunch of snapshots similar to that produced by your garden variety tourist armed with a p&s confer to Jack White? Oh yes, the answer is none. When the man fails the very basics of how a simple shadow works, well I guess my term "basic tenents of photography" is quite apt. BTW, nice to see you add something meaningful to the debate..any debate...not! What on earth does Lamson mean by "basic tenents of photography"? Oh, do you suppose he means TENETS? Maybe so. Should we tell him that he makes no sense? Naw. Let him keep on practicing his TENENTS. Jack Edited July 23, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Bet you never heard that hurricane ERIN, bigger than Katrina, was headedtoward NYC on November 11, 1991. That is because there was a seeming blackout of news of the hurricane for some reason. Wonder why. Jack Jack Can I ask what is the point of this study? Are you seriously suggesting that there was some kind of conspiracy to cover up Hurricane Erin on 9/11? (I'm assuming you meant Sept 11th 2001, not Nov 11th 1991). Why? Whatever your motives for posting this "study", it's yet another that's well wide of the mark. Check out this weather forecast from around 8:30am on the morning of Sept 11th 2001. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 "To the east of the country, no problems except... <snip>, North East will see a little rough seas along the New England coastline, from that hurricane that's going away." Why do you say there was a news blackout of the hurricane? Thanks for catching my typo. Of course I meant SEPTEMBER, not November. Your supposition that I was "suggesting" something is in your mind, not mine. I merely posted a comment. As for the "blackout", researchers searching tapes of network newscasts could find no mention of ERIN, a huge hurricane. I was just wondering why, when most hurricanes are WIDELY COVERED by news media. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Bet you never heard that hurricane ERIN, bigger than Katrina, was headedtoward NYC on November 11, 1991. That is because there was a seeming blackout of news of the hurricane for some reason. Wonder why. Jack Jack Can I ask what is the point of this study? Are you seriously suggesting that there was some kind of conspiracy to cover up Hurricane Erin on 9/11? (I'm assuming you meant Sept 11th 2001, not Nov 11th 1991). Why? Whatever your motives for posting this "study", it's yet another that's well wide of the mark. Check out this weather forecast from around 8:30am on the morning of Sept 11th 2001. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 "To the east of the country, no problems except... <snip>, North East will see a little rough seas along the New England coastline, from that hurricane that's going away." Why do you say there was a news blackout of the hurricane? Interesting website...but totally irrelevant. I read it with interest for 15 minutes and FOUND NO MENTION OF HURRICANE ERIN. Macbeth V,V Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 (edited) This is the strangest event of all, SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE according to laws of physics.Planes CRASH into steel buildings; they do not MELT into them. Am I wrong? This is the event that gives rise to NO PLANE theories, since it is impossible for a REAL airplane to do this. Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! Jack "Untruthers here will come up with something, however, like Jack does not understand photogrammetry...yeah, that's the ticket. Jack is misinterpreting the photo because he is not an official photoanalyst and just doesn't know how airplanes crash; he probably has never seen a plane crash, much less one hitting an all steel wall...yeah, that's the ticket! " Jack, your inability to understand even the basic tenents of photography is well documented. Your inability to analyse photographic images is well documented. You have YOURSELF cast your reputation into the dustbin. Don't blame anyone else.... "tenents of photography" oh brother.... give it a rest, will ya.... without Jack White you'd be banging around that studio of yours taking pic's of trailers, boats and chairs 24/7.... and when a university, ANY university houses YOUR photos for posterity, give us a call. We'll then determine the breadth of your work... (Which I'm sure in the catalog biz, is outstanding)... Admitted Ed Forum space buffs certainly have a lot of opinion, eh? Well look who is here! Guard dog II! Well dave old bean, Jack is truly ignorant of the basic tenents of photography, as he has proven time and time again. The proof is all over the net. So tell us dave, exactly what knowlege does housing a bunch of snapshots similar to that produced by your garden variety tourist armed with a p&s confer to Jack White? Oh yes, the answer is none. When the man fails the very basics of how a simple shadow works, well I guess my term "basic tenents of photography" is quite apt. BTW, nice to see you add something meaningful to the debate..any debate...not! What on earth does Lamson mean by "basic tenents of photography"? Oh, do you suppose he means TENETS? Maybe so. Should we tell him that he makes no sense? Naw. Let him keep on practicing his TENENTS. Jack Thanks for finding my spelling error, happens to the best of us and the worst, even you. Sadly for you it cannot change the fact that the best way to describe what you know about photography is slim to none, and thats being kind. Edited July 23, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Oh, have I struck a nerve by any chance, Lamson? Come to think of it, I can understand what Colby's trying to put across. But, when he teams up with you it might as well be compared to that of a pack of junkyard dogs. Oh well... A nerve? Clearly you jest. Your posts are like a mere pimple on an old woman's behind. The problem is you simple can't refute Len. **************************************************** Hell, I'm just playing you along seeing as how you've always got to get the last word in, edge-wise. I can refute Colby any damned time I want, if it's all the same to you, but I have a day job that has a tendency to put a crimp in any all-out debate I may want to present. In any event, it's all been rehashed ad nauseum across the board here, as it is, from what I've been able to deduce. It must be nice having nothing to do all day, but this. And, if you were such a highly intelligent, or halfway competent debater, you wouldn't even be wasting the bandwidth to answer this "pimple on an old woman's behind," now would you? Where's your pride? That's why I'll never take any of your ilk seriously. Really. Folks like you are just for entertainment value. Really. I never expect you and yours to actually provide detailed rebuttals using real fact. That won't fit the worldview. I see you are swearing again.. imagine that. And yes it is nice to have time to kick back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 I know who I find open-minded and who I don't; I know who I find hypocritical and who I don't. So do the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 I know who I find open-minded and who I don't; I know who I find hypocritical and who I don't. So do the rest of us. Touché !!!!! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 (edited) Bet you never heard that hurricane ERIN, bigger than Katrina, was headedtoward NYC on November 11, 1991. That is because there was a seeming blackout of news of the hurricane for some reason. Wonder why. Jack Jack Can I ask what is the point of this study? Are you seriously suggesting that there was some kind of conspiracy to cover up Hurricane Erin on 9/11? (I'm assuming you meant Sept 11th 2001, not Nov 11th 1991). Why? Whatever your motives for posting this "study", it's yet another that's well wide of the mark. Check out this weather forecast from around 8:30am on the morning of Sept 11th 2001. http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912 "To the east of the country, no problems except... <snip>, North East will see a little rough seas along the New England coastline, from that hurricane that's going away." Why do you say there was a news blackout of the hurricane? Interesting website...but totally irrelevant. I read it with interest for 15 minutes and FOUND NO MENTION OF HURRICANE ERIN. Macbeth V,V Jack Emphasis mine. Perhaps there is the problem. If you only read it you wouldn't see much. There is a video linked on that page to a CBS newscast from the morning of 11 September 2001. Only 35 seconds in they mention the hurricane. Another question comes to mind. How often do you hear about hurricanes that aren't headed toward the US? On September 11th, hurricane Erin was headed away as mentioned in the newscast. Perhaps on the days before when it looked like it might head towards the continental US they may have mentioned it more but not much reason to on the 11th. Edited July 23, 2008 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now