FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

If you wish Evan but I wouldn't on my account. I have pilots here that I can ask.

What is not understandable to me is why Hanjour needed to turn. I understand what you are saying about descent and turning on approach but why turn why not just descend and approach? The turn is superfluous. Just descend and aim. Much easier.

Because you'd approach the target at a much more vertical angle, like dive bombing. It is more difficult and the chances of exceeding Vne are much greater. The turn allowed a more controlled approach to the target, at a lower angle. They could then have a much greater chance of success of hitting the target.

[Evan Burton]

Michael,

I'm confused. What question was asked that I didn't respond to? I'll do my best to answer it.

Thanks,

Evan, please save the thanks for Jack White. All you have to do is go back and read Maggie's post and mine.

There are lots of comments. If you point out what I have not answered, I'll try to answer.

[Jack White]

After spending two days researching the intersection of Church and Murray streets I have decided that it was designed to obfuscate. I have decided to call it SPOOK CENTRAL. I have been trying to figure where I went wrong on the earlier study regarding the Naudet video of the man reacting to the sound of the first explosion (North Tower), jerking his head up to look at the explosion. The boom of the explosion is heard on the tape, but NO jet noise. How could the Naudet brothers have KNOWN TO FILM AT CHURCH AND MURRAY, where all the action was? Here are some oddities of the location:

1. Three or more photographers at the intersection...Naudet before anything happened, Fox as the South Tower fell, and FBI photographer before and after. Naudet was filming northward. Fox was filming eastward.

2. Scaffolds on three of the four corners. ("Jet engine" is under one of them.)

3. Wastebasket in middle of street with yellow police tape BEFORE either twin tower was hit, shown in Naudet video.

4. Wastebasket in middle of street with yellow police tape as South Tower falls, shown in Fox video and FBI photo. People are walking in the street to go around scaffolding (not shown here) on sidewalk.

5. Fox video shows big blue van with large group of FBI agents assisting in unloading large heavy object which is loaded on a dolly.

6. Amazing similarity of northward and southward views, especially a white five story building in the distance.

There were strange things going on at SPOOK CENTRAL, two blocks north of the main action at the WTC. Why? Was Naudet there just by coincidence? Why did the FBI have such a large contingent there, and what did they unload from the big blue van?

Jack

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

[Jack White]

My latest study on 911 has been removed without explanation.

It contained my biography link. Why was it removed?

Jack

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

Edited August 8, 2008 by Jack White

[Evan Burton]

That was my error, Jack - I saw the old link at the bottom of the page - which does not work - and didn't notice the link placed in the post above.

I have restored the post.

Instead of having to manually place the link in each post, you can have it done automatically in the form of a signature. Simply go to MY CONTROLS, then under PERSON PROFILE click on the link labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. A text box will appear. Paste the URL for your bio into the box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE.

This ensure it appears in ALL your posts.

[Jack White]

That was my error, Jack - I saw the old link at the bottom of the page - which does not work - and didn't notice the link placed in the post above.

I have restored the post.

Instead of having to manually place the link in each post, you can have it done automatically in the form of a signature. Simply go to MY CONTROLS, then under PERSON PROFILE click on the link labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. A text box will appear. Paste the URL for your bio into the box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE.

This ensure it appears in ALL your posts.

I PROTEST THIS RIDICULOUS "MODERATION". MY BIOGRAPHY IS IRRELEVANT

TO MY RESEARCH. EVERYONE KNOWS WHO I AM. IF MR. SIMKIN DESIRES MY

BIO, I HAVE PROVIDED IT TO HIM. HE CAN REPLACE IT, SINCE HE WAS THE ONE

WHO ORIGINALLY POSTED IT. FOR THAT MATTER, ANY MODERATOR CAN DO

ANYTHING WITH ANY POST, AS YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED NUMEROUS TIMES.

I WOULD SAY WHAT I REALLY THINK, BUT IT IS AGAINST FORUM "RULES."

TO DELETE RESEARCH OVER A NONSENSICAL TECHNICALITY IS ABSURD!

YOU HAVE REVEALED YOUR TRUE ROLE HERE.

Jack

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

[Evan Burton]

That was my error, Jack - I saw the old link at the bottom of the page - which does not work - and didn't notice the link placed in the post above.

I have restored the post.

Instead of having to manually place the link in each post, you can have it done automatically in the form of a signature. Simply go to MY CONTROLS, then under PERSON PROFILE click on the link labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. A text box will appear. Paste the URL for your bio into the box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE.

This ensure it appears in ALL your posts.

I PROTEST THIS RIDICULOUS "MODERATION". MY BIOGRAPHY IS IRRELEVANT

TO MY RESEARCH. EVERYONE KNOWS WHO I AM. IF MR. SIMKIN DESIRES MY

BIO, I HAVE PROVIDED IT TO HIM. HE CAN REPLACE IT, SINCE HE WAS THE ONE

WHO ORIGINALLY POSTED IT. FOR THAT MATTER, ANY MODERATOR CAN DO

ANYTHING WITH ANY POST, AS YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED NUMEROUS TIMES.

I WOULD SAY WHAT I REALLY THINK, BUT IT IS AGAINST FORUM "RULES."

TO DELETE RESEARCH OVER A NONSENSICAL TECHNICALITY IS ABSURD!

YOU HAVE REVEALED YOUR TRUE ROLE HERE.

Jack

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

Once again, you are wrong. Mods CANNOT place the bio link into your personal profile; you have to do this. You have been told this multiple times now. We have extended every courtesy to you to enable you to follow this very simple procedure. If you don't want to follow the Forum rules, then you must be prepared to accept the consequences of such inaction. Your choice.

Edited to Add: BTW, it is not my responsibility to go to each and every post you have made and place your bio link in there. If you would quit being so seemingly obstinate and follow the simple procedure detailed above, then the link to your bio would appear in ALL your posts and then we could make them visible again.

In regard to your "demand" that John be informed of your "protest", he has been quite clear and specific in what he expects. If you wish to PM with a complaint, you are free to do so, however I will not bother John yet again for simply carrying out our duties.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Len Colby]

After spending two days researching the intersection of Church and Murray streets I have decided that it was designed to obfuscate. I have decided to call it SPOOK CENTRAL. I have been trying to figure where I went wrong on the earlier study regarding the Naudet video of the man reacting to the sound of the first explosion (North Tower), jerking his head up to look at the explosion. The boom of the explosion is heard on the tape, but NO jet noise.

This has already been explained to you, the audio comes from their camera which was far north of the WTC the sound of the jet fades to nothing as it flys away from the camera.

1. Three or more photographers at the intersection...Naudet before anything happened, Fox as the South Tower fell, and FBI photographer before and after. Naudet was filming northward. Fox was filming eastward.

You have yet to produce evidence that was filmed by the Naudet brothers or that it was filmed at the time of the 1st crash or that Fox was there when the South Tower fell, how would the latter fit into anything sinister? The FBI Photog was there for obvious reasons; FOX apparently for the same reason (the engine part)

2. Scaffolds on three of the four corners. ("Jet engine" is under one of them.)

I only see evidence of 2 scaffolds, why is this suspicious, how would it advance a conspiracy? NYC was at the tail end of a real estate boom.

3. Wastebasket in middle of street with yellow police tape BEFORE either twin tower was hit, shown in Naudet video.

The image is too unclear to make out it is, you assumed it was a "Wastebasket in middle of street with yellow police tape" because you miss IDed the corner.

4. Wastebasket in middle of street with yellow police tape as South Tower falls, shown in Fox video and FBI photo. People are walking in the street to go around scaffolding (not shown here) on sidewalk.

Why is this suspicious?

5. Fox video shows big blue van with large group of FBI agents assisting in unloading large heavy object which is loaded on a dolly.

Please present evidence for this claim and see additional questions below.

6. Amazing similarity of northward and southward views, especially a white five story building in the distance.

Why is this suspicious? There are lots of 5 story white buildings in the city, do think one was constructed presumably years in advance just to confuse you? The views aren’t very similar the buildings on the corners don’t look alike.

Why did the FBI have such a large contingent there, and what did they unload from the big blue van?

How many agents is “a large contingent” this was only blocks from the FBI NYC HQ, were they unload or loading?

[Len Colby]

Michael,

I'm confused. What question was asked that I didn't respond to? I'll do my best to answer it.

Thanks,

Evan, please save the thanks for Jack White. All you have to do is go back and read Maggie's post and mine.

There are lots of comments. If you point out what I have not answered, I'll try to answer.

Michael's comment is nonesense. Maggie wrote:

"One of Hanjour's teachers said he could not believe it was him that flew the plane into the pentagon as he just couldn't fly at all. Am I supposed to discount what his teacher said in favour of this guy?"

The paraphrase was not very accurate, since it was from memory this is understandable but the actually quote was:

“I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all”

The key difference being that there is no indication the teacher didn't believe Hanjour was the pilot, additionally as the 911Myths page pointed out:

-he had several months instruction AFTER that teach last had contact with him

-others instructors assesments varried while none said he was a crack pilot one said he was avaerage, another said he thought he'd had military training, two others indicated hitting the Pentagon was with in his limited skills

-several pilots have said hitting the Pentagon as Hanjour did would not have been difficult

My question for Maggie and others is, if the plane was remote controlled (or flown by a crack Israeli Kamikazee as one site speculated) why would they have made the turn? It would have been a lot simpler to fly in a straight line.

[Len Colby]

Citing Dr. Curtis, likely a highly intelligent man, is a non sequitur...comparing HIM to

any of the 19 young muslims.

Dr. Curtis didn't indicate that he though someone would have to be especially intelligent to hit the targets. Atta was a graduate student at the prestigious Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, according to his advisor he was “smart” and got a “very very good” grade on his written thesis and the highest possible grade on his oral thesis. Jarrah studied aeronautical engineering at the University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg and “his grades were above average”. I’ve seen no indication the other two pilots were unintelligent. Nor do I see the relevance of their religion. Does Jack believe Muslims are less intelligent than members of other religions?

Atta - http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/machule.htm

Jarrah - http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/thepilot/story.html

Another non sequitur from Mr. Brazil. The question was whether any of the

19 muslim arab hijackers had ever spent a week learning to fly a 757/767

on a simulator.

And that question had already been answered by Matthew but you failed to notice. You are the one who brought up the intelligence of the hijack pilots compared to Dr. Curtis, that was "another non sequitur from Mr. Texas" but since it was semi-germane and easy to refute I replied.

[Michael Hogan]

Michael's comment is nonesense.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

[Craig Lamson]

Michael's comment is nonesense.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

You should really stop playing spelling cop to Lens's posts. It makes you look quite childish and petty. Unless that is your intention, in which case carry on.

[Michael Hogan]

Michael's comment is nonesense.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

You should really stop playing spelling cop to Lens's posts. It makes you look quite childish and petty. Unless that is your intention, in which case carry on.

I'll let other members decide who looks childish and petty. What you think doesn't concern me.

[Craig Lamson]

Michael's comment is nonesense.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

You should really stop playing spelling cop to Lens's posts. It makes you look quite childish and petty. Unless that is your intention, in which case carry on.

I'll let other members decide who looks childish and petty. What you think doesn't concern me.

bold mine

It appears that you do, you answered. Got anymore buttons that need pushed?

[Len Colby]

Michael's comment is nonesense.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

Egads, not another typo! How can I ever live down the shame? Your post was nonsense whether I spelt it correctly or not which is why you didn’t reply to its contents. Odd that your Pavlovian urge to point out spelling/grammar errors seems limited to one member of the forum.

EDIT - Typo fixed LOL

Edited August 9, 2008 by Len Colby