Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Jack,Over the last few days I have sent you three PMs regarding your biography. The link does not appear to be working. It is a requirement of the Forum that you have a link to your biography. Please rectify it immediately. Thank you. I do not read PMs. They are a nuisance. Anyone wanting to email me should address jwjfk@flash.net and I will respond. I do not respond to PMs because I pay no attention to them, and I want a record of all emails without reference to this PM system. Mr. Simkin set up my avatar and biography. If the biography is now not working, someone should change it. I do not know how. Here is the correct link if someone wants to change it... http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp Do what you want to with the correct link. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Prior knowledge?Jack CORRECTION ON CONFIGURATION OF RED NETTING... Image deleted. May have been Post 911 image. Edited August 2, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Prior knowledge?Jack CORRECTION ON CONFIGURATION OF RED NETTING... HERE IS THE CORRECTED STUDY. I had the red line wrong on the middle building. Jack Image deleted. One used may have been Post 911 image. Edited August 2, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Quoting Colby...."An Airbus 310 flying at over 400 MPH (700 KPH) can be seen here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ" Colby cannot do simple math: ~400 mph = ~460 knots per hour, NOT 700, I think. As a refresher from my days in the navy, I googled a conversion table, which confirmed the multiplier is 1.15, about what I remembered. Whom is he trying to fool? Jack kph is kilometers per hour, not knots. Knots are not correctly expressed with "per hour" as the definition of a knot is a nautical mile per hour. I think you are correct. Someone earlier had mentioned "knots per hour, and that stuck with me. I stand corrected. Par for the course you are wrong again, no one else on this forum has ever talked about knots per hour. Can’t you admit error without trying to blame someone else? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...%2Bknot+%2Bhour So we are back to a passenger jet very similar to the 767 in size that uses the same engines: GE CF6-80 series, PW 4000 series or PW JT9D-7R4 for both depending on year of fabrication an exact model flying at about twice the speed and 1/20 the attitude your supposed expert said it would stall at. As for his supposed expertise, find any references not from truther sites that say he was an engineer who in the aerospace industry. If he is an engineer why isn’t he licensed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 That’s easy Jack, the collapse of the towers compressed the space between the floor slabs with a tremendous amount of force, violently dislodging the exterior column panels and ejecting some hundreds of feet. Put a cracker between the palms of your hands, place it near the edges. Push the top one down as quickly and forcibly as you can. By your logic since the forces acting on it are both straight down (gravity and your top hand) the bits should all move straight down but most will be ejected outwards because that is the path of least resistance. Now of course the Towers were not made of crackers but that is an easy illustration of the principle involved. If you are feeling ambitious you can construct a mini WTC in your garage and drop a rock on it. Explain how your invisible death ray from space theory or the super duper thermate theory or even the plain old explosive CD theory better explains this. Colby's "cracker theory" is pure bs. He attributes theories to me which are totally imaginary. I have no theory about what happened to the WTC. BUT I DO KNOW WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN, and that is not theory. NO PLANES hit the towers if the videos are the evidence. The videos are faked. That is not a theory. The buildings did not "pancake" according to Colby's theory; that would violate Newton's laws. Colby's theory of "compressed air" expelling multi-ton sections of perimeter walls is laughable. I do not know what brought down the twin towers and 7. Only the plotters of the conspiracy know. Jack So Jack show me exactly where I said air pressure is what propelled debris away from the collapsing towers. Almost any kind of material stiff enough to offer any kind of resistance will be propelled outward if compressed and released. Bow a plastic knife or credit card etc between your fingers and (still bent) let it slip, it will shoot forward. Death rays from space can’t explain this nor can thermite nor can CD unless “they” used about 1000 x too much explosives. 500,000 ton 1360+ foot (415+ meter) tall buildings releases tremendous amounts of energy. The Church St. column panel was hardly unique lots of debris was ejected quite far from the towers during both collapses. See if you can find a structural engineer who agrees with you that this ejection was inexplicable. And get off it Jack you've been pushing Reynolds' and Woods' space beam theory for a while Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Prior knowledge?Jack CORRECTION ON CONFIGURATION OF RED NETTING... HERE IS THE CORRECTED STUDY. I had the red line wrong on the middle building. Jack Just when I thought your studies couldn’t get any more bizarre you out do yourself. What you seem to be describing as red plastic netting looks like a JPEG artifact. Can you show us a photo that CLEARLY shows this supposed plastic? It doesn’t even seem to be present in the post collapse photo. Can you tell us the provenance of any of these photos? So what’s the theory the conspirators risked the security of the operation to save the building owners a few bucks? Amazing that if you were right that no one else has noticed this till now. Edited August 1, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 I believe that accusing me of PHOTOSHOPPING is against forum rules. I would not even know how to do that. I suggest that Colby remove his accusation. There are numerous photos of the red-faced buildings. They are draped with a see-through fabric that is heavy enough to not flap in the wind. The only such fabric that meets those parameters that I can think of is CONSTRUCTION NETTING. It is odd that it is ONLY ON THE SIDES FACING THE WTC...which needed shielding from flying debris. I admitted my error regarding KNOTS. Someone had mentioned KNOTS in regard to speed, and I assumed that K meant KNOTS, not kilometers...since kilometer terminology is not used in the US except by Marathon runners. We use MPH; I have never before seen KPH. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Let me add this under the very general category "strange happenings on 911" Sometime in August or September 2002 I was reading a very very very long article about 9/11. It was surely among the longest I had ever seen in the times. It clearly stated that since the FISA proceedure had been changed there had only been one application turned down in (I believe the number )was 1,334 times that the request had been made. I am absolutely certain that the number was either in the 1,300 or very slight possiblity 1,700 range. I litterally did a quadrupple take. I stared at the one (1 time) in 1,334* number four times, I was so stunned. That one time the FISA request was turned down was of course the Minneapolis laptop. Years later I called the air-america show on national radio hosted by Thom Hartmann. Thom had brought up the FISA issue in a slightly different context and I wished to refer to this NYT article. WELL I HAVE NEVER BEEN HUNG UP SO MID-SENTENCE AND WITH SUCH A DEGREE OF IRRATIONAL EXHUBERANCE IN MY LIFE!! Does anyone have that NYT article. I have searched for it to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Let me add this under the very general category "strange happenings on 911"Sometime in August or September 2002 I was reading a very very very long article about 9/11. It was surely among the longest I had ever seen in the times. It clearly stated that since the FISA proceedure had been changed there had only been one application turned down in (I believe the number )was 1,334 times that the request had been made. I am absolutely certain that the number was either in the 1,300 or very slight possiblity 1,700 range. I litterally did a quadrupple take. I stared at the one (1 time) in 1,334* number four times, I was so stunned. That one time the FISA request was turned down was of course the Minneapolis laptop. Years later I called the air-america show on national radio hosted by Thom Hartmann. Thom had brought up the FISA issue in a slightly different context and I wished to refer to this NYT article. WELL I HAVE NEVER BEEN HUNG UP SO MID-SENTENCE AND WITH SUCH A DEGREE OF IRRATIONAL EXHUBERANCE IN MY LIFE!! Does anyone have that NYT article. I have searched for it to no avail. Nathaniel...I am not sure I understand. Can you go into more detail? Application for WHAT? What is the Minneapolis laptop? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Jack, You'll need to go into your personal profile and put the link to your bio in there. Moderators cannot go into your profile, and I don't think the Admins can do this either. Also, you should read your PMs; it will avoid any confusion if you have been told about something or if a request has been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 This photo is an enigma to me. Something is "not right" about it, but I cannot pin it down. Clearly both towers are standing and both have been hit on the upper floors, but there is an odd calm at plaza level. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Jack,You'll need to go into your personal profile and put the link to your bio in there. Moderators cannot go into your profile, and I don't think the Admins can do this either. Also, you should read your PMs; it will avoid any confusion if you have been told about something or if a request has been made. Mr Simkin can do it if he wants it. He did it originally and also my avatar. I plead ignorance. That is a forum housekeeping problem which he wanted and performed for me. I am under no obligation to read or respond to "PMs". People who want to tell me something are free to use my email address. I NEVER OPEN NOR READ THOSE MESSAGES. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Let me add this under the very general category "strange happenings on 911"Sometime in August or September 2002 I was reading a very very very long article about 9/11. It was surely among the longest I had ever seen in the times. It clearly stated that since the FISA proceedure had been changed there had only been one application turned down in (I believe the number )was 1,334 times that the request had been made. I am absolutely certain that the number was either in the 1,300 or very slight possiblity 1,700 range. I litterally did a quadrupple take. I stared at the one (1 time) in 1,334* number four times, I was so stunned. That one time the FISA request was turned down was of course the Minneapolis laptop. Years later I called the air-america show on national radio hosted by Thom Hartmann. Thom had brought up the FISA issue in a slightly different context and I wished to refer to this NYT article. WELL I HAVE NEVER BEEN HUNG UP SO MID-SENTENCE AND WITH SUCH A DEGREE OF IRRATIONAL EXHUBERANCE IN MY LIFE!! Does anyone have that NYT article. I have searched for it to no avail. Nathaniel...I am not sure I understand. Can you go into more detail? Application for WHAT? What is the Minneapolis laptop? Jack ----- Jack by application I mean a FBI application for a FISA warrent. By Minneapolis laptop I mean the laptop that Koleen Rowley sp? the FBI agent who would later be called co person of the year, was told she could not look into, because the FISA application was denied. 1 out of 1,334. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 I have removed all the images regarding the study about the construction netting. That image was one created with PhotoShop by Ace Baker combining a PRE-911 image with a POST-911 image. Study of additional images reveals that in the weeks after 911 as part of the cleanup, SUCH NETTINGS WERE HUNG ON ALL SURROUNDING BUILDINGS to protect them from additional damage. Sorry. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Read it and weep, UNTRUTHERS! The jig is up. You are finished. The official story is proved false. Jack 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