FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Maggie Hansen]

A very important point to note is that they were not being asked to fly precision approaches in bad weather, or deal with inflight emergencies; they simply had to guide the aircraft to a target.

That is not true. Yes, the weather was fine. However, there was every possibility that they may have to deal with an in flight emergency. As apparently happened in the flight that was shot down (?) in Shanksville. The other hijackers may have been over come by the passengers at any time. That is what I meant about the whole atmosphere being very charged. They were only supposed to have had box cutters too. No guns or bombs on board.

Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around. I once watched a professional pilot do this same maneuver on a simulator. He could do it with much application and skill but it did test him. I don't know how some one with dodgy skills would go at all.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Maggie Hansen

[Jack White]

Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive.

This is a bs non sequitur.

Jack

Whoever said he was one of the hijackers? He was presented as an expert's opinion. Seriously Jack, do you even read what is presented before you comment?

Your comprehension skills are inadequate.

I SAID: "Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers"....THEREFORE

HIS OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT.

From that you infer that I said he was one of the hijackers.

Get a grip.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive.

This is a bs non sequitur.

Jack

Whoever said he was one of the hijackers? He was presented as an expert's opinion. Seriously Jack, do you even read what is presented before you comment?

Your comprehension skills are inadequate.

I SAID: "Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers"....THEREFORE

HIS OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT.

From that you infer that I said he was one of the hijackers.

Get a grip.

Jack

So expert's opinions are not relevant? That's funny. I'm going to write that one down. You never said his opinion was not relevant. You simply said he was not listed as one of the hijackers and was alive. You then said, "This is a bs non sequitur."

From dictionary.com

non sequitur

1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

Since I presented no inference or conclusion, you incorrectly used "non sequitur". How is one supposed to infer that you mean an expert's opinion is not valid (an absurd proposition in and of itself) when you never say that and then use a term incorrectly? Perhaps you should brush up on your comprehension skills as well Jack. Or perhaps the "bs non sequitur" you were referring to was your own? Get a grip yourself Jack.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

Jack,

You have been asked several times to correct the link to your biography. Please do so within 24 hours or your posts will be made invisible until you have corrected the oversight.

To in put a link to your biography:

1. Near the top of the page, on the right hand side, there is a link labeled MY CONTROLS. Click on that.

2. A new page will appear. Go to the left hand side, and look for the heading PERSONAL PROFILE. Under that heading will be a selection labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. Click on it.

3. A text box will appear. Simply paste the URL for your biography into that box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE at the bottom of the box.

We CANNOT do this for you; you have to do it yourself.

Thank you.

Jack,

I looked at every one of the Biographies and yours is not there.

I did find it, however, in the Introduce Yourself thread.

Here is the link to use in your signature:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...post&p=4141

Kathy

You could also add this information on the Bio thread.

Continual threats of banishment over a triviality is nonsense. I am here

at the invitation of Mr. Simkin. He registered me and posted my photo.

He posted my bio link himself, but the university has since changed it.

I have several times sent the correction, but it is ignored. The

correct link is:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Continued threat of banishment is harassment. Everybody here knows

who I am. I am well known. I am hiding nothing. Such threats over a

technicality are aimed ONLY at me. My photo is IDENTIFIABLE. Many others

are not. Some biographies are a JOKE. "Miller's" bio simply says "I am

a long-time JFK researcher, etc..." My bio is my entire life history and

can be accessed at the above site if anyone is interested. If MR. SIMKIN

wants to revise the link he originally posted for me, it is

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

When I previously suggested this, Mr. Walker called me A SENILE OLD

MAN. I say it is harassment, and a matter of principle.

Jack

biography:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Click on the link and you will find my biography. It is public information.

I am not withholding it from anyone.

After all Jack is not on other forums or web sites calling himself 'Jack Texas' or other such nom de alias is he? Or pretending to to be an 'advisor' of a 'peer reviewed journal' on a subject of which he knows nothing'

You may be with in the letter of the 'laws' of this forum but this is definitely persecution of a member and abuse by the moderator.

Is Jack White too special to follow the same rules he insists that others must follow? Do the same rules not apply to everyone? How many members has he harassed by insisting their bio was linked or their avatar was inadequate?

How hard is it really to just change the link yourself Jack? You've been given the instructions. Why must you be so stubborn?

Edited August 8, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

[Maggie Hansen]

Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

He could have dropped altitude any time on the flight from when they took over the plane. Why can't he point the plane down? Its going to crash anyway.

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

Please don't act like a petulant child. We cannot put the bio link in your details, you have to do that. Every other member has to do the same.

I have made your posts invisible until you comply with the requirement.

And... it is NOT a threat of banning. You have been told time and time again that neither myself or the other Moderators have that power. Only John or Andy can do this. Please do NOT make false accusations.

Thank you.

[Maggie Hansen]

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

With due respect, if it is so easy then why do they pay pilots so much? Can't have it both ways.

[Evan Burton]

Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

He could have dropped altitude any time on the flight from when they took over the plane. Why can't he point the plane down? Its going to crash anyway.

It's harder to hit a target coming straight down, rather than coming at it from an oblique angle.

[Evan Burton]

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

With due respect, if it is so easy then why do they pay pilots so much? Can't have it both ways.

Because airline pilots have to deal with regular check rides, systems knowledge, be able to bring people through bad weather with minimal discomfort, handle emergencies, etc. That is when they earn that money (have a think about the recent Qantas incidents).

Also, there are levels of licences: private, commercial, and air transport pilot (ATPL). Commercial means you can earn money flying, including carrying a certain number of passengers. ATPL means you can carry the number of passengers like you find on airlines. That where the big bucks come in. Regular commercial pilots often don't earn a great deal of money; many are trying to build their flying hours in order to go across to the airlines.

[Maggie Hansen]

Jack,

You have been asked several times to correct the link to your biography. Please do so within 24 hours or your posts will be made invisible until you have corrected the oversight.

To in put a link to your biography:

1. Near the top of the page, on the right hand side, there is a link labeled MY CONTROLS. Click on that.

2. A new page will appear. Go to the left hand side, and look for the heading PERSONAL PROFILE. Under that heading will be a selection labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. Click on it.

3. A text box will appear. Simply paste the URL for your biography into that box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE at the bottom of the box.

We CANNOT do this for you; you have to do it yourself.

Thank you.

Jack,

I looked at every one of the Biographies and yours is not there.

I did find it, however, in the Introduce Yourself thread.

Here is the link to use in your signature:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...post&p=4141

Kathy

You could also add this information on the Bio thread.

Continual threats of banishment over a triviality is nonsense. I am here

at the invitation of Mr. Simkin. He registered me and posted my photo.

He posted my bio link himself, but the university has since changed it.

I have several times sent the correction, but it is ignored. The

correct link is:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Continued threat of banishment is harassment. Everybody here knows

who I am. I am well known. I am hiding nothing. Such threats over a

technicality are aimed ONLY at me. My photo is IDENTIFIABLE. Many others

are not. Some biographies are a JOKE. "Miller's" bio simply says "I am

a long-time JFK researcher, etc..." My bio is my entire life history and

can be accessed at the above site if anyone is interested. If MR. SIMKIN

wants to revise the link he originally posted for me, it is

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

When I previously suggested this, Mr. Walker called me A SENILE OLD

MAN. I say it is harassment, and a matter of principle.

Jack

biography:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Click on the link and you will find my biography. It is public information.

I am not withholding it from anyone.

After all Jack is not on other forums or web sites calling himself 'Jack Texas' or other such nom de alias is he? Or pretending to to be an 'advisor' of a 'peer reviewed journal' on a subject of which he knows nothing'

You may be with in the letter of the 'laws' of this forum but this is definitely persecution of a member and abuse by the moderator.

Is Jack White too special to follow the same rules he insists that others must follow? Do the same rules not apply to everyone? How many members has he harassed by insisting their bio was linked or their avatar was inadequate?

How hard is it really to just change the link yourself Jack? You've been given the instructions. Why must you be so stubborn?

Like Jack said, he is not exactly an unknown figure in these areas where he posts - 911 and JFK. His bio is listed elswhere in the forum. He has asked that his bio be changed. It was originally put on the forum by John Simkin. My bio and photo were too. So there is obviously the technical ability for the bio to be changed by the forum owner. Though I am sure that John has better things to do than updating everyones bio and details. Maybe Jack also has better things to do. He has notified the forum operators of the change and his bio was done originally for him.

I just find it unbelievable that Kathy on another thread cannot understand the completely reasonable and rational response of serious researchers to the discovery of someone called LEN BRASIL who is posting here as LEN COLBY who is purporting to be such an expert that they are an 'advisor' on a 'peer reviewed' journal no less while at the same time Jack White who has been a generous and serious researcher in these areas since 1963 is required to fix his link or be banned like a naughty school boy who has not got matching socks. It has not escaped my notice either that Evan has been trying to get a response from Jack about something and this has not been forthcoming from Jack. It could be interpreted that Evan is just p***ed off with Jack and is now using any excuse to throw his weight around to punish Jack. Like I said it may be within the 'rules' of this forum but Jack and others are treated differently.

Speaking of responses, I sent a PM to Evan about the partiality happening on this site about a week or two ago and not even a courtesy acknowledgment from you Evan. The issues go back before I was a member of this forum. While Steve Turner pointed out if one were to look back through a particular post it would be apparent who started the trouble. Well, as was eloquently pointed out by Peter Lemkin (who seems to have disappeared from the forum?) the trouble started well before that topic and has many facets. Moderation is applied arbitrarily and with partiality for some and against others.

David Guyatt I would love to join your forum if you are still offering to set one up. I fully support the sentiments expressed by Charles Drago. I have had so many emails from people on this forum who have complained bitterly about the slant of the moderation actions of certain members and the loss of good research/ers. John, you do have a problem here.

[Evan Burton]

Maggie,

There are not one set of rules for Jack, and another for the rest of us. Everyone has to do it.

(i) All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature (see below for instructions how to do this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=13297

Jack has been asked repeatedly to do this. We offered assistance to do so. I posted how to do it.

It seems quite simple. If Jack does not wish to abide by the rules of this forum, then he cannot complain about the consequences.

[Maggie Hansen]

Maggie,

I said nothing about Jack's lack of Bio--when it came up I looked for it. It is in the Intro thread, and I just gave him the link--it is merely a matter of him putting it into his signature line, which we cannot do.

As for Len's nome de plume de web, everyone knows who that is. I still can't see the problem--if he feels like an expert, well, being over here, he is in good company--we have many who feel expert.

However, and I see this all the time on both sides, that when someone disagrees with another's position, then they are anathema, and are labeled disinfo agents or provocateurs. I have seen folks do things, but when their opponents do the same, they scream "Foul". I've experienced someone saying"Well, he did it, so I did it right back." Great logic. I see that argument all the time--with my grandkids. Regardless of what someone else does, you are accountable for your actions. I thought that was one of the definitions of maturity.

I do not understand why this is. A debate is a debate is a debate. Were everyone in agreement, I'd suspect that most of us would spend less time here.

I want you to be able to give your opinion freely. I also want your opponent to be able to as well.

Someone here keeps saying that this a war. I quite agree. I think POGO said it best when he said "We have seen the enemy, and he is us. "

Kathy,

My issue is that while something is happening with one member in one thread which is pretty trivial IMHO and he is getting

pounced on by some moderators while some one else is using an alias here/there we don't know and nothing is said?

Not only that you question what the problem is? Obviously some people are more equal than others here.

If Jack has to update his bio fair enough. But WHAT ABOUT LEN? WHAT EVER HIS NAME IS. Is he going to be given

a green light on this? Sure seems like it and that is my point.

I do not consider that I have 'opponents' here. I have no problem with debate. When it happens. I have no problem with robust debate.

My issues are with applying the rules selectively. I do have an issue with deception and dis-information and provocoteurs. I am not

saying that we should all be in agreement just that we should all be playing the same game with the same rules.

And that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Evan Burton]

Kathy,

My issue is that while something is happening with one member in one thread which is pretty trivial IMHO and he is getting

pounced on by some moderators while some one else is using an alias here/there we don't know and nothing is said?

Not only that you question what the problem is? Obviously some people are more equal than others here.

If Jack has to update his bio fair enough. But WHAT ABOUT LEN? WHAT EVER HIS NAME IS. Is he going to be given

a green light on this? Sure seems like it and that is my point.

I do not consider that I have 'opponents' here. I have no problem with debate. When it happens. I have no problem with robust debate.

My issues are with applying the rules selectively. I do have an issue with deception and dis-information and provocoteurs. I am not

saying that we should all be in agreement just that we should all be playing the same game with the same rules.

And that doesn't seem to be the case.

Maggie,

1. What screen name a member here chooses to use on another forum is none of our business. It has nothing to do with what Len posts here. If you have an issue with what Len posts here, then take him to task here.

2. I am not "pouncing" on Jack. John put out a PM regarding avatars some time ago, saying that members who did not comply were to have their posts stopped until they did comply. I took the bio to be equally important as it is a similar rule (John can say if this is so, or not). Jack was given several warning, and offered every assistance to comply with the Forum rules. If he chooses not to abide by the Forum rules, then he must accept the consequences. If ANY other member makes the same omission, then they will be asked in the same way to comply. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to understand.

[Maggie Hansen]

Maggie,

1. What screen name a member here chooses to use on another forum is none of our business. It has nothing to do with what Len posts here. If you have an issue with what Len posts here, then take him to task here.

2. I am not "pouncing" on Jack. John put out a PM regarding avatars some time ago, saying that members who did not comply were to have their posts stopped until they did comply. I took the bio to be equally important as it is a similar rule (John can say if this is so, or not). Jack was given several warning, and offered every assistance to comply with the Forum rules. If he chooses not to abide by the Forum rules, then he must accept the consequences. If ANY other member makes the same omission, then they will be asked in the same way to comply. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to understand.

But which is the real LEN? And why the need for an alias?