FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Craig Lamson]

Specially for those dudes that said WTC6 WAS A BLACK BUILDING.

This photo show that the true color IN SUNLIGHT was light gray,

almost white.

Jack

Once again jack white displays his massive ignorance of the subject of photography by posting an photo clearly exposed for the main part of building 6 that was in shadow, thus OVEREXPOSING the portions of the building in full sunlight , causing them to appear lighter than they really are. This is photography 101. To assess the amount of overexposure simply look at the large building in the left background. Once again jack has stepped in a very large pile of it.....

[Craig Lamson]

I have just found a ten-part video which SOLVES most everything.

I do not know who produced it, but it has some fantastic stuff.

It is in ten parts...1-9 and an epilogue. I have already watched

two segments and am going to watch all ten. Lots of new stuff

already...INCLUDING A MISSILE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN AIRLINER...

...A SEQUENCE SHOWING HOW THE "ROADRUNNER" CUTOUTS

WERE MADE...and A SEQUENCE PROVING THAT THE FOX

"HELICOPTER SHOT" IS FAKED AND SHOWING HOW IT WAS

DONE...and much more.

As far as I know, this is VERY NEW.

Part 1 at... http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/108.html

Jack

What is the old saying...A fool and his money... or....Wanna buy a bridge....

Either fits here.

The ten part video (September Clues) is FREE. And it does feature a movable

bridge. Lamson obviously has not viewed it. Takes about an hour.

Jack

Mr. Lamson is an authority of vantage points and the images therefrom. We solicit

his expert opinion on these two images...ONE FROM A VERY HIGH VANTAGE POINT,

SHOWING ALL THE WAY TO THE NEW JERSEY HORIZON, and the other FROM A

VERY LOW VANTAGE POINT, showing ONLY SKY....yet the two videos are perfectly

synchronized and matched, apparently shot from the same location. How is this possible,

Mr. Light?

Jack

What don't you understand Jack, that two differnt lenses from two different cameras, in two different, but very similar locations and different heights, viewing the very same event, recorded the same action but include different elements in the image? What is it again that is slipping past your limited understadning of the process?

[Len Colby]

Jack claims that WTC 6 was a light grey “almost white” building that only appears black when in shadow. As evidence of this he posts a photo showing glare reflecting off its metallic surface. By the same logic the dark grey car I just sold was also “almost white”

WTC 6 is the building on the left WTC 5 is to the right. Both are the same shade note how much darker both are compared to:

- the Venetian blinds in the windows

- the white/light colored clothing of people in the plaza

- the white water from the foutain

- the metal posts

Even the part in sunlight looks black.

http://groups.google.com/group/us-memorial/web/the-sphere

In the image below WTC 6 appears dark black compare it to

- WTC

- the water in the foutain

- the granite (I presume) in the plaza etc

http://www.triroc.com/wtc/media/suggestions.htm

Unfortunately this aerial photo is low resolution, but WTC 6, the small building between WTC 1 (the north tower) and the Verizon Building, is in direct afternoon sun and is clearly black compare to just about everything else in the image including:

- its own roof

- the Twin Towers

- WTC 3, the hotel to right (south) of the north tower and in front of (west) of the south tower

- the Verizon Building

http://www.september11news.com/WTCArt.htm

This high resolution aerial photo was taken from a similar angle but was taken in the morning leaving our hero, WTC 6, in the shade. But it is clearly much darker than most of the reference points for the photo above as well as some others compare it to:

- its own roof

- the Twin Towers

- WTC 3, the hotel to right (south) of the north tower and in front of (west) of the south tower

- the white bus in front of WTC 1 on West St.

- the white car in front of WTC 3 on West St.

- west (shaded) sides of WTC 7 (the trapezoid building beside the north tower) and WFC 3 (the bottom left building with the domed roof)

- the pedestrian bridge over West St. between WTC 6 and WFC 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

But Jack go on with your bizarre assertion that WTC 6 was “almost white” this will destroy what little credibility you still have as a “photo analyst”. I doubt even your friend who admits to being so blind that he “can’t see the [computer] screen” properly is buying into your fantasy.

[Len Colby]

Now here is an odd pair of photos...a fireman who took them

saw a man in an upper floor of Building 6 and took his picture.

The building has already exploded and burned. Who was the

man and why was he there?

Jack

That’s not a person unless it’s the headless horseman office worker. Resolution is too low to make out what exactly it is. It appears to be in two pieces which is reinforced by there being a light area in the shadow which corresponds to the space (your “tie”) between the 2 parts of the object.

Note that WTC 6 is an even black/dark grey even in the areas with intact windows in you lightened crop. How could that be true if the black was do to “soot” from a fire and/or explosion? Explain how the Venetian blinds appear to be unblemished even in the broken windows. Were they made from a special soot proof material?

[Len Colby]

So you do not believe the pilots who fly the aircraft?

You do not believe Qantas documentation specifying limits?

What evidence will convince you that Keith is wrong?

Jack,

Are you satisfied that Keith is incorrect regarding his assertion that a 767 would break apart at speeds greater than 220 mph at low altitudes, and that the engines would stall?

I believe Mr. Keith, who was an ENGINEER for Boeing.

I do not believe UNTRUTHERS.

I am not an engineer.

Jack

So Jack you’ve been provided a link showing a plane the same size as the 767 which uses the same engines flying about 420 MPH (700 KPH) a few feet off the ground. You’ve been provided documentation that 767s regularly take off at and land at speeds very close to or sometimes just over 200 MPH. Speeds at which they don’t noticeably vibrate. Yet you believe some guy who claims they would shake apart at 220 MPH.

You claim the guy was aerospace engineer but you previously posted an article claiming he was a software engineer and the school he supposedly got his degree from does not have aerospace engineering program. He claims to have developed the shaker system a computer program made by California based TRW aerospace. You have not provided any evidence he is a software, aeronautical, electrical or other sort of engineer. He is not licensed in California, the state where he got his degree, presumably worked and lives in today, nor is he licensed in Washington (where Boeing had its HQ for most of its existence) nor in Illinois (where it is currently located). Nor is he a licensed pilot. The area he claims to have worked in has little to do with airframes or engines. So why do you put so much faith in his claims?

Engineer license verification:

CA

http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllqryna...e_pgm_code=7500

IL https://www.idfpr.com/DPR/licenselookup/default.asp

WA https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/dolprod/bpdLicenseQuery/

US http://www.progressiveengineer.com/resources/res-lic.htm

Pilot license verification: https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/

[Dave Greer]

Someone went to lotsa trouble to make a composite of video frames to

show "Building 6". Actually that is BUILDING 5.

Jack

Jack, I posted the image which I found on another site. I never claimed the building on the left is WTC6, I agree it is WTC5. Here's how I described the image:-

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?

The whole point of posting that image was to show a view of the building after the south tower collapse, but before the north tower collapsed. This image shows no fire damage, albeit the view is from West Broadway looking at the north side of WTC6, rather than the west side.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Jack White]

After the explosion of Building 6, firemen sprayed water, the sun was shining,

and the intersection of West and Vesey was free of debris except fire hoses.

After the explosion of the South Tower, the intersection was ankle deep in

sheets of paper and dust. This proves that the explosion of Building 6 took

place BEFORE EITHER TOWER FELL, since the North Tower is seen standing,

and the South Tower has not yet showered the area with paper and dust.

Jack

[Jack White]

Since Mr. Burton is our self-proclaimed liaison with the "aviation fraternity"

I request that he ask all the frat boys HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE FLOWN

A 767 AT 700 FEET ALTITUDE AT 550+ MPH. That would certainly be a significant

contribution to our discussion, rather than posting non sequiturs, personal

insults, and other drivel. If he will post details of someone who has done

this, I will certainly take notice.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

After the explosion of Building 6, firemen sprayed water, the sun was shining,

and the intersection of West and Vesey was free of debris except fire hoses.

After the explosion of the South Tower, the intersection was ankle deep in

sheets of paper and dust. This proves that the explosion of Building 6 took

place BEFORE EITHER TOWER FELL, since the North Tower is seen standing,

and the South Tower has not yet showered the area with paper and dust.

Jack

When cornered and left without a leg to stand on the best course of action is to lather, rinse and repeat. If that fails, lather, rinse and repeat.

Maybe the braindead might believe you.

[Len Colby]

After the explosion of Building 6, firemen sprayed water, the sun was shining,

and the intersection of West and Vesey was free of debris except fire hoses.

After the explosion of the South Tower, the intersection was ankle deep in

sheets of paper and dust. This proves that the explosion of Building 6 took

place BEFORE EITHER TOWER FELL, since the North Tower is seen standing,

and the South Tower has not yet showered the area with paper and dust.

Jack

How many times do your errors have to be pointed out to you Jack? The street area in the photo on the left is Vesey St. but not the intersection with West St. It is the area of the mid-block pedestrian crossing several hundred feet to the west.

You have yet to explain

• How the traffic light which is obviously to the west of WFC 3 can be slight smaller in the image than the traffic light which you think is several hundred feet further from the camera at West St.
  
• How the west facades of the buildings are in direct sunlight if it is before 10 AM. This would only be possible after solar noon which on 9/11 was 12:52
  
• Why you can’t find any witness accounts to your explosion
  
• Why we have rather sever accounts of witnesses who mention the building before the collapse of WTC 1 including one who tried to enter it almost an hour after you said it exploded and none of them mentioned any damage to building
  

[Len Colby]

Since Mr. Burton is our self-proclaimed liaison with the "aviation fraternity"

I request that he ask all the frat boys HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE FLOWN

A 767 AT 700 FEET ALTITUDE AT 550+ MPH. That would certainly be a significant

contribution to our discussion, rather than posting non sequiturs, personal

insults, and other drivel. If he will post details of someone who has done

this, I will certainly take notice.

Jack

Since it has been documented that it is against regulations in most countries and is presumably unsafe it is unlike many pilots have flown that fast and if they did they would be unlikely to admit it. The only evidence you have that this is not possible are the claims of a crackpot with undocumented credentials who claims the planes would shake apart fly only slightly faster than take off and landing speed.

Also please point out where he insulted you, or was that another of your specialties the basesless and false accusation?

Edited August 3, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Riddle me this Jackman, how do you explain this photo? It seems to have been taken around the same time as the one you claim was pre south tower collapse but was obviously taken AFTER the collapse of the north tower. Note that jets of water being shot on to WTC are very similar. As in your photo the western facades of building being in direct sun indicates it was taken AFTER solar noon.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/ar....html?id=158400

[Jack White]

Someone apparently noticed the hole in Building 6 and digitally removed it.

(I know...untruthers will say "compression artifacts"... but the hole seen in

one photo has been replaced by flat color in the other.)

Jack

[Dave Greer]

After the explosion of Building 6, firemen sprayed water, the sun was shining,

and the intersection of West and Vesey was free of debris except fire hoses.

After the explosion of the South Tower, the intersection was ankle deep in

sheets of paper and dust. This proves that the explosion of Building 6 took

place BEFORE EITHER TOWER FELL, since the North Tower is seen standing,

and the South Tower has not yet showered the area with paper and dust.

Jack

Hopefully the images below will lay the matter to rest, permanently.

Firstly, this image (already shown), shows the north side of WTC6 as viewed from West Broadway. The south tower has collapsed, the north tower is visible behind WTC6. There is zero damage visible on this part of WTC6.

Secondly, a sequence of 4 still images taken from a tall apartment block at Battery Park. They are all before the South tower collapsed. No fires, no hoses spraying WTC6, no visible damage.

Thirdly, and hopefully the one that finally settles the issue. You can see the original image here.

[Craig Lamson]

Someone apparently noticed the hole in Building 6 and digitally removed it.

(I know...untruthers will say "compression artifacts"... but the hole seen in

one photo has been replaced by flat color in the other.)

Jack

You could not find "digital manipulation" is you were standing behind the artist doing the work on the computer. Heck you can't even understand how a simple shadow works and you want ANYONE to believe you have the skillset to offer opinions on computer graphics forensics? ROFLMAO!