Len Colby Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 (edited) Read it and weep, UNTRUTHERS!The jig is up. You are finished. The official story is proved false. Jack More rubbish Jack. What is the provenance of that photo it appears to be color shifted. Note I don’t think YOU did this. Every other photo I’ve seen of WTC 6 before, on or after 9/11 show it, like WTCs 4 and 5 to be a black building. WTC 6 WTC 5 Both linked from - http://www.arneault.com/travelpix/2001_wtc/wtc-aol/ And Jack you have yet to produce a photo showing damage to or fire being fought in the building BEFORE the collapse of the North Tower Edited August 2, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby 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. Nat you can go to the Reference Library on 40th Street get the microfilms and read through every page of the NYT from 1/1 - 12/31 2002 but you won’t find such an article. Not because of the intervention of a “Winston Smith” but because the article only ever existed in False-memoryland. - The FISA story only broke in 2005, the NYT times was criticized for holding the story till after the 2004 election. - The FBI never applied for a FISA warrant for Mossoui’s (sp?) laptop because they didn’t think they had reasonable cause. No one has shown that if they had accessed it only a couple of weeks before 9/11 that the information found on it could have prevented the attacks. You can claim that it should have but this would not fit with theories that OBL and Atta were not behind the attacks. - AFAIK the case of the one FISA warrant that was denied has not been made public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby 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. Show exactly where I accused you of PhotoShopping anything? For a person who claims to be so knowledgeable about photography I’m surprised that you don’t know that “JPEG artifact” means distortion created by JPEG (JPG) compression, go ahead and Google the phrase if you don’t believe me. Once again you made a false accusation against a member of the forum without ANY basis. The only thing I accused of was using a crappy image. Once again you blame someone else for your errors. Your complaint also rings hollow because earlier that day YOU accused 2 members of this forum of being deceptive. Once again your accusations were completely groundless. Quit posting such non sequiturs to fool the unwary. Post 293 to Evan Whom is he trying to fool? Post 295 referring to me I admitted my error regarding KNOTS. Someone had mentionedKNOTS 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. Yes Jack, a few people “mentioned knots in regard to speed” because it is a measurement of speed. In case you missed it this is not a US only forum. Though the vast majority of members come from countries that use imperial measure (US, UK, NZ, Australia and Canada) I often include metric in my posts as a courtesy to readers from the rest of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer 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 Jack, your claims about WTC6 "exploding" are getting more and more bizarre. WTC6 was definitely NOT white, unless someone decided to whitewash it prior to 911. Again viewed from the plaza, WTC6 is the smaller building, bottom left (WTC7 is behind it). Here's a composite image showing WTC6 (above the pedestrian bridge), taken AFTER the south tower collapsed, and BEFORE the north tower collapsed. No sign of any fires, debris damage or broken windows. The view is south along West Broadway, WTC7 is visible in the right foreground. How is this possible if your claim that the building has exploded is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 (edited) Quick note - distances in kilometres (km) are actually appearing in the US! If you drive out of Tucson (south, IIRC), there is a section which has distances in km. A test programme, trial, or introduction... I don't know. Gentlemen, I don't see problems with either of your posts. Len, Australia uses metric in almost everything. We do not use metres for altitude in aviation (though we do use it for aviation visibility). Jack, Are you satisfied with what I have posted with respect to Keith's claim about the 767 breaking up at low altitude above speeds of 220 mph, and stalling of the engines? Once we have that sorted, I will address the high speed claim. So, do you agree his low speed breakup claim was inaccurate? Edited August 2, 2008 by Evan Burton 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. Nat you can go to the Reference Library on 40th Street get the microfilms and read through every page of the NYT from 1/1 - 12/31 2002 but you won’t find such an article. Not because of the intervention of a “Winston Smith” but because the article only ever existed in False-memoryland. - The FISA story only broke in 2005, the NYT times was criticized for holding the story till after the 2004 election. - The FBI never applied for a FISA warrant for Mossoui’s (sp?) laptop because they didn’t think they had reasonable cause. No one has shown that if they had accessed it only a couple of weeks before 9/11 that the information found on it could have prevented the attacks. You can claim that it should have but this would not fit with theories that OBL and Atta were not behind the attacks. - AFAIK the case of the one FISA warrant that was denied has not been made public. -------------------- Len you state your wrong answer with such finality. It is clear from your response that you are thinking of the wrong FISA story. You are alluding to the initial NSA wiretapping story of December 2005 that was done in violation of the FISA process. In reality a different reference to FISA was in the news a LOT during 2002, namely the issure of why Kowleen Rowley of the Minneapolis FBI was not allowed to go into the Zarchowie (sp?) laptop computer because her FISA request was turned down. There was repeated reference to this in NYT in 2002. The 1 in 1,334 number that you dismiss with such finality... well it only makes me wonder at your microfiche omniscience! as for - The FBI never applied for a FISA warrant for Mossoui’s (sp?) laptop because they didn’t think they had reasonable cause. No one has shown that if they had accessed it only a couple of weeks before 9/11 that the information found on it could have prevented the attacks. You can claim that it should have but this would not fit with theories that OBL and Atta were not behind the attacks. That was never my claim. My claim was 1 in 1,334. I did a quadruppletake in the Starbucks on 7th avenue in Park Slope Brooklyn and glanced around at the yuppie baby-carriages to and the caffinated wallpaper of our brave new world. 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. Nat you can go to the Reference Library on 40th Street get the microfilms and read through every page of the NYT from 1/1 - 12/31 2002 but you won’t find such an article. Not because of the intervention of a “Winston Smith” but because the article only ever existed in False-memoryland. - The FISA story only broke in 2005, the NYT times was criticized for holding the story till after the 2004 election. - The FBI never applied for a FISA warrant for Mossoui’s (sp?) laptop because they didn’t think they had reasonable cause. No one has shown that if they had accessed it only a couple of weeks before 9/11 that the information found on it could have prevented the attacks. You can claim that it should have but this would not fit with theories that OBL and Atta were not behind the attacks. - AFAIK the case of the one FISA warrant that was denied has not been made public. -------------------- Len you state your wrong answer with such finality. It is clear from your response that you are thinking of the wrong FISA story. You are alluding to the initial NSA wiretapping story of December 2005 that was done in violation of the FISA process. In reality a different reference to FISA was in the news a LOT during 2002, namely the issure of why Kowleen Rowley of the Minneapolis FBI was not allowed to go into the Zarchowie (sp?) laptop computer because her FISA request was turned down. There was repeated reference to this in NYT in 2002. The 1 in 1,334 number that you dismiss with such finality... well it only makes me wonder at your microfiche omniscience! as for - The FBI never applied for a FISA warrant for Mossoui’s (sp?) laptop because they didn’t think they had reasonable cause. No one has shown that if they had accessed it only a couple of weeks before 9/11 that the information found on it could have prevented the attacks. You can claim that it should have but this would not fit with theories that OBL and Atta were not behind the attacks. That was never my claim. My claim was 1 in 1,334. I did a quadruppletake in the Starbucks on 7th avenue in Park Slope Brooklyn and glanced around at the yuppie baby-carriages to and the caffinated wallpaper of our brave new world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer 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 Here's a closer examination of the windows that Jack claims are proof that WTC6 exploded before it was damaged by the collapses. The images used are theone in Jack's study, and stills from video of WTC6 found at this site: http://911.yweb.sk/download/video/wtc7/videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer 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 Jack Even MORE evidence that your claim that WTC6 exploded pre-collapse is contrary to the evidence. This montage from a video linked earlier shows almost all the relevant facade of WTC6, after both towers had collapsed. Does the number of broken windows equate with your study? Doesn't look like it to me. The jig is indeed up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 The photos provided indeed show Building 6 to be light or medium gray, not white. My only previous pre-911 images showed a white bottom and a light gray top, which in shadow is difficult to determine color. The internal lighting also poses a problem. It may be that the 911 photo has many LIGHTS TURNED OFF, giving the impression of "broken windows". However, the building still appears to be unevenly blackened. Thanks for the better images than I have. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 (edited) 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. Nat you can go to the Reference Library on 40th Street get the microfilms and read through every page of the NYT from 1/1 - 12/31 2002 but you won’t find such an article. Not because of the intervention of a “Winston Smith” but because the article only ever existed in False-memoryland. - The FISA story only broke in 2005, the NYT times was criticized for holding the story till after the 2004 election. - The FBI never applied for a FISA warrant for Mossoui’s (sp?) laptop because they didn’t think they had reasonable cause. No one has shown that if they had accessed it only a couple of weeks before 9/11 that the information found on it could have prevented the attacks. You can claim that it should have but this would not fit with theories that OBL and Atta were not behind the attacks. - AFAIK the case of the one FISA warrant that was denied has not been made public. -------------------- Len you state your wrong answer with such finality. It is clear from your response that you are thinking of the wrong FISA story. You are alluding to the initial NSA wiretapping story of December 2005 that was done in violation of the FISA process. In reality a different reference to FISA was in the news a LOT during 2002, namely the issure of why Kowleen Rowley of the Minneapolis FBI was not allowed to go into the Zarchowie (sp?) laptop computer because her FISA request was turned down. There was repeated reference to this in NYT in 2002. The 1 in 1,334 number that you dismiss with such finality... well it only makes me wonder at your microfiche omniscience! as for - The FBI never applied for a FISA warrant for Mossoui’s (sp?) laptop because they didn’t think they had reasonable cause. No one has shown that if they had accessed it only a couple of weeks before 9/11 that the information found on it could have prevented the attacks. You can claim that it should have but this would not fit with theories that OBL and Atta were not behind the attacks. That was never my claim. My claim was 1 in 1,334. I did a quadruppletake in the Starbucks on 7th avenue in Park Slope Brooklyn and glanced around at the yuppie baby-carriages to and the caffinated wallpaper of our brave new world. That would depended on how many you classify as a lot. In 2002 The NY Times published 26 articles, editorials or Op-Ed pieces that mentioned the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA was only the primary focus of the piece in a small number of the cases. http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?quer...2=31&frow=0 Only 1 of them mentioned the computer http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...amp;scp=1&s Actually it was 4 FISA warrants that were denied. You could not have read about this in 2002 because: - The story only broke in 2005 and - The denied warrants were from 2003 - “From 1995 to 2004, the court received 10,617 warrant applications, according to figures compiled by the Federation of American Scientists. It turned down only four, all in 2003 for unexplained reasons.” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/politics...?_r=1&scp=1 FISA couldn’t have denied a warrant to access Mossoui’s laptop because the FBI never requested one because they didn’t think they had reasonable cause. Truthers make much ado about this. “Dave Frasca of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) denies a request from the Minneapolis FBI field office to seek a criminal warrant to search the belongings of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested on August 15 as part of an intelligence investigation (see August 16, 2001 and August 16, 2001). Minneapolis agents believe they had uncovered sufficient evidence that Moussaoui is involved in a criminal conspiracy, and want to obtain a criminal search warrant instead of a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But because they originally opened an intelligence investigation, they cannot go directly to the local US attorney’s office for the warrant.” Complete 9/11 Timeline http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a082302fisa And yes you did claim that the denied warrant was for Moussaoui's laptop, see your original post with emphasis added. Sorry, you don’t have your facts straight. PS What were you doing in a Starbucks I thought they weren't PC? Edited August 2, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 The photos provided indeed show Building 6 to be light or medium gray, not white. No, Jack they show the building to be black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 The two photos are of TWO DIFFERENT WINGS of the building...one view from the north, the other from the south. Neither photo shows the other wing, causing confusion. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 The two photos are of TWO DIFFERENT WINGS of the building...one view from the north, the otherfrom the south. Neither photo shows the other wing, causing confusion. Jack I think you're right about the mis-identification of that particular part of WTC6, so withdraw my study showing a comparison with the Bill Biggart photo. A better comparison is the montage I posted earlier when compared to the Bill Biggart image, which I believe do show the same section of WTC6. Does that section of WTC6 looks like it exploded prior to the collapses? Do there appear to be as many broken/burnt windows in the montage as there are in the Bill Biggart image? Do you have a link to the image you used in your study? The site you got it from may show other images of WTC6 showing more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 This and several other photos show WTC to have been a light gray before it became covered with soot. I should not have called it "white". 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