By Craig McKee
Richard Gage admits that his pronouncements on the Pentagon research of Citizen Investigation Team have done more harm than good.
Since he first waded into the debate two-and-a-half years ago, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has taken plenty of heat from people on all sides of the question of whether a 757 hit the Pentagon on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Gage now feels he should never have gotten involved – and most people agree with him.
“Entering into and rendering a recommendation and then withdrawing that recommendation ended up really stirring the pot in ways that I don’t think were helpful either time to the 9/11 Truth movement,” Gage said in an interview last week in Montreal, the last stop on his 12-city Canadian tour.
“Had we never rendered an opinion (on CIT’s film National Security Alert) and just limited our attention publicly to the World Trade Center towers we would not have sustained such criticism from both sides of that argument, that argument being the flyover theory that CIT is promoting, which has been a source of great animosity within the 9/11 Truth movement.”
Gage and I discussed several subjects related to 9/11, including his hotly debated decision to speak at the annual convention of the Nation of Islam in early March, and, of course, his own evidence that the three World Trade Center towers were brought down in controlled demolitions (I attended his excellent two-hour presentation the night after our interview).
In this article I’ll look at the Gage/Pentagon controversy with a later follow-up addressing the other subjects, including my reaction to Gage’s presentation.
AE911truth has never officially taken a position on the Pentagon – even aspects of the evidence that would fall directly under their members’ areas of expertise. Gage explained to me why the organization won’t pronounce itself on the physical evidence there:
“We’re concerned that there’s such a lack of information, a lack of good, accurate information,” he said. “There’s so much disinformation, there’s so much misinformation, and there’s so much animosity within the 9/11 Truth movement that our entry into that arena would be more disruptive than helpful – and has been actually already.
“So we confine ourselves to the World Trade Center evidence because the evidence is so clear, so convincing, and irrefutable that almost everybody gets it. And we have agreement on it, in general, within the 9/11 Truth movement. And so we don’t need to take on an area that is a quagmire.”
Is the Pentagon a quagmire, a no-win situation for the Truth movement? I am one of those who feels the Pentagon “quagmire” is a contrived controversy, and that most 9/11 truthers have no problem accepting the idea that no 757 ever hit the building. It is just a few who seem to feel attacking CIT is the best way to move forward.
Attacks on CIT go back well before Gage got involved. By the time the summer of 2009 came along, CIT had been the subject of vocal attacks from those who inexplicably believe that the Pentagon was the scene of a 757 crash on the morning of 9/11. These critics (in some cases people whose work on the World Trade Center was and is well respected) found a home on 911blogger.com, a site that has since banned just about anyone who has a positive word to say about CIT.
Gage chose that summer to recommend CIT’s work in this original statement, joining major figures like David Ray Griffin and Barrie Zwicker in praising CIT for its significant findings:
“The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD “National Security Alert” deserves serious attention – particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day.”
So far, so good. In December of that year, Gage issued a “clarification” in which he distanced himself from CIT’s belief that the large airliner that approached the Pentagon flew over it instead of into it:
“Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT’s National Security Alert in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the “North path” of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT’s investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth’s focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn’t perform an exhaustive review of CIT’s material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT’s conclusion that the airliner “flew over” the Pentagon.”
This was odd. He says his statement shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of flyover. Fine. But he also insinuates that CIT’s methods were wanting without coming right out and saying it. Still, had he stopped there, it wouldn’t have been disastrous. But he didn’t.
In February 2011, just a couple of weeks after CIT opponents David Chandler and Jonathan Cole had posted an attack on CIT on 911blogger, Gage released a “complete withdrawal of support” for CIT on the same site.
He cited many of CIT’s most enthusiastic attackers to support his case that the group had used improper investigative methods. He based this on a claim that CIT had not made it clear that some witnesses interviewed in the film not only supported the north of Citgo flight path, but also say they saw the plane hit the building.
“It would have been a more honest approach to declare that, ‘We think the plane flew over the Pentagon, but our witnesses who we using to make that point didn’t see anything like that. In fact, they said they saw the plane hit the building.’ Now, I know that CIT is suggesting that they were the victims of a magic show, an illusion. I do understand that.”
In fact, the film makes explicitly clear that ALL the witnesses believe the plane hit (some might have been in a position to see the alleged impact, others certainly weren’t). In another upcoming post I’ll look in detail at Gage’s claim that the film was misleading and that improper methods were used.
Gage’s statement prompted loud protests from prominent truthers who support CIT’s work. A letter signed by 27 truthers criticized Gage’s decision. Here’s an excerpt:
“Richard, we admire the work you’ve done with A&E,” it read. “However we simply cannot stay silent about the stance that you and other members of A&E have taken about CIT and the Pentagon, as we believe it is hurting the movement and could potentially cripple it.”
While Gage never responded to the letter, he did freely discuss the subject of CIT in our interview. Here’s part of the exchange Gage and I had about the Pentagon:
CM: If you listen to the witnesses, the two things (impact and north of Citgo flight path) are completely incompatible. The witnesses say the plane flew on the north side of the gas station and they say the plane hit the building. Hasn’t that been ruled out?
RG: “I don’t know. Can you explain that to me?”
CM: Because had it been on the north side of the gas station it could not have knocked the light poles over.
RG: “Right. I agree.”
CM: Which means that the light poles had to have been staged. And I believe Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done a study in terms of G forces to indicate that there’s no way the plane could have been on the north side and then banked…
RG: “Well they said they saw it bank, the witnesses.”
CM: Yes, they said they saw it bank to the right. But that doesn’t help the [impact] theory. It doesn’t help it because they’re still missing the light poles (the official story has a straight south of Citgo approach, no banking). So if the plane really hit the building, why would you stage knocked-over light poles? What would be the purpose of that exactly, if you’re planning to fly the plane into the building? That certainly supports the idea of the illusion, doesn’t it?
RG: “Right. Ya. There’s a lot to be resolved there. I actually don’t have an opinion on whether the plane flew over the building or went into it. That’s not part of my statement. But I do believe there was a plane. These witnesses saw a plane, that’s an important distinction and also a disruptive set of elements in the 9/11 Truth movement. Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement think there was a plane.”
CM: Absolutely, including David Ray Griffin.
RG: “Didn’t he at some point support CIT as well?”
CM: As far as I know he still does.
RG: “And he believes there was some kind of plane present.”
CM: He believes there was a plane, he just doesn’t think it hit the building.
Gage admits he broke a promise to CIT’s Craig Ranke when he released his withdrawal of support:
CM: I spoke to Craig Ranke in Toronto in September and he mentioned that you had made a commitment to him that before ever withdrawing your endorsement you would talk to him first.
RG: “That’s probably accurate.”
CM: What was the reason you didn’t?
RG: “I didn’t want to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, because both sides of this argument are very convincing and very difficult, and I needed to be done with the issue and get off the fence.
“I’m not interested in pursuing the points any further because I’m already behind in the work that I’m doing and I need to focus on that. But if there’s some kind of information that proves something I might be inclined – probably not, though – if it draws the 9/11 Truth movement together instead of splitting it apart then I’d be … I’m a servant of the 9/11 Truth movement, ultimately.”
I don’t think we’ll be hearing any more official Pentagon statements from Gage as much as I might think a withdrawal of his withdrawal of support would be best for the movement. He is going to focus his energy on spreading the message that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives. On this subject, Gage has much support, which he deserves.
While I’ve criticized his decision to give in to pressure from CIT opponents, I must give him full marks for his bold and courageous decision to speak to a large and well-informed audience at the Nation of Islam convention. He did this despite pressure from AE911truth colleagues to decline the invitation because of Minister Louis Farrakhan’s controversial reputation. AE911Truth’s Kevin Ryan also spoke.
This is exactly the kind of gutsy action we need more of from Truth leaders like Gage. The route of excessive caution and caving in to pressure has not served us well.
RICHARD GAGE has my admiration and gratitude that he found the courage to reverse himself on this really important subject.
It gives me hope that more people will now seek out and look into the important evidence presented by CIT – and then increase pressure to allow open discussion.
It appears that 911 blogger is thoroughly corrupted at the top levels and has become useless at best – and at the worst it will continue to censor and ridicule important new evidence (like CIT).
I’m not sure I understand you. When he reversed himself, it was to remove support from CIT. He hasn’t gone back to supporting them.
He admitted to having made a mistake in withdrawing support.
Yes, but he also says it was a mistake to offer the recommendation in the first place. It’s better than nothing, though.
Richard still seems confused about what the CIT witnesses actually said. He seems to be suggesting there is some kind of no plane theory involved with CIT. That is NOT the case at all. CIT clearly establishes that a large airliner was indeed present. His statements seem to indicate he is confused about that point which would indicate to me that he is listening to disinformation talking points. Some CIT detractors deceptively equate CIT with no plane theorists. Some of those detractors are directly involved with A+E. This retraction of his retraction just confirms to me that Richard is being intentionally misled and confused by people close to him.
It is also distressing to me that Richard has not taken a strong stance against the outrageous censorship and purging of CIT supporters from 911Blogger. If he is indeed uncertain about the pentagon issue and about CIT then surely he would support an open discussion about the topic and oppose in the strongest possible terms the suppression of the topic right? Even if he himself doesn’t want to get into the pentagon topic surely he can oppose Stalinist suppression tactics right? Is supporting the right to free speech not the duty of all truthers?
Adam,
Not only does Richard not condemn the Stalinist purges at 911blogger, he (at least off the record) enthusiastically supports 911blogger owner, AE911Truth webmaster and AE911Truth board member Justin Keogh (and now, asst. to Gourley at the “International Center”).
Our blog friend “LillyAnn” who lives in Las Vegas saw Richard speak, and afterwards, she approached him and mentioned the whole 911blogger situation. Apparently, Richard heartily defended Justin as an incredibly hard worker and a tireless patriot and activist for 9/11 justice, and basically seemed to imply that he put 100% trust in Justin, knows that Justin makes good decisions, and, from that perspective, he assumed that anyone who had been purged at blogger deserved it because they were supposedly “violating the rules.” He also said he believed Justin to be transparent and explanatory when it came to banning people, i.e. emailing them to point out the apparent “broken rules.” LillyAnn informed Richard that she had been banned with no explanation. Richard’s forehead apparently wrinkled up with frustration as he must have at least momentarily wrestled with a wave of cognitive dissonance; he apparently was quite eager at that point to change the subject.
CIT are not no-planers , they are in fact the opposite, saying that the plane flew over and away from the Pentagon i.e. they are think there was a plane were there wasn’t one..
Thanks for this, Craig – you seem to have treated the subject quite fairly, and it was interesting to read about your interview with Richard in Montreal.
Since a real 757 has zero chance of escaping unnoticed, it’s natural to associate the flyover theory with “no planes” and hologram theories.
Mr. Good writes and entry intended to restart a merry-go-round:
Contrary to your bold statements April 15, 2012 at 10:19 pm in another thread just a couple of hours before this one, the 757 [or whatever model it was] was noticed on its path out of there and did have a place to go in the form of runway 15.
The association between fly-over and “no planes” and hologram theories is made entirely by you. This is thus an example of you putting words in our mouth, eh?
All witnesses say there was a plane. The issue is that scant few can actually claim it impacted the Pentagon. They have the data points of (a) [alleged] planes hitting towers in NYC and repeated footage of those plane pixels all over the networks, (b) seeing a low-flying plane on a path to the Pentagon, and (c) an explosion at the Pentagon more or less in the path of the visible plane. Ergo, they extrapolate that a real plane really hit the Pentagon to account for the explosion, although they didn’t see it. Cognitive dissonance at work.
So, who ordered you into this discussion? Why your sudden return? And with retread arguments, no less. Tsk, tsk.
Runway 15 is not long enough for 757s, and it crosses the main runway. Landing a 757 on Runway 15 would have been very noticable to the ATCs, airport employees, planespotters, pilots. And then what do you do with the plane? Dump it in the river when nobody’s looking? Grind it up and wash it down the sewer?
You are alleging a huge conspiracy to accomplish . . . nothing at all. That is why your proposition is legitimately compared to hologram and no plane theories.
Good article, Craig.
It’s pretty obvious that a concerted effort on the part of the, now, well-known cadre of Anti-CIT activists were able to put a great deal of pressure on Richard Gage to retract his praise of CIT. What we should be trying to find out is why they did so. It must have seemed easier than refuting the CIT evidence.
Boiled down, CIT’s case turns on two well-established facts – (1) that the aircraft passed North of the Citgo inbound to the Pentagon, and (2) an aircraft in that positon cannot possibly do anything that allows it to create the directional damage trail observed after the event. It doesn’t matter how many people think it hit the building. When something is definitively shown to be impossible we don’t normally stand around arguing strenuously over whether it happened.
“Me (sic) and my girlfriend had tickets to see Copperfield at MGM during our Vegas trip. I was excited because I have never been to a magic show before. Let me tell you something, this man WAS and STILL is AMAZING. I don’t see how everyone could say his show was terrible. I have never seen such fascinating illusions performed in front of my face. Yes some of them you can figure out most likely but what magician now a days has 100% secret material anyway? Just to name a few tricks he did: He opened the act by having his assistants show us an open box. Then they closed it and spun it around and he appread in the box on a MOTORCYCLE and it was running! He turned paper roses into real roses, he turned a paper butterfly into a real one, he called a person up onto stage for almost every illusion he did. He made a car appear on stage and started it up right on stage! He predicts the future by asking you questions about yourself and then pulling the answers out of a locked box written on paper!! Yes he does show some old film of himself doing tricks from the 80s and yes he does have some funny jokes and some non funny jokes. all in all I did NOT feel like I wasted my $100 per ticket I paid. I enjoyed the ENTIRE 90 min of his show and gave him a standing ovation when it was over. Best magician on earth.”
(From a review of David Copperfield’s Las Vegas show, http://www.tripadvisor.com/)
OK. Now lets have a debate about which of these events described above, all witnessed by a large audience, most of whom were, no doubt, trying hard to spot the secret of the tricks, were real and which were illusions carefully set up and executed. Frank Legge – you go first. Maybe you could write a peer-reviewed paper about it.
Craig McKee said: “While I’ve criticized his decision to give in to pressure from CIT opponents, I must give him full marks for his bold and courageous decision to speak to a large and well-informed audience at the Nation of Islam convention.”
With Richard Gage living off Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, all decisions must be heavily influenced by cash flow concerns. This is obviously a bad situation. Mr. McKee you’re profoundly naive, you’re broadcasting a fantasy here, and you’re in a cult.
We know Gage receives a salary for his full-time work with AE. Regardless of this, he has to live with any decision he makes. You can only presume that certain decisions are affected by money concerns. I really think this is so minor. I care about how effective Gage is at carrying the message. The rest seems to be of interest to a tiny minority.
As for “broadcasting a fantasy” and being in a cult, I think you’re being silly. How can your primary interest in 9/11 involve who is making money? Really.
Craig McKee said: “How can your primary interest in 9/11 involve who is making money?”
It’s not. I never said it was. And you have no evidence that it is. Your question is not a question. It’s a form of argument that should not be used.
Craig McKee said: “We know Gage receives a salary for his full-time work with AE.”
“We”. Right. I don’t think that Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth broadcasts financial transparency reports. Why not?
911artists,
You wrote: “It’s not. I never said it was. And you have no evidence that it is. Your question is not a question. It’s a form of argument that should not be used.”
You never said it was, but that’s all you ever comment on. Evidence? It’s all you ever comment on. Not a question, an argument that shouldn’t be used? I have no idea what you’re talking about.
To your second point, I don’t know, and I don’t especially care. I care about the evidence, not Richard Gage’s expense account. I can tell you one thing: I met him at the home of a local truther. This was where he was staying. A small, modest room in someone’s home. No hotel, no luxury.
I meant that you stated a fallacy as a question in your argument. To me, this was improper. As far as the rest goes, let me think about what you said here a bit please. Thank you.
“I don’t think that Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth broadcasts financial transparency reports. Why not?”
Paul,
AE911Truth is a non-profit organization, and the 990 forms of all non-profits are in the public domain. There is a website called guidestar.com. It’s free to register, but you do need to register. Then, you can search for any non-profit and from there, you can go to AE’s 990 form and see exactly what their total annual budget is, how much Gage made last year, how much Justin Keogh made, etc.
Thank you, Mr. Syed.
Mr. McKee, you showed in your article that his word is no good. When you questioned him on it, he did not say that it was wrong to break his word and that he would make an effort to correct the error. He responded with a statement including these words beneath:
Richard Gage said: “I’m a servant of the 9/11 Truth movement, ultimately.”
Look, sir. Listen.
Mr Syed, here is the 2010 Form 990 from AE911truth at guidestar.org:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2010/261/532/2010-261532493-07c3d3aa-9.pdf
It does not show where most of the money went at all. I think it shows total revenue at $434,526 with $288,893 of that listed as contributions, $416,220 spent on functional expenses, and $80,652 to Richard Gage in salary. Some examples:
Quoting AE911truth 2010 990: “Other salary and wages – $35,250”
Who did that money go to and for what work?
Quoting AE911truth 2010 990: “Other – $27,305”
Where exactly did that money go?
Quoting AE911truth 2010 990: “Sales production – $97,551”
Is someone getting paid to produce what is being sold there? If so, who?
Their address according to guidestar.org is 3527 Mt Diablo Blvd 370 Lafayette, CA 94549. The address listed on their site now is 2342 Shattuck Ave., Suite 189 Berkeley, CA 94704. I Googled these two locations and I didn’t see anything about AE911truth but I saw there is a UPS Store at both locations. Are these addresses offices or mailboxes?
Mr. McKee, how was this interview recorded?
What do you mean, exactly?
Did you make an audio recording or something else of your conversation? Will you show the original so that your accuracy can be checked? Did Richard Gage know that he was being recorded and that you were going to broadcast it?
Mr. McKee, since you are not answering my questions above I retract and apologize to Richard Gage for my comment five posts up:
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4258
I was quoting Richard Gage from this article and I did not think then to check any further. At this time what I wrote appears to me to be a quote and commentary without proper support. Mr. McKee, I ask you to remove that one comment from your blog now please. Thank you.
I’m aware of one question I didn’t get around to answering. No hidden reason; I just forgot to do it. You asked: “Did you make an audio recording or something else of your conversation? Will you show the original so that your accuracy can be checked? Did Richard Gage know that he was being recorded and that you were going to broadcast it?”
What are you saying here? Because I didn’t provide you with details of how I gathered my facts, you can’t trust them? What are you insinuating?
To answer your question about my interview:
1) Yes, I did make an audio recording.
2) No, I will not show the original so that my accuracy can be checked. That’s not how it’s done. Trying calling up Carl Bernstein at the Post and asking him if you can listen to recordings of his interviews. He’ll politely tell you to get lost. A reporter who misrepresents what a subject says, or misquotes, will cease to be trusted. You may notice that Mr. Gage has not written to complain of inaccuracies. He’s the one who would know.
3) Yes, he knew he was being recorded.
4) I am not going to broadcast it. But I could if I wanted. An on-the-record interview is just as the name implies. But I always tell a subject what I’m doing. I told him that was a print interview, not radio, not video.
If you want a past comment removed, you’ll have to explain why.
I’m not insinuating anything. I think my request for clarification from you on these points was appropriate for this situation. Thank you for your effort.
Okay. You’re welcome.
Richard said: “both sides of this argument are very convincing and very difficult”. That is untrue. The anti CIT argument is not convincing at all which is why the anti-CIT crowd will not debate the subject in the open. If the anti-CIT argument were actually convincing 911Blogger would not have to have done the mass purge to silence all the CIT supporters. In short, the anti-CIT argument is a load of crap.
You have people like Brian Good above using JREF straw man arguments such as:
“Since a real 757 has zero chance of escaping unnoticed, it’s natural to associate the flyover theory with “no planes” and hologram theories.”
Look what happens if I change the context of Brians statement from the 757 at the pentagon to the explosives in the towers and tell me if JREF’ers do not use this exact same straw man argument against CD.
“Since so many people placing explosives inside the towers have zero chance of escaping unnoticed, it’s natural to associate the controlled demolition idea with crack pot conspiracy theories.”
Classic JREF straw man. Also Brian’s blanket statement about there being zero chance of the plane flying over unnoticed is a logical fallacy and an unsupported conjecture for a number of reasons. First because multiple people may have indeed seen the plane fly over and have simply not come forward to testify. Secondly it assumes wrongly, just as Jim Hoffman did, that all the people in the area had a clear unobstructed view of the area where the plane would have flown over. NOT TRUE. In fact very few viewpoints offer a view of that area because of the topography and visual obstructions present. Thirdly it ignores completely the single most important factor that explains why people could have missed the fly over. The giant explosion and fireball distraction which would have drawn peoples attention like a magnet.
Now my blanket statement that “Brian Good uses disinformation tactics” however is based on multiple solid pieces of evidence.
Adam, I am surprised that you have not learned by now what a straw mam argument is. A straw man argument is when you attribute to someone else an argument they are not making.
The difference between a 757 escaping unnoticed and demolition charges being planted unnoticed is that demolition charges could be placed on vacant floors and in elevator hoistways in complete privacy. I was not aware that there were 757-sized elevator hoistways around the Pentagon, though JimD3100stein claims something along those lines.
There is zero chance of a 757 flying away unobserved because every escape path is foreclosed upon. The plane can’t fly to the SE because that’s against the aircraft traffic pattern. It can’t fly E because that’s parallel to the Interstate bridge as it crosses the river, and it’s right over a golf course. It can’t fly NE or N because that trespasses on the Mall no-fly zone. The only possible escape path is to make a screaming hi-g 110 degree turn to the NW and fly away up the river,
Your belief that a 757 could perform this turn that was visible from the marina, the golf course, the park, the interstate freeway, the airport, and the planespotters’ park and nobody reported it is unreasonable. You think the explosion distracted the people in the marina so they didn’t see the plane flying right over them?
Sheldon, your demand that a fly-into plane create the damage that you claim was faked is not logical. You might as well claim that a north path fly-into plane is impossible because it’s inconsistent with the broken light poles.
You can have bullet wounds and knife wounds. You can’t argue “since bullets can’t cause the knife wounds, therefore there was no bullet.”
Also, nobody has ever put forth a plausible explanation for how the lightpoles could be faked.
What you say makes no sense.
I think you missed the point. The position of the plane (and the fact of the plane itself) is well established by credible witnesses who corroborate each other. Obviously, the plane collision with the Pentagon was a created illusion, of a piece with the downed light poles and the multiple explosions engineered to simulate the destruction caused by the plane. The impossibility of the plane actually causing the damage observed is established by the science of aerodynamics and the laws of motion. Once the plane is established on the north side of the Citgo inbound to the Pentagon, it is eliminated as the cause of the damage.
Craig and Aldo pointed out that all the poles wound up on slopes that would have tended to mask them from observation from the road, except for the one implausibly embedded in the cab windshield and back seat, extending over but sparing the simonized hood. There is also the long scratch on the road bed that appears to have been made when it was dragged into position.
And it’s Shelton, with a t.
I’ve seen the claim made many times that the NOC plane can’t hit the building. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence that this is so. Normally the claim is accompanied by the bogus demand that the plane’s attitude and altitude match the 5 frames. It’s the usual silly demand that a real plane conform to evidence that you say was faked anyway. So when you want to say the plane flew over, the 5 frames were fake. But if somebody suggests the plane flew in, then the 5 frames are solid?
If Craig and Aldo claim that the poles on the slopes were masked from the road, then they’re just wrong. The poles are on the slopes visible from the off ramp, from the onramp, and from westbound traffic.
Why would the conspirators plant the lightpole evidence and then fly the plane in on a different flight path? Doesn’t it bother you that you can’t explain that?
Wild-ass speculation.
Work could begin as soon as the September 10, 2001 evening rush hour was over and the sun had set. The task itself would not take all night long, so could be delayed such that completion was an hour or two before sunrise and the September 11, 2001 morning rush hour.
Use a cherry-picker to attach a cable up high on a light pole. The other end of the cable is attached to a tow truck that pulls it over. Once the poles are on the ground, tools akin to a fireman’s jaws-of-life set to squeeze puts a crimp or two into the light poles or outright tears it into two to simulate where the wings hit. Of course, the jaws-of-life could crimp things from the cherry-picker as well, and would thereby have a nice notched area for the cable to rest in to facilitate the pull-down. Having the cable afixed higher up gives it more leverage on the base to bend & break its bolts. Up high is where the alleged wing impact force was applied, so is where the cable would need to be afixed.
Most of the downed light poles can be left at the side of the road, in the grass, or dragged to their “throw down” positions (not on the road). Once the small crew had completed their task and were gone, traffic would hardly notice or care what rested there.
Of course, a pole or two could be left standing with their crimps up high and with their bases rigged to fail on command so that they would fall into the road, mess with traffic, and eye-witness testimony.
It would be easy to make or acquire bent or sheared bolts from light poles that had been damaged from other vehicle-versu-light-pole accidents. The light poles do not need 4 bolts to hold them in place for a day or two with known good weather; one or two would suffice. Therefore, a day or two before 9/11, one good bolt or three on some of the lamp posts could be substituted with bent salvaged bolts from other light pole damages. Only the remaining good bolt or two would need to be rigged to fail on command.
Lloyd’s cab is another situation. According to his story, a full length light pole impaled his car. He and another man (from another car?) lifted it out. Yet his hood was undamaged, and a full-length pole would have been two heavy and unwieldy for just two people. More likely, it wasn’t a full-length pole, but a smaller fragment that two people could carry.
Señor, it’s a hoot that you concentrate on the nuts and bolts of taking the poles down. That’s not the problem with creating a plausible lightpole-faking scenario. The problem is placing them on the cloverleaf slopes. The facile claim that they can be planted in the dark the night before is silly, because then they would be sitting there in the cloverleaf through the 8:00 am rush hour and the 9:00 a.m. rush hour and people would see them before the plane hit. So then you’ll claim that people are too dumb to notice. When I drive I am always on the lookout for the unexpected, and I would notice downed lightpoles in the cloverleaf.
Mr. Good,
Driving and being on the lookout for the unexpected and noticing such [e.g., downed light poles] is different than noting it as important or relevant and bringing it to the attention of others.
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and its slick video.
Of the few morning rush hour drivers who might have noticed light poles on the ground, what importance are they going to make of this? What connection would they make with light poles allegedly hit by a plane that would allegedly hit the Pentagon shortly after their commute took them by? And if their commute took them regularly by the Pentagon, how distinct is their recollection going to be regarding what detail they saw when?
My goodness, how many years went by before CIT did their interviews?
“There’s so much disinformation, there’s so much misinformation”
Yeah, and I can prove that those who “convinced” him are guilty of this.
He actually believes that NPT is in the mix? No wonder he was easily “convinced”…Jesuus..
Then of course we have this idiot, Brian Good, who as far as I know wasn’t allowed to post until he answered relevant questions on another of Craig’s blogs?
“Sheldon, your demand that a fly-into plane create the damage that you claim was faked is not logical. You might as well claim that a north path fly-into plane is impossible because it’s inconsistent with the broken light poles.
You can have bullet wounds and knife wounds. You can’t argue “since bullets can’t cause the knife wounds, therefore there was no bullet.”
Also, nobody has ever put forth a plausible explanation for how the lightpoles could be faked.
Brian Good”
Brian “the extraordinary lightpole operation – 3 skyscrapers were brought down before our very eyes but how on EARTH did they manage to topple lightpoles whose removal wouldn’t have caught anybody’s eye in daylight hours” Good.
Brian “the plane flew NOC and SOC and the damage is compatible with either trajectory, although all damage preceding impact proves inside job, I don’t give a rat’s ass” Good.
Brian “myself and Chris Sarns decided from the outset to accept the NOC evidence as valid but we would push for impact anyway regardless, though push for the equal validity of OCT path witnesses whose testimony falls apart on closer inspection” Good.
Been there, done that.
For Christ sake. Why is this lunatic here? Did he answer those questions on the other blog? If he did, I apologize. If he did, can somebody please link me to them? Cheers.
OSS, the question is not “how did they topple the lightpoles?” The question is “how did they plant them unobserved?” You guys are still struggling with basic logic, I see. And the answer to the question is “they didn’t because they can’t”.
This argument, Brian, is rubbish. I’m frankly tired of reading it from you. You think people will start screaming foul when they see a pole lying on the ground? In fact, I’m tired of reading all your arguments. Highly credible eyewitness accounts place the plane on the north side of the gas station. If this is correct, it could not have hit the poles. Simple.
“When I drive I am always on the lookout for the unexpected, and I would notice downed lightpoles in the cloverleaf”
Brian “eagle eye” Good, which of these poles specifically wouldn’t escape those beady eyes?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/187b.jpg
Lightpole 1?
Lloyd England allegedly had one through his CAR and is apparently “confused” as to where he actually was.
Lightpole 2?
Hidden down the embankment behind the bridge?
Lightpoles 3, 4 and 5?
4 and 5 laying neatly below the field of vision orbehind a matallic barrier?
Lightpole 3 on a clover leaf road used for people who want to drive off of Route 27 to get on to Columbia Pike?
Would you notice in this traffic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrSUHbMhJo
Can you see the traffic using this clover leaf in the minutes leading up to the explosion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQK9onhRn3c
Okay….
Brian “I demand specifics on one of the four black ops carried out on 9/11 although I will ignore the observations recorded by CIT” Good.
Brian “the extraordinary lightpole operation – 3 skyscrapers were brought down before our very eyes but how on EARTH did they manage to topple lightpoles whose removal wouldn’t have caught anybody’s eye in daylight hours” Good.
Brian “the plane flew NOC AND SOC and the damage is compatible with either trajectory, although all damage preceding impact proves inside job, I don’t give a rat’s ass” Good.
Brian “myself and Chris Sarns decided from the outset to accept the NOC evidence as valid but we would push for impact anyway regardless, though push for the equal validity of OCT path witnesses whose testimony falls apart on closer inspection” Good.
Been there, done that.
For Christ sake. Why is this lunatic here? Did he answer those questions on the other blog? If he did, I apologize. If he did, can somebody please link me to them? Cheers.
Oneslice, 3 of the lightpoles were very conspicuous on grassy slopes and visible from the offramp, the onramp, and westbound on the pike. Your claim that they were “hidden” and “behind barriers” is ridiculous. You are restricting your witnesses to a viewpoint on highway 27.
I can’t believe you guys after all these years are still so out of touch with the facts.
Brian “I’ll ignore sourced, relevant facts and information provided just 2 or 3 posts up and troll this blog with lazy, illogical, irrelevant ramblings” Good.
Let’s put this another way. You claim that people should have seen those lightpoles on the ground, Shown in my post above (there was one car driving through the ringroad in the “5 frames” video – there was NO view of these areas from those traffic filled lanes). No matter.
Answer me this. Lloyd England allegedly had a lightpole protruding over 20ft out of his cab for 6 or 7 minutes. Nobody is on record as seeing this.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/lloydsillustration.jpg
Yet you defend his story. Now which spectacle are people going to take notice of more? Lloyd’s cab or obscurely placed lightpoles beside an area that was under renovation?
Why do you not accept the observations on record of witnesses who place the aircraft nowgere near these poles?
http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/AllGroupsMap-3.jpg
You’re placing more weight on what people “should have seen” (badly Imight add) and dismissing what people ACTUALLY said.
Welcome to the Good Roadshow. Let’s all drop debate and thought out posts and entertain Brian Good and his wacky ramblings…
Gage just said to McKee, “I actually don’t have an opinion on whether the plane flew over the building or went into it.” However in his “withdrawal” he can be quoted saying, “The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon” and the shady attack articles he recommends overwhelmingly argue for a plane impact.
Now he’s going so far as to imply that the “no plane” argument has something to do with this discussion? The only way he could do such a thing is if he didn’t bother to read the content in the withdrawal he signed off on (let alone write it). The truth is that he has very strongly promoted disinformation articles that categorically argue for a plane impact but here he is yet again flip-flopping in this interview by pretending like he is agnostic on the topic (as if he didn’t read any of the articles he recommended either). He is not being truthful.
I think he did pretty well, considering. When it comes to this material it’s not easy to be both truthful and nice.
So the Monty Python skit, “This is not an argument” is going to roll again…
Fabulous As Bingham is purported to have said: “Let’s roll”
ww
“most 9/11 truthers have no problem accepting the idea that no 757 ever hit the building. It is just a few who seem to feel attacking CIT is the best way to move forward”
Craig,
this is inaccurate. I believe it is more likely than not that a plane hit the pentagon and it has nothing whatsoever to do with CIT, nor do I attack them.
I also support Richard Gage in his decision to remove his recommendation for CIT’s NSA and its conclusions. I appreciate the pressure that he must receive from both sides of this debate … of which infiltration on both sides so as to stir up hostile division is very likely.
I would ask that all on both sides review all the evidence without passion and let every person come to their own opinion on it. The ‘dividers’ will be obvious to all by their unnecessarily hostile divisive tactics.
Greg,
I think you must be the exception, then. I’m tempted to ask you why you think a 757 did hit. Whether or not you attack CIT or not, it seems to me that you have to come to terms with their findings, which indicate very convincingly that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station and therefore could not have knocked over the light poles – or caused the “exit” hole we see in the middle Pentagon ring.
Aldo Marquis contacted me shortly before the PentaCon webpage was put up. He told me of the Citizens Investigation Team which had just been to DC to question witnesses in follow-up of the fly-over thesis. He told me that my findings had been independently corroborated by new witnesses and with confirmation of one of my own witness sources, Sgt William LaGasse. Also told me this was vindication of my position. This was great news, but then I learned the bad news. The CIT were adding to their findings a different conclusion. Whereas I had the Boeing flying north of the Citgo station on its way from the west towards the west wall of the Pentagon where it could not have hit the first lamppost which was actually south of the gas station – which hit I explained by a killer object under 50 feet in length and with a tail fin similar to that of a jet fighter – I said that F-16 outfitted for remote control warfare would fit the known data, but that it could also have been a missile etc. How disappointed I was to learn that CIT were denying any killer object coming from the air and hitting the building. They chose it say that the lampposts were downed by other means as so much false evidence, to leave a false trail of physical damage — which included making a hole in the fence and making the groove on top of the generator. Why in the heck would they add of of those improbables after supplying exactly the proof that was needed of the thesis that did account for all of those events along the damage trail? Richard Gage Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashely, Legge, Gregg Roberts, Chandler and Hill urge arguments against CIT that do not apply to the earlier theory they were seeking to confirm or disprove. I should add that CIT also differ from my thesis in another respect. My jetliner has American Airlines Livery – because that is what witnesses who saw the Boeing coming directly over the Naval Annex said they saw. Unlike CIT I state that some of the witnesses claimed to have seen the plane crash. I did not contradict those witnesses – but I explained how when the mind was filled with the WTC towers crashes and when one sees a large Boeing jetliner headed for a building and then sees the building explode with a bright white flash — as attested to by the security camera video pictures — and then the absense of the plane — the mind will “see” the crash – even a crash that did not happen – because the brain must make sense of the situation in an emergency so it makes up the simplest explanation that fits what was seen. The psychology term for this is anchoring. It is very powerful as can be shown in laboratory tests. Having completed post graduate studies in experimental psychology I can assure you that it is real. Google anchoring and the name Amos Tvarsky.
By the way, the first to say that the Pentagon evidence should be ignored were Mike Ruppert, Carol Brouillet, John Judge and Mark Robinowitz view. They argued with other “truthers” that to claim that that no Boeing hit the Pentagon would “alienate people inside the beltway, and make us look foolish among D.C. professionals.” The argument largely worked. And others have played that note all the way up to the conversion of Richard Gage. There are many things that are not well known. For example, Howard Cohen has paid Griffin for the movie rights to Griffin’s books. Both Griffin and Gage are involved as consultants in Cohen’s fictionalized docu-drama. Cohen send out this offer: [Begin quote]”I have attached the script for your review.
Please write or call me so we can discuss a role for you (in front or behind the camera) in what will become the 9/11 Truth Movement’s “Weapon of Mass Instruction” – based on the books of David Ray Griffin and supported by research and evidence provided by the leading 9/11 truth advocates and truth groups – including the nano-thermite team.” But there are no “laughing Israelis” in this version. In Cohen’s new script, Bush and Cheney cook up the plan themselves. [End quote.]
In another letter Cohen writes:
”
Howard Cohen also writes:
…you’ve heard the expression. It means that when the reigning monarch of a country dies a new one is immediately named to replace him/her in power.
Such was the case with our feature film, “A Violation of Trust”.
Shortly after the January “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” newsletter featured a story about our proposed film I was contacted by what I can only call a “Hollywood bottom-feeder” who informed me that he had gotten hold of a copy of our script and “copyrighted our script” without our knowledge and definitely without our permission.
He was trying to use that copyright registration to extort money from us. Several attorneys informed me that while this is both illegal and unethical, it’s not the first time this has happened in Hollywood.
Faced with lengthy and expensive legal procedures to reverse this illegal copyright, we were advised to close down production of the film based upon the illegally copyrighted script. That’s what we did…..
…..and then immediately turned this negative into a positive – by having an entirely new script written that presents an even more provocative and captivating film opportunity. A new script for a completely new feature film that touches the human side of this tragedy – making it an even “greater value” to the public – exposing not only the lies about the official account of that day, but the consequences of those lies (such as the false pretenses for the illegal invasion of Afghanistan) – which brings the movie into the current political, social and economic climate we are all suffering through as a result of whatever really happened on 9/11.
For example:
Charges of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (re: the Bush administration) addressed in our new film:
1. Waging a war of aggression against Afghanistan and the Afghan people (President Bush said it was in self-defense – but our script proves it wasn’t);
2. War Crimes committed against the people of Afghanistan by the use of weapons of mass destruction that make no distinction between civilians and the enemy. That cause unnecessary injuries and suffering (fuel-air bombs, cluster bombs and munitions containing radioactive depleted uranium – all illegal under international humanitarian laws);
3. Crimes against Humanity in respect of the depleted uranium weapons used on the people of Afghanistan to exterminate the population and for the crime of “Omnicide” the extermination of life, contamination of air, water and food resources and the irreversible alteration of the genetic code of all living organisms including plant life as a direct consequence of the use of radioactive munitions in Afghanistan affecting countries in the entire region;
4. Crimes against Humanity for exposing soldiers and other personnel of the United States and other soldiers of coalition forces to radioactive contamination by the use of DU weapons, hazarding their lives, their physiology, and that of their future progeny by irreversible alteration of the genetic code.
5. DITTO FOR IRAQ!
PLEASE CLICK and GO TO:
AA911Truth.com
Scroll down about a third of the way on the home page. Look for “Trickery and Treachery” (our new film’s title).
Thank you.
Howard Cohen
Both Gage and Griffin have failed to respond to my writings — although Griffin’s first book devoted half of the Pentagon chapter to the flyover thesis, giving me more index references than Condoleza Rice — but both have indicated that they do not want to be involved in identifying who committed the crime, just in determining how it was done.
I write to tell you that Gage and Griffin know that the weaknesses of the CIT thesis that no flying object at all struck the Pentagon, that it was all pre-planted bombs do not apply to the earlier thesis that the Citizens Investigation Team initially set out to test.
You talk about investigators being excluded — Jim Hoffman has been running away from defending his turn-around — he once supported the fly-over thesis — and did so knowing all of the facts that he later decided prohibit endorsement of the thesis.
I think Gage and Griffin have compromised themselves making this limited hangout fictionalized movie that Cohen isthat Cohen was going to call “Violation of Trust” — but after Griffin and Gage signed on – he – pretended? – to have legal difficulties over copyright ownership and so had to switch to a different script and title, the new one being “Trickery and Treachery” – which sounds like something Webfairy, Fetzer and Nico Haupt would come up with. I have a 9-11 Pentagon video – cheaply made but with all of the relevant photo evidence — see
http://youtu.be/5-IXAe0UOYg
One last thing. I was sending Griffin, Gage and Cohen letters discussing the Pentagon attack when I received this from Cohen:
“The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement. ” — Richard Gage
from John Judge, expert researcher in the Washington DC area:
Families of victims and others who work at the airlines, as well as many witnesses I have spoken to, are offended and shocked by these unfounded speculations. Those willing to do a modicum of investigative work here in DC will be quickly disabused of this disinformation. For a more thorough presentation of the range of witness testimonies, and linking sites, see the work on Flight 77 and the Pentagon attack by Penny Schoner at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentaToC.html
——————————————————————————–
From: Howard Cohen
To: oldickeastman@q.com, Peter Wakefield Sault
Cc: Anthony Lawson , Susan Clarke , Carol Brouillet , Gilad Atzmon , 9-11 NeXuS , galen
Sent: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:33:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Dear Dick… Re: 9-11 truth must not be pursued except in a permanent spirit of prior blanket forgiveness – lest discovery bring more …
Please remove my name and the names of David Griffin and
Richard Gage from these emails you are sending around. I have
removed them from this one already but would appreciate
your removing them for the future.
—-
——————————————————————————–
From: Carol Brouillet
To: galen , KenJenkins@aol.com
Cc: galen , Peter Wakefield Sault , Lawrence Gerald lawrencegerald33@yahoo.com …
Sent: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:43:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Truth Film Festival 2012
Galen,
There is no unanimity over the Pentagon within the Northern California
9/11 Truth Alliance, it is still a divisive issue. We did vote to table
Christopher Bollyn’s new Solving 9/11 at our events, including the Film
Festival. I don’t think our speakers have been asked to pass a
litmus test enabling them to speak, but this is the lineup for this
year’s festival.
Carol
Here are my latest articles on the Pentagon, which should resolve the issue decisively:
“Reflections on the Pentagon: A 9/11 photographic review” http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/16/reflections-on-the-pentagon-a-911-photographic-review/
“9/11 Update: More proof no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/02/911-update-more-proof-no-boeing-757-hit-the-pentagon/
@Greg
” of which infiltration on both sides so as to stir up hostile division is very likely.”
I can only say that the proof is in the pudding. CIT are in no position to launch attacks on those who have taken control of “truther sites” or who have manouevred themselves into positions to fill so called Truthleaders’ heads with proven lies and egoistic, personal reasons.
I CAN say that those who openly defend the NOC evodence are as good as their word. CIT’s work is there for anybody to scrutinize. They deal in substantiated facts and on the ground interviews with people who were there the morning of 9/11. They presented the results and drew the only possible conclusion based on the only independent verifiable evidence available to us. Nothing more.
That there are witnesses who claim to have seen an alleged impact has never been hidden. But for detractors to lie and exaggerate. To use alleged government controlled “evidence” and “fill in the blanks” as per the alleged FDR data (which still doesn’t add up to impact) instead of demanding answers from the NTSB or FBI. Censorship. Making fraudulent claims and character assassinations on sites, or on radio interviews where CIT can’t defend themselves.
THOSE are the traits of people trying to “stir up hostile division”.
Now you just need to search for where CIT have been guilty of the same thing for your comment to have any validity.
Greg said: “The ‘dividers’ will be obvious to all by their unnecessarily hostile divisive tactics.”
Quite true Greg and now Richard Gage has in fact admitted guilt as being the “divider” on this issue. Clearly there is nothing divisive about him offering his initial support. The only divisiveness involved came from his withdrawal statement that he apparently signed his name to without bothering to read as his statements to McKee indicate. The withdrawal statement is mutually exclusive with this: “I actually don’t have an opinion on whether the plane flew over the building or went into it.”
Since his initial statement of support did not take a stance on this at all (and he even went so far as to “clarify” this in a later statement as McKee has outlined in this article) then his “hostile” and admittedly “divisive” withdrawal was entirely unnecessary.
larry27 says:
April 16, 2012 at 7:20 pm
It is this type of reactionary lunacy that pisses me off, guys like you larry27, who can take an obviously neutral conciliatory statement by Gage and turn it in to a “hostile” attack. If you consider Gage’s remarks hostile, you ought to read my mind right now. And you’ll have to pick those thoughts up in the ozone, because I’m pretty sure Mr. McKee wouldn’t publish them.~ww
hybridrogue1,
I was not referring to his interview with McKee as being hostile. I was referring to his ” complete withdrawal of support” from 2011 in which he attacked CIT’s “methods” and promoted other attacks based on false claims that had already been addressed. That most certainly was “hostile” and even Gage himself just admitted that it was a “disruptive”. It seems as though you haven’t even read it let alone the response:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/2/CIT-responds-To-An-E-mail-Re-Richard-Gages-recent-Withdrawal-of-Support-statement.html
Alright Larry27,
As you will. I didn’t get it how you could draw that from what we see here. So, maybe you’re just a leetle bit poopy…{gin}
Whatever…I think we all get tweaked over different things, and I’m not going to charge around the web for every little thing. So I will hold nice neutral thoughts of you and the waters calm, and today’s another day.
Carry on.
ww
Thanks for a good article, Craig! Thanks also to all the CIT/Truth supporters in the comments- the usual suspects 🙂 I just want to point out that Richard initially made the correct call all by himself. It wasn’t until massive pressure was applied that he made the mistake of retracting. However, given that the attack on the “Pentagon Controversy” is obviously “cognitive infiltration” or a divide and conquer strategy, I think it would have been best if he had only given private encouragement and not gone public with it. The focus on WTC demolition is incredibly sensible and I fully support Richard for now sticking to it, and wish he had all along. But, now that the damage has been done, I’m happy that he has done this interview to help steady the ship somewhat. I’d also like to point out that the function of the contrived “controversy” is to get us fighting amongst ourselves and to waste time and effort. I don’t see how these endless arguments bring us any closer to justice- our ultimate goal. I appreciate the need and desire to challenge disinformation and identify potential agents, but endless discussion of obvious matters does seem counterproductive, which is why I don’t get involved in them. Prior to the disinfo campaign, there was no controversy. Everyone agreed that no plane struck the Pentagon. CIT shows up with very solid evidence and good gum shoe work that does nothing but fill in the details a bit and suddenly there’s a huge, divisive controversy. It’s a pretty obvious situation to me. This link is one of my favorites on magic and is posted for Shelton Lankford.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXGr76CfoCs
It’s a real shame that Penn and Teller have been so anti-9/11Truth, likewise many others who are well versed in deception, Myth Busters, etc. Hopefully, people like these will be coming around and speaking out. I think that celebrities, movies like Experts Speak Out, media breakthroughs and the like will have more to do with turning the tide than endless internet arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izGxf-lHWi4
I am deeply grateful for everyone’s honest efforts and I think it’s very likely that these efforts have prevented very bad things from happening. Thank you!
Thanks, Michael. Glad to have your comments here. And you’re right, that initial endorsement was the not the result of outside pressure, but the withdrawal certainly was.
If you haven’t done your research, it’s best not to render an opinion. We’ve done the research — see http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0911-Pentagon.html. The government’s own evidence contradicts their theory. Whether or not you believe CIT isn’t necessary to arrive at this conclusion.
Enver (I assume),
I appreciate your work immensely, and also your sentiments… however, I get frustrated when I see people characterizing it as “believ[ing] CIT,” which puts the spotlight on the researchers, rather than the eyewitnesses to the event. The question should be: Do you believe the North of Citgo witnesses, or not? Even the most ardent CIT detractors like Jim Hoffman and Arabesque agree that NoC =/= Impact. So, are the witnesses all lying or all coincidentally wrong in the same way?
But I agree with you that even without the NoC evidence there is ample evidence that the OCT is BS. For me, the NoC evidence was the cherry on top.
Exactly, Adam.
My personal thoughts are that many people like Gage want to appear as 9/11 truthers, but in fact immerse themselves in ideas and research that are most likely never going to get them or us anywhere. Harmless ( to the Govt) running around in circles forever dead ends.
In other words, they are intent on making sure what they do wont make 9/11 and its perpetrators ever have to swing by their necks, which is what they deserve.
The fact is, the Pentagon( and Cit’s work there) provide the by far most legitimate, clearcut, evidence of a false flag government ran operation.
Its in that way a true litmus test of 9/11 truth. IMO, 9/11 Blogger, Gage, Ryan,Legge and a bunch of others are disinfo. The fact something could come( in a courtroom) out of the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon scares the Govt. Loyalists and is why they are scared to death of the cut and dried evidence, and try and stay far away from it by attacking and marginalizing this evidence.
In short, anybody who is against CIT, i flat dont trust
Great article Wisdom Fund. The NIST building assessment and the Arlington publication are new to me.
Food for some deep contemplation.
Thanks, ww
And what if the government is feeding you disinfo to encourage you to engage in unproductive and even self-discrediting activities?
I am assuming Brian, that you are addressing me. I don’t know, is that what you are doing?
Let’s face it, the NIST Report on the towers had a lot of good science in the body of it, it was the spin of the ‘conclusions’ and the obvious tweaking of the modeling software input that was the disinfo, especially their admission that they didn’t actually model the “global collapse”, but left off at the point of “initiation”, or “poised” is another term used. This is unlawful by the way, the mandate the came with the funding was to explain why the towers suffered global collapse – NIST didn’t. Those responsible are culpable for prosecution.
So accepting credible reports is one thing, analyzing their subtext and spin is another. In other words, it is inevitable to prove yourself wrong, if you are wrong. That seems what NIST has done in all of the reports they issued on the 9/11 case.
ww
Hi TWF,
I also was at your presentation in DC in 2009, with Mike Cook. I admire your research also, and agree that the govt’s own evidence contradicts its “theory.”
Where I get frustrated is when I see people framing the issue as “believing CIT.” This puts the focus on the researchers and not the witnesses. The issue should be about whether you believe the witnesses in where they place the plane.
Adam, since none of the witnesses saw a flyover, it really is a question of “believing CIT”. It’s unfortunate that they framed the issue in terms of flyover as they did, because that does distract from the witness testimony.
I’ve done the research, and I agree with you, Wisdom Fund. I saw your presentation in DC in 09. CIT has just been a lighting rod, a focus of the attacks, which also cover other parts of the Pentagon situation.
A few thoughts from me:
First, my dear friend Michael Cook and I were chatting the other night, and he made a point worth repeating here. Both the uproar w/r to CIT and the uproar Richard/Ryan speaking at the Louis Farrakhan Nation of Islam event have something significant in common. Both instances have been ones of huge reverberation and backlash purely within the 9/11 truth movement, but of absolutely none outside the movement. I have not seen any mainstream media hit pieces going after Gage either for speaking at NOI or for supporting CIT. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen any MSM hit pieces attacking CIT or the flyover. I often see hit pieces that say: “These people believe the buildings were blown up, or that a missile hit the Pentagon.” Ironic, eh? Similarly, two years ago, Yours Truly wrote a favorable 5-star book review on Amazon (under my “kameelyun” moniker) for a book called “Debating the Holocaust.” Though the book disputes specific aspects of the holocaust, it certainly does not “deny” its occurrence, yet for that review I invoked the ire of a bunch of “cred cops” within the movement… people like Chris Sarns (who referred to me as “psyops”), Jon Gold, zombie bill hicks, snowcrash and others. But I have yet to see Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck or Piers Morgan do a hit piece on 9/11 truth and point to Adam Syed’s Amazon review of Dalton’s book as “proof” that “those truthers are like the whackos who say the holocaust never happened.” Incidentally, the book doesn’t “deny” the holocaust and neither does my review. I only bring this up to prove your point, Craig, about the “cautious” route. I speak truth wherever it leads, popularity be damned.
Some other thoughts:
At least one other person here has pointed out how Gage’s comments to McKee were indicative of the possibility that he didn’t even know what his withdrawal statement was actually saying (i.e. didn’t fully read it), and that his current statement that he has no opinion either way w/r to whether a 757 hit is incompatible with his withdrawal statement, which forcefully promotes the OCT of plane impact. I watched NSA again the other night, and there is no way that Richard, if he really watched the whole thing, could be “surprised” to later learn that the witnesses say the plane hit. Ranke makes this perfectly clear in the film.
Some have criticized CIT for promoting the flyover conclusion so boldly, rather than simply pointing out how the witnesses contradict the OCT, and letting the viewer make up their own mind. But, I’ve scratched my head and thought about it a lot, and I can’t figure any other scenario which reconciles the physical damage with the witness’ flight path. Craig Ranke and I once talked about strategy on this point. I said to him: What if you hadn’t promoted the flyover in your videos, but simply pointed out how the witness’ path contradicts the official damage path, and let the viewers form their own conclusion? Wouldn’t that have given your critics less ammo to use against you, since they fixate on the flyover conclusion (to the point of ignoring the light pole anomalies)? I think that’s a valid point, but Craig’s retort to me was equally valid. He said: Yeah, that’s like pointing out the squibs, and the molten metal, and the freefall, but then, for the sake of being ‘politically correct,’ stopping short of firmly endorsing the controlled demolition conclusion, and simply saying: “You, the viewer, can make up your mind.” In other words, pussyfooting around the issue in order to not look like a conspiracy theorist.
Adam Ruff is correct to call out Richard for his comment about both sides of the argument being equally convincing. To the contrary, Barrie Zwicker said: “…the arguments of CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable, in fact, as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.”
What bothers me about Richard’s reluctance to accept the “magic show” concept, that the witnesses were deceived, is that the exact same scenario applies to the WTC. People were DECEIVED into believing the planes and fires caused all the damage, including some people who were on the scene and quoted in Loose Change.
Great job once again Craig.
Excellent write up Craig. I thought it was a very fair and balanced the way you handled the issue (and I don’t mean “fair and balanced” in the Orwellian way the Fox News defines it 🙂 ).
Adam, you bring up some very interesting points. I agree with you that the truth movement should not be overly cautious in pursuing the truth to the point where they worry too much about how the mainstream media and the public will judge them. It’s also interesting to look at how in so many cases the supposed allies within the truth movement who seemed to be overly focused on PR have been way more critical and hostile towards their fellow truth advocates than the msm and those outside the movement. The self-appointed truth movement police (particularly those led by the gang currently dominating 911Blogger and TruthAction.org) need to chill out and stop being so incredibly divisive and overly critical towards their fellow truth advocates. It’s pretty obvious that this group has often done more damage to the movement from within than the professed enemies of the movement have done from the outside (which also begs the question of whether they are really on our side or Cass Sunstein’s side).
In the realm of science, the word “proof” is a very strong statement with a very tough standard to meet. Things that have only 99.9% probability of being true don’t even meet the standard of “proof”. I have been a long time supporter of CIT’s research efforts and agree with their conclusions for the most part. I will say, though, that the CIT crew’s absolute insistence that people must fall inline with their assertion that the eyewitness testimony “proves” a flyover or expect to be brow beaten and harshly criticized has been a tactical mistake that allowed would-be dividers and disrupters (led by Jim Hoffman and his partner Victoria Ashley) to successfully hijack the debate over the Pentagon and create a straw man.
Physical evidence (as long as it is not planted or tampered with) trumps eye-witness testimony in science and in criminal justice detective work. Although many people in the movement are not aware of it, CIT has done excellent and extensive research in the physical evidence aspect of the Pentagon attack on 9/11 that absolutely disproves the OCT. The physical evidence (that can be independently verified) does not lie. The physical evidence proves that there was no crash of a large airliner that day at the Pentagon. Because of the confiscation of videos and other cover-up efforts by the perps, however, there is insufficient physical evidence to prove what DID happen. So naturally the CIT crew had to rely on eye-witness testimony to try and fill in the gaps in order to ascertain what actually happened. By examining all of the eye-witness testimony and then attempting to verify and confirm what people were able to see, they have made a very compelling case that the perps performed a magic show that tricked many people into believing that the plane hit the Pentagon when it actually flew over the building. I agree that this is the most probable scenario. However, technically speaking, a flyover has not yet been proven because it relies purely on eyewitness testimony that has been interpreted, which is a secondary, lower quality type of evidence. Eye-witness testimony is problematic because humans are so fallible and can be so easily confused and tricked (in fact CIT’s flyover theory ironically makes the case for the fallibility of eyewitness testimony since it is based on so many people apparently being fooled to not see what their eyes saw), can forget, can lie, and be plants, etc.
Had CIT utilized a PR strategy in which they led with their physical evidence that simply disproves that AA77 crashed there, without insisting the people agree that flyover has been proven, I believe they would have been less marginalized. Just changing a few words, I believe, would have made a huge difference in their PR strategy. Scientifically speaking, the flyover theory is very compelling, but it has not yet been “proven”. Had they been more technically accurate on this, I believe that it would have been much easier to create consensus on the Pentagon issue and the attackers would have had a harder time marginalizing CIT.
The moral of the story is …. don’t take on any part of 9/11 unless you really (and I mean really) research it or you will fall into all of the traps laid along the way.
The NoC evidence stands all really well – especially when you try to find contrary witness evidence on the flightpath.
I’d like to offer a heartfelt thanks to posters Hybridrogue1 and Brian Good. Their pathetic “counterarguments”, avoidance and denial on this and the “Hollywood” blog against the NOC evidence sum up more glaringly than I could ever explain, just how weak and illogical the claim is that there are “two sides of the debate”.
Thank you.
On the other hand, the tactics of obfuscation, circular logic and basic taking piss out of and insulting the intelligence of genuine truthseekers posting here is more apt on the JREF forum and unfairly pins the tag of “quagmire” on anything Pentagon research related.
Craig, we saw last time what happened when the likes of Good was forced to address points raised and not permitted to dance his way round honest debate. He either ran away or the posts that ignored the points raised were blocked. It’s the first time I’ve seen the guy post here in months!
Here are just some of the points raised that Good has danced around.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2720
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2746
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2747
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2754
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2759
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2765
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2778
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2783
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2766
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2779
any chance Good?
Hmmm OSS,
Your dogmatic, hard core attitudes remind me of another guy…
“You’re either with us, or your against us.” ~ George Bush
[Note:slightly paraphrased]
ww
What’s the name of that flyover witness, BTW?
You know Brian,
I haven’t said much to you. But I have to agree with others here. A lot of the crap you posted here is just stupid. You lead with suppositions, and never seem to land anywhere firm.
I think it’s pretty clear that those with the North-side argument understand that these witnesses are pretty weak. I was somewhat familiar with this aspect, and that is one of the reasons I got tweaked with OSS on the thread before this, I had asked over and over for him {or someone} to name these witnesses. There are two, and yea, one is second hand. But what tightened my jaw was that I knew OSS was stalling through almost the whole thread…so I started giving him the raz.
But really, considering the method used in this little magic act, it shouldn’t be too surprising to find that the majority of the audience were taken in, in fact most of those with the POV to see the approach would have practically no way to tell when the plane went into the smoke screen.
Now I am saying this now, with my foot on the strong probability factor for the flyover. Much of the reason I have been unwilling to speak to this earlier is – I will not concede to anything with a allegorical gun to my head. And I hope there is a larger lesson in this for all concerned.
ww
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
Just wanted to express to you kudos for the detailed links and references that you post. I acknowledge the nuggets of truth from CIT’s flyover, as well.
The tag-teaming A-Team of the NSA Q Group seems to be active here, as would be expected given the high quality of Mr. McKee’s articles and blog moderation, as well as the themes that we respectfully and intelligently try to address in the discussion. The agents here are clearly more talented than the hit-and-run bots of yesteryear.
The perspective you should keep in mind is to write for the readers and latter-day-lurkers, whereby postings from others gives you the opportunity to enlighten the masses more.
Remember that a useful debate tactic is sometimes to ignore or to not respond directly.
@Senor (and indirectly to Keenan)
Thanks.
I guess I fell (and usually do) into the trap of slapping the keyboard without taking “a wee walk” first and this tactic is also mentioned in this very informative link that should be read by all truthseekers
http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
Example: “You are such an idiot to think that possible — or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the ‘gubment’ is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.” After a drawing an emotional response: “Ohhh… I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What’s the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help…”
Keenan, I personally don’t demand that people accept the flyover but I can’t stand illogical, unfounded nonsense from the likes of Good or Sarns. Or the OCT hugging condascending ramblings and lies of the “Legge camp”.
In fact, I’d be content if people said that they can’t accept a flyover but that they accept the validity of the NOC testimony. Problem is, both are incompatible, so I personally (I’m not CIT) can’t leave that conclusion hanging. And there’s been a concerted effort both by tptb and entities like Good to claim that impact is possible from NOC. To mix the NOC evidence in with the “official data”.
I said in a previous post that one possible solution would be to accept that based on the dearth and blanket censorship of the Pentagon op (plane part identification, the Citgo camera stolen by the FBI, sequestered 911 calls, etc), the multiple witnessed NOC flightpath, the contradictory and register number void FDR data and the alleged damage to the building itself vis-a-vis an alleged Boeing 757 entering the first floor of a reinforced building, that the stance should be that no plane hit the Pentagon (I mean, just looking at that partial list – I haven’t even mentioned the EOP flightpath – how could a genuine truthseeker not reject the official impact story?)
It could save face or make some space for those who genuinely can’t accept flyover without sticking their hands in the air and crying “quagmire”. It would also pull the rug from under the feet of those at 911Blogger and TruthAction who prefer the antagonism and sticking to outdated disinfo.
We have to all remember the supporting evidence that proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon…
– The supposed Flight 77 black box data doesn’t support an impact.
– The official south of gas station path is irreconcilable with the official story impact due to obstacles and the decline in topography.
– The plane actually approached north of the pentagon, crossing over to the east side of the Potomac and into DC skies, before looping back around toward the Pentagon. The official NTSB and RADES radar data shows a loop far to the SW of the pentagon. ATC and ground and FAA witnesses confirm this.
–
The supposed Flight 77 black box data doesn’t support a flyover, either,
Actually, the official path is not at all impossible. Rob Balsamo over-estimated the pull-up g-force by a factor of ten, and he instituted an arbitrary demand that all the pull-up take place at one spot instead of a perfectly practical gradual pullup.
Hi Brian,
This an absolute lie on your part. But as many people paying attention already know, this is what you do.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. It’s the NTSB data + obstacles/topography decline.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html
http://youtu.be/PtlzCyKbw5Q
Here’s their own animation, showing the plane’s flight path being incompatible with the impact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Q8nSEeUec&sns=em
It’s their data. I’m sure most people can study the very serious issues surrounding it without an anonymous, provocateur trying to dissuade them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z268kPghpH8&sns=em
Can you show us how the plane approached and hit the light poles on the south path, Brian?
Also, why are you ignoring that the plane flew into DC airspace and they altered radar and the alleged black box data? This is well documented.
“Brian Good says:
April 17, 2012 at 2:46 pm
The supposed Flight 77 black box data doesn’t support a flyover, either,”
“The screenshot below shows the very last frame of the recorded data. Its stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepency is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet according to Google Earth. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/44.jpg
Rob Balsamo”
I think the NTSB released data can’t show anything but a flyover…480ft ASL 1 second before the Pentagon?
2012 Citizens Medal Nomination
http://www.whitehouse.gov/citizensmedal/submit-a-nomination
I recommend Richard Gage unhesitantly.
What I do not understand is how there can be any debate about the official account, when it is not even aerodynamically or physically possible. As Nila explained to me long ago, at the speed that the government attributes to Flight 77 of over 500 mph, it could not have flown closer than 60-80′ above the ground and therefore could not have hit any lampposts. As he is quoted above, even its engines resting on the lawn would leave the wings some 20′ above the ground. Think about it.
Moreover, a plane hitting stationary lampposts at 500 mph would have the same effects as those lampposts traveling 500 mph hitting a stationary plane: its wing would have been ripped off, the fuel stored in the wing would have burst into flame, it would have lost its tail and trajectory and no doubt cartwheeled into the ground–but the lawn is clear, smooth and unblemished. I suggest any serious student read “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery” and related articles on Veterans Today.
Jim Fetzer claims that:
”..same effects as those lampposts traveling 500 mph hitting a stationary plane: its wing would have been ripped off..”
I have heard this assertion before, and I don’t buy it. There is the whole issue of weight – coupled with inertia. You cannot simply reverse the scenario as stated above. It is not the same physics as a bat and a ball. The overall weight of the plane and the forward momentum is the core factors in this equation.
I am not saying that a plane DID knock down the light poles, but I am saying that it COULD have as a physical reality.
ww
Dr. Fetzer wrote:
Mr. HybridRogue1 replied:
Exposing your credentials in boojie woojie high school physics again, Mr. HybridRogue1? Man, you can imagine how much I hate pointing this out.
To your chagrin, Newtonian physics does allow thinkers to reverse “a plane’s wings hitting a lamp post at 500 mph” to become “a lamp post hitting a plane’s wings at 500 mph” or even “a lamp post flung by a tornado at 250 mph into a plane’s wing traveling 250 mph in the opposite direction.”
The point in all of this is that damage to the plane’s wing would be crippling and questions whether the plane could even remain in flight.
As for the overall weight of the plane and forward momentum, this factors into which direction and what speed its fuselage and wing fragments continues to travel after impact. The strength of the plane’s wings and the strength of the joint of the wings to the fuselage are entirely different matters. And you also neglect that one end of the lamp post was bolted to a concrete foundation.
Of course, all of us are making the bad-ass assumption that the plane was actually traveling at 500 mph at ~100 feet above sea level.
“The strength of the plane’s wings and the strength of the joint of the wings to the fuselage are entirely different matters. And you also neglect that one end of the lamp post was bolted to a concrete foundation.”~Senor
And you neglect to note that lamp posts are bolted to a concrete foundation in such a way as to add a safety factor wherein they can be knocked over by the impact of a car, rather than giving them the strength of hitting a firmly planted tree. Modern urban code is almost universal in this aspect.
ww
Why do so many who know so little about physics post so much? This is ridiculous. I have given three rock solid explanations about the impossibility of the official account of the Pentagon trajectory, which are built on Newton’s laws and the laws of aerodynamics. Not only that, but the absence of debris at the hit point is extremely telling, rather like visiting your living room only to find no indications of an elephant there.
Check out “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, “Seven Questions about 9/11”, “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, and (with Dennis Cimino) “The official account of the 9/11 Pentagon attack is a fantasy”. Even Gen. Albert Stubbelbien, who was in charge of all US photographic analysis, concluded that no plane had hit the building because there was no impression of the wings on its soft, porous limestone facade.
Why do you mix in the Pentagon impact debris with the lamp post question Fetzer?
I will tell you what this tactic means to me, you are stealthily insinuating that someone countering the disability of the plane to knock over the light poles is therefore in favor of the official story. And this type of disingenuous argumentum us a common mode for many of the posters on this thread. If one disagrees with the slightest point they are suddenly enemies of the truth movement. What is this the ‘Church of the Immaculate North-Path’
Consider this:
“It’s as if you’re reading from the hymn-sheet”~Onesliceshort
That’s rich coming from a dogmatic heretic slayer like OSS.
Personally, I am very close to certain that the magic act of the plane flyover is what actually happened. But I am not willing to kneel to the “hymn book” as OSS puts it. Talk about the kettle calling the chinaware black.
ww
Dr. Fetzer, ground effect is a low-speed phenomenon. It disappears at high velocities.
Brian
I asked you a few months back to sum up what you think is false in the official story and what you think is true. I’m still waiting for that answer.
My opinion of your incompetence could not be lower. Planes can only land because they slow down. Nila Sagadevan, who is both an experienced pilot and also an aeronautical engineer, explained to me back in June 2006 that ground effect would have made the official trajectory impossible. At that speed (of 500 mph), a Boeing 757 could not have come closer than 60-80′ to the ground. You need to do some homework, because your posts are making you look like a fool.
Your dogmatic, hard core attitudes remind me of another guy…
Hybridrogue1
What’s the name of that flyover witness, BTW?
Brian Good
Let’s see how many of your responses fall into these characteristics. It’s as if you’re reading from the hymnsheet at the link below.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
Example: “This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.” Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Example: “Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.”
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 – play dumb)?
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
Example: “I don’t see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can’t prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It’s hopeless. Give it up.”
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 – enigmas have no solution)?
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.
Example: “Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?”
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Example: “All he’s done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren’t qualified. Where’s his proof? Show me wreckage from Flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!”
So obvious it hurts..
Oneslice, they ought to call you spamloaf instead.
“So obvious it hurts.”
Yes I can tell how bad you are hurt OSS. Some things one just never gets over.
But, “never say never,” you could be feeling chipper as soon as tomorrow, or the next day…and remember, “there’s always tomorrow, it’s only a day away.” {yea I hate that song too-grin}.
ww
“Brian Good says:
April 17, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Oneslice, they ought to call you spamloaf instead.
hybridrogue1 says:
April 17, 2012 at 5:46 pm
“So obvious it hurts.”
Yes I can tell how bad you are hurt OSS. Some things one just never gets over.
But, “never say never,” you could be feeling chipper as soon as tomorrow, or the next day…and remember, “there’s always tomorrow, it’s only a day away.” {yea I hate that song too-grin}.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/
“6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
Example: “This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.” Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?”
Yea right OSS,
I’m number 6…I scampered off so far your can’t even read this post I am so gone from here.
You’re so “cute when you’re mad”, now you are even dribbling in your shoes.
ww
hybridrogue1 says:
April 17, 2012 at 10:58 pm
“Yea right OSS,
I’m number 6…I scampered off so far your can’t even read this post I am so gone from here.
You’re so “cute when you’re mad”, now you are even dribbling in your shoes.
ww”
This is the relevant part of that quote…
” simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.”
You claim to accept the validity of the NOC testimony and the obvious physical implications that go with it (no impact) yet go with tactic 14.
You then claim that there are witnesses to the official path, name 2 witnesses who turn out to be nothing of the sort on closer inspection.
You then ridicule a thorough post regarding two witness testimonies regarding the flyover, looked at from all angles and resort to tactic 19
Now you and your bud Good are in full flow tactic 6.
You may be here posting, but they’re irrelevant, almost childish posts. They’re half-arsed, illogical posts that are empty, lazy soundbites and wordsmithery disguised as “debate”.
You may as well not be here. Same thing.
Know the funniest thing though? Each time you and Brian Good post, you’re always going to represent one of those tactics. And you’re going to doublecheck lol.
I’m chilled by the way. It’s actually going to be interesting watching which tactic you guys use. Unless of course you want to actually discuss the evidence in a mature manner. Your call.
Craig, I don’t see why anybody should care about my opinions, and I suspect that most of those who are interested are just looking for an excuse to disregard my facts. Right off hand the only things that come to mind that I’m certain are false is NIST’s chart showing fires in a place on the 12th floor of WTC7 at a time when photos show there was no fire there, and NIST’s claim in the FAQs that long heating in the rubble pile could have caused steel to melt. I suspect that the tale that Cheney did not arrive in the White House bunker until a few minutes before 10:00 is not true.
I’m sure there are others, but I can’t think of anything right now. What do I think is true about the official story? I think airplanes hit the twin towers and they fell down, I think building 7 fell down, I think Bush sat on his ass in a Florida schoolroom.
I try not to have opinions about things unless there’s some very good reason–especially when my data are incomplete and my sources are unrealiable and contradictory.
Okay Good,
I’ve picked just one of your gems of wisdom or “facts” that you left lying there like an abandoned pup.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4164
“Oneslice, 3 of the lightpoles were very conspicuous on grassy slopes and visible from the offramp, the onramp, and westbound on the pike. Your claim that they were “hidden” and “behind barriers” is ridiculous. You are restricting your witnesses to a viewpoint on highway 27.
I can’t believe you guys after all these years are still so out of touch with the facts.
Brian Good”
To which I replied..
“Answer me this. Lloyd England allegedly had a lightpole protruding over 20ft out of his cab for 6 or 7 minutes. Nobody is on record as seeing this. Nobody.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/lloydsillustration.jpg
Yet you defend his story. Now which spectacle are people going to take notice of more? Lloyd’s cab or obscurely placed lightpoles beside an area that was under renovation?
Why do you not accept the observations on record of witnesses who place the aircraft nowhere near these poles?
http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/AllGroupsMap-3.jpg
You’re placing more weight on what people “should have seen” (badly I might add) and dismissing what people ACTUALLY are on record as seeing.”
Either Lloyd’s a liar or your argument has no legs. Which is it?
And how do you know that nobody saw the lightpoles on the ground?
spamloaf, your answer to my facts about poles 3,4, and 5 is to raise point 1. Have you learned nothing in all these years about maintaining an orderly and coherent discussion? Why do you spread confusion?
I agree with Brian Good. No one should care about his opinions. The Pentagon case is so clear- cut I cannot imagine why anyone is still debating it, unless they want to obfuscate what we know:
(1) not only was the alleged pilot incompetent to fly a Boeing 757 but the government has not been able to show that any alleged hijackers were aboard any of those planes (Elias Davidsson);
(2) the alleged phone call were faked, where cell phones then did not work at speeds above 200 mph and altitudes above 2000′ and 757’s were did not have airphones in 2001 (Dewdney/Griffin);
(3) the official trajectory–flying over 500 mph just skimming the ground–is aerodynamically and physically impossible, since ground effect precludes getting anywhere closer than 60-80′ of the ground at that speed (Sagadivan) and the lampposts would have ripped the wing apart, the fuel stored in its wings would have burst into flame, its tail snapped off and cartwheeled into the lawn, none of which happened (Newton and “The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy”);
(4) there is no massive pile of debris from a 100-ton airliner at the hit point: no fuselage, no tail, not wings, no bodies, seats or luggage; not even the engines were recovered, even though they are virtually indestructible (see “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, “Seven Questions on 9/11”);
(5) a study of the black box data given to Pilots for 9/11 Truth corresponds to another approach that was due east at an altitude too high to hit any lampposts which, one second from impact, was too high to hit the building and swerved over it (“Pandora’s Black Box, Part II”, YouTube);
(6) the trucker buddy of a friend of mine from JFK research, Roy Schaffer, told him that he was in front of the building at the time and watched as a large plane flew toward it and swooped over it (as I’ve reported many times, including “The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy”);
(7) the so-called “Pentagon witnesses” appear to be phonies and frauds, as emerged during six- hours of discussion reviewing their testimony with Mike Sparks (http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com);
(8) the hole in the C-ring is perfectly symmetrical, which would have been impossible from a part of the plane on an angled trajectory, and has “punch out” spray painted on the wall (see photos);
(9) Jamie Mcintyre, reporting for CNN, explained that there was no indication of any large plane having hit anywhere near the Pentagon, which everyone can find in CNN archives (YouTube);
(10) April Gallup, who was working in the Pentagon at the time, walked out through the hole (made to coincide with the fly-over) and observed no indications of any plane crash (YouTube).
There is much more, where the evidence of a crash appears to have been planted, as I explained to the BBC (see “The BBC’s instrument of 9/11 misinformation”), which interviewed me twice for its “Conspiracy Files” documentaries on 9/11, once for eight (8) hours, then again for four (4). For more, see “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Pubic Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. Gen. Albert Stubbelbine (USAF, ret.), who was the head of photo analysis for the Pentagon, also concluded that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon (YouTube). Those who continue to deny the evidence are obfuscating the truth. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Dr. Fetzer, how do you know that Hani Hanjour was incompetent? Is it not reasonable to think he might try to paint himself as an incompetent dabbler to divert suspicions? After all, Project Bojinka was known since the capture of Abdul Hakim Murad in 1995.
Ground effect is a low-speed phenomenon that disappears at high speeds.
http://www.911myths.com/Ground_Effect.pdf
The lamp-posts were breakaway lamp-posts designed to pop off their bases at impact.
The Whitehouse picture shows aluminum confetti all over the lawn. How do you know the engines were not recovered? The Pentagon has asserted the principle that Pentagon business is none of our business. Lack of a transparency you unreasonably expect is hardly evidence.
What if the government is deliberately feeding you disinfo black box data to make fools of you? Have you considered that?
Why would you expect the C-ring hole to be anything but symmetrical? What exactly made that hole? Landing gear? Part of the keel? An engine?
Why would you expect April Gallop to see plane wreckage just inside the outer wall? Wouldn’t plane wreckage penetrate further inside?
Mr Fetzer, my apologies for jumping in here, but I’d like to ask you a philosophical question concerning scientific methodology as it relates specifically to ongoing “scientific” 9/11 research, but do not wish to do it here [it would be inappropriate, obviously ].
Assuming you are even interested in answering my question [no need to reply here if not ], you can reach me at : onebornfree at yahoo dot com . Regards, onebornfree.
P.S. your book “The 9/11 Conspiracy- the Scamming of America” , http://www.amazon.com/The-11-Conspiracy-Scamming-America/dp/0812696123/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1334765060&sr=8-4 was the one that first opened my eyes- thank you.
Brain Good,
You mention:
“The Pentagon has asserted the principle that Pentagon business is none of our business. Lack of a transparency you unreasonably expect is hardly evidence.”
And this is fine with you? You think this is reasonable and everyone should accept this?
You show yourself the perfect mindless automaton with such an attitude – free human beings find such supplication disgusting.
ww
Mr Fetzer beat me to it. Yes, the lightpoles would have shredded the plane wings, as Mr Fetzer rightly points out.
Those poles were either staged, real time plants on the scene, or they are just photoshop pixel entities [i.e. faked photos].
Just as at the main [WTC] “crime scene”, many official [if not all] official Pentagon scene still photos were products of photoshop or similar, as researcher Jack White has shown: http://www.911studies.com/ . Why should we therefor believe that any of the Pentagon photos [including those showing allegedly downed light poles], depict reality at the time allegedly taken? Beats me. 🙂 As P.T Barnum supposedly said: “There’s a sucker born every minute”
And I should _not_ be surprised [but somehow still am] , by the spectacle of what appears to be a bunch of grown adults seriously arguing over the veracity [or otherwise], of non-cross-examined , 3rd party, “eyewitness testimony” . ‘Never ceases to amaze, but again, I have to remind myself “There’s a sucker born every minute” . Regards, onebornfree
Why would Pentagon conspiracists plant phony lightpoles that would be obvious fakes to aeronatical engineers and airframe mechanics all over the world? Is this part of the psy-op?
Dr. Fetzer, your bullying response is the same as in our most recent discussion before this. I was right then, and I’m right now. The chart shows that ground effect is a low-speed phenomenon that disappears at high velocities.
@Brian Good
Funny seeing your last comment given how you claimed once at 911Oz that Lloyd’s lightpole and the alleged damage to his cab may have been caused by “ground effect”…
Brian, We have to treat the evidence of what happened, not speculate about why they “coulda / shoulda / woulda” done it differently than they actually did. I have found your posts in the past to be similar to those you are making here: based on ignorance, you attack those who have done more research and understand the issues better. Then you whine and whine and whine. People like you give the search for truth a bad name. onebornfree has your number–as do many more.
Brian Good said: “ground effect is a low-speed phenomenon that disappears at high velocities.”
Whether or not that is true [I don’t know for sure] , it entirely ignores the fact that a large airliner is incapable of flying at 500mph at close to ground level, where the air is 4x as dense as it is at its normal cruising altitude of 35,000 feet [where a 500mph cruising speed is easily attainable], let alone make sharp turns while at the same time rapidly descending below 1000 ft. – the frame simply is not built to withstand that amount of air resistance and resultant torque, nor are the engine air intakes able to do their job in the manner they are designed to.
The exact same applies to Flights AA 11 and 175 at the WTC – physically impossible plane antics. All part of the fairytale that is the official story. 🙂
regards, onebornfree.
Onebornfree,
Your endorsement for Fetzer:
“Yes, the lightpoles would have shredded the plane wings, as Mr Fetzer rightly points out.”
Would strike him as rather a curse than praise if he had any idea of the soup-brained nonsense I have seen you come up with on this blog.
You quote that, “There’s a sucker born every minute” … some might say that as far as suckers go, you are the grand 5 inch swirl with extra sturdy handle.
ww
This is the most complete and plausible explanation for 9/11 and the Pentagon. This hypothesis only uses technology that has been demonstrated, and is known to exist on 9/11/2001. Remote Control (RC) of a Boeing 720 jet was demonstrated at NASA on December 1, 1984, doing 10 takeoffs and 13 landings.
A covert Ground Crew equipped Flight 77 with enhanced RC of navigation, communications, Cabin Air Pressure Outflow Valve (CAPOV), and placed bombs the cargo section and wings. After take-off, the pilots suddenly found they could not steer, or call for help. By RC, air flowed out of the CAPOV, so everyone could not breathe, call for help, or concentrate effectively on how to regain control of the jet.
By computerized RC, the plane made a large loop, then flew North of Citgo, instead of the planned southern approach (possibly blown off course), into the Pentagon, Light poles were staged. The passengers included duped “hijackers” – confidential informants going to their next assignment in LA. Voice Morphing (demonstrated at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and reported in the Washington Post on February 1, 1999) and pre-recorded clips (from hijack simulation training exercises) got the Official Story out.
Just prior to impacting the Pentagon (approximately 90 degree angle), bombs went off in the cargo area and wings, fully explaining the smaller-than-expected holes and lack of engine and wing marks (without the need for any fly over). Additional bombs, pre-planted during the Pentagon construction, made the controlled, directional damage (approximately 45 degrees) targeting the Accounting records. After about 30 minutes, allowing some Pentagon staff to escape, additional pre-planted bombs covered the impact area to complicate the scene.
This hypothesis is the most complete explanation of 1) the aircraft, 2) what happened to the people, major testimonies (including 2 police officers) of a plane going towards the Pentagon, 3) internal damage and smaller than expected hole, 4) external physical evidence and plane parts, and 5) angle of approach.
You had me at hello…..
Impact from NOC is impossible. And there were people within the vicinity of the heliport, both inside the heliport and at groundlevel below it who would have been injured or killed by explosives pre-entry. Flesh-friendly explosives?
There is no crater at the entry point (look at the lawn for Christ sake)
How on Earth would an exterior explosion on the aircraft not leave major debris outside?
How would an exterior explosion not run the risk of desintegration of the aircraft before reaching the facade ie leaving no “impact hole”?
Etc,etc,etc…
Shaped charges, oneslice.
@Brian Good
“Shaped charges”
What have shaped charges got to do with the destruction of the aircraft “pre entry”??
Read again
“Impact from NOC is impossible. And there were people within the vicinity of the heliport, both inside the heliport and at groundlevel below it who would have been injured or killed by explosives pre-entry. Flesh-friendly explosives?
There is no crater at the entry point (look at the lawn for Christ sake)
How on Earth would an exterior explosion on the aircraft not leave major debris outside?
How would an exterior explosion not run the risk of desintegration of the aircraft before reaching the facade ie leaving no “impact hole”?
Etc,etc,etc…”
Read…
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1614
Better look out TruthMakesPeace,
You’re not singing their song.
I think your scenario has some merit. I am not saying I agree to the entire abstract.
I am with you on remote control. and voice morphing.
However I don’t think the plane had to drift – the light pole damage was staged to match an approach causing damage of preset directional explosives placed during the “refurbishing”.
But we are both off-script here {grin}
ww
http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Example: “Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.”
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 – play dumb)?
TMP, yes, that’s very thorough theory. All I would add to it is that we can suppose the light poles were moved out of the way to remove the threat that they might cause the plane to crash, and we can suspect that the reason the plane came in off course was sabotage to the flight path programming by someone who wanted to expose the op. (We can also similarly suspect that the plan was to blow up WTC7 when it was obscured by the dust cloud from WTC1’s collapse, but that too was sabotaged by someone who wanted to expose the op.)
Your theory makes perfect sense and it explains everything. It even comports with the testimony of Staff Sergeant Mark Williams, who said he saw the bodies of passengers still strapped in their seats, and it would explain the dimensions of the hole in the facade–which well fit a 757 on a NoC flight path but do not fit the official flight path (the official ASCE BPAT points out that the hole it too narrow for a 757),
When there is such amazing evidence of an inside job–the contradiction between the light pole evidence and the witnesses’ testimony–I just can’t fathom why the CIT team insists on discrediting it by marrying the concept to an impossible flyover scheme, by indulging Roosevelt Roberts’s confused and useless testimony, and by libeling Lloyde England and Father McGraw with accusationt that they are secret agents.
The one weakness in your theory is that it supposes that the NoC witnesses are telling the truth. In my opinion they may be highly motivated to prank a couple of conspiracy theorists from California, and the CIT crew refuses to consider this possibility.
@Truthmakespeace
What a brilliant plan! I mean what could go wrong? And here we were thinking just let these guys hijack a plane and crash it into the Penatgon.
Now I know why people in the Truth movement are urged not to present any alternative theory about what happened on 911…
A. Wright, TMP’s theory is very complicated it’s true. But is CIT’s theory really any less complicated? And it makes more sense than CIT’s theory because it supposes that the parameters of a mission-critical are all controlled, with little left to chance–while CIT’s theory demands that the planners of a covert op provided that a 757 makes an escape employing a high-g turn visible from a marina, a freeway, a gold course, and a planespotter’s park. CIT’s is a pretty dumb plan, isn’t it? Kind of like escaping from a bank robbery on a pogo stick.
Maybe everybody should consider the possibility that the NoC witnesses are wrong, or that they’re pranking a couple of conspiracy theorists from California.
“And here we were thinking just let these guys hijack a plane and crash it into the Penatgon”
Is that what you guys were thinking A. Wright? Now since the Freudian slip has slipped, why don’t you explain to us how close to the planning you were, and explain what fricking hijackers?
Did you pick these guys out of a phone book in Arabia?
Are you really as stupid as you think we are?
ww
@Brian Good
“A. Wright, TMP’s theory is very complicated it’s true. But is CIT’s theory really any less complicated?”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet from the Warren Report.
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 – invoke authority)?
Back in the real world…
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1614
http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Example: “Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.”
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 – play dumb)?
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
Example: “I don’t see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can’t prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It’s hopeless. Give it up.”
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 – enigmas have no solution)?
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.
Example: “Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?”
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet from the Warren Report.
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 – invoke authority)?
@Brian Good
I agree with you about the CIT theory – it basically makes no sense and as I have pointed out it’s obvious when you look at how they come to their conclusion why it doesn’t ,but they talk about it as if it’s some kind of undeniable fact. The only explanation that makes any sense at all is flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, flown by a group of Islam fundamentalists with a hatred of the US , and arguably a justifiable one, a burning desire to hit back at the source of decades of injustice and a willingness to sacrifice their lives doing it. For the 911 Truth movement though they basically don’t exist , except of course as patsies and brainless cyphers, wandering about Arabland waiting for the CIA to stuff dollars in their hands to get them to pretend to be Islamic fundamentalists so the US can arrive on their doorstep and bomb the hell out of them. So they are written out of the script from day one – ‘When you first eliminate the impossible , then whatever remains, no matter how improbable , must be the truth’ . Of course if you first eliminate the truth ….
Dear Mr. TruthMakesPeace,
Your piece has potentially many nuggets of truth. If the alleged commercial planes were actually involved, then RC of navigation, communications, Cabin Air Pressure Outflow Valve (CAPOV), and voice morphing software seem within the realm of plausibility with regards to operational parameters. You wrote:
Although the deep “directional” damage into a few rings of the Pentagon was undoubtedly staged and enhanced to enforce the belief of the SOC flight path, this does not mean that a plane flying the NOC flight path could enter into the staged Pentagon entrance hole and have all damage indications (within the building) still being SOC.
Had you been paying attention to Mr. OneSliceShort, his videos, and his satillite images of light pole and sign positions, you would see that a NOC flight path into the Pentagon would not have been possible without downed light poles and signage along its route. To avoid the poles, it would have been g-forces impossible to fly over such obstacles, then swoop down, and level off for the ground floor entrance hole that did not affect the foundation with any form of an impact crater.
To underscore why this NOC flight path into the Pentagon did not happen, we can point to the age old argument of insufficient airplane debris. Where was the tail, the wings, the luggage, the seats, etc.? SOC or NOC, the question remains: where was the plane in the damage?
A new spark of insight is elevating a nugget of truth I had not seen before. Namely, the light poles had to be staged as per the operation even if an actual plane were to have flown SOC and had been found lodged in the Pentagon. Why? Because if they wouldn’t have removed the light poles from the planned flight path, physics suggests that those poles might have damaged the aircraft significantly to the point of starting its disintegration (and explosion) over the lawn of the Pentagon and thereby not inflicting enough damage on the Office of Naval Intelligence who were investigating the $2.3 trillion in missing DoD expenditures. Remember the objectives.
Bravo Senor el Once. 5 star comment.
Senor, Your claim that that a NOC flight path into the Pentagon would not have been possible without downed light poles and signage along its route is not true. Unless oneslice has updated his work (and I doubt it, because he’s still making the same erroneous claims he was making years ago) he erroneously demands that the plane fly so high that its lowest point clears the light poles. That is not necessary. The engines hang below the wings and the wings have considerable dihedral , so it is not necessary that the plane fly as high as oneslice claims.
Where’s the plane? Inside the building. Where would you expect it to be?
Yes, your observation of the possibility that staging the light poles was a necessary part achieving plane impact is important. It suggests then that a NoC flight path was a mistake. If that is true, the implication of an inside job is inescapable. Thus CIT’s unsupported flyover speculations are extremely irresponsible, because they have the effect of discrediting the NoC testimony that would be extremely important if it were believed.
Brian,
CIT is discrediting the NoC evidence? You have to be kidding.
This is truly disingenuous of you. You say, the evidence might have been serious if it had been shown to be serious? What the hell are you talking about? The evidence is either serious or it isn’t. Just because you don’t like the conclusion that CIT draws does not change what the witnesses said. You should acknowledge the contribution that CIT has made to the search for truth. Without their initiative, we would not know that the plane did not follow the official flight path.
If you think the NoC evidence is valuable, then why don’t you spend your time supporting that instead of focusing on the flyover, which you think is unsupported. If you really wanted to help the Truth movement, you’d do that. But you don’t. You want to weaken the impact of this.
You believe the NoC path is possible but the light poles were not faked. How do you figure? You join Chris Sarns in pushing the north path/impact “theory”?
By the way, where would we expect the plane to be? I would expect a significant portion of it to be left outside the building given that there was no hole where the wings or the tail section would have hit. If you buy the “wings folded in” theory (and that all that is) then you have no credibility in my mind.
OSS, concerning your comments at — April 17, 2012 at 11:31 pm:
I’ve met many people in my life that are normally clear headed thinkers but when they get pissed at somebody they go off like baying Calvinist jackals, like you have been for the last how many days.
And all this in spite of the fact that I have adjusted my thinking quite a bit due a lot to your own input. But nothing is enough for you but total obedience to your holy law. This ridiculous trivial nitpicking and nagging is for old maids and over zealous henchmen. Now put on a new pair of socks.
ww
Craig, I hope you don’t mind, but I’ll be answering posts like this in the fashion they deserve. You can decide to block them if you wish, but if these trolls are allowed to attack, ridicule, dodge and clog up rational debate and generally take the piss here, their tactics need to be pointed out.
@Hybridrogue1
“I’ve met many people in my life that are normally clear headed thinkers but…..”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
Example: “This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.” Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
Too much of a good thing is still too much.
I am not Mr. McKee, nor do I speak for him. I have been participating on T&S not quite since its inception or beginnings, but certainly early. I helped set the tone and deal with provocateurs along the way who would otherwise spoil the harmony of rational and intelligent debate.
Alas, in this role, I now feel overwhelmed due to employment matters at the precise time T&S seems to be overrun with new participants as well as the active return of others with reputations and provocateur agendas. Your assistance is certainly appreciated by Mr. McKee and lurker readers.
I disagree with the extent and details of your tactics that involves copy & paste of both an overview of the tactic, an unrelated example, and an almost unrelated “Proper Response.” This becomes unoriginal very fast. And the proper response isn’t. That is to say, it starts with a conclusion that is a flame-bait attack [e.g., “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics.”] The listed proper responses with their accusatory “you are pulling crap” language are not helpful in great measure, and are probably deserving of being edited out before publication.
A lesson of all great (fiction) writers is to show, don’t tell. Show how their argument misses the point on purpose. Show where their argument is crap. This will set the knife pretty deep all by itself. No sense twisting the knife with insults.
Valued participants of T&S — even those I disagree with — make an effort at least on the first spin on the merry-go-round to be original and creative. In my books, it is fine to write something like:
If you are going to call someone out for using a known ploy, then tailor your response to the specifics of their comments. Pay attention to the link I placed over the tactic, so that research is still possible without boring readers and achieves your goals.
People might call me old fashioned or a fuddy-duddy for the stilted “dear Mr. so-and-so saluations I put on my postings. I chuckle that this was even used as an excuse once to ban me from a (disinfo) forum, because the moderator thought I was being sarcastic in my (consistent use of) honorifics. [Let’s ignore the fact that he and his minions were losing the Dr. Wood debate.]
I like to think of it as the “James Bond Effect”, whereby even 007’s most hated enemies would suppress their emotions and address him in the formal “So good of you to make your appearance, Mr. Bond.”
When I start out in the formal, it tends to curb my baser instincts on what I would utter in response. The high road is indeed higher. The difference from having kept my cool as opposed to those going off in ad hominem homage is priceless.
This OSS, has become “debate” at it’s goofiest.
You should know from the beginning, that most of us in the research community, have already read your new found bible. Most of us however have never dreamed of using copy and paste to create a paint-by-numbers template to paint our opponents in a convenient one size fits all – almost rubber stamp..
You have been nothing but YouTubes and this stupid copy/paste for most of this thread.
If you are so bored with all of this, why don’t you take a break rather than bung up the thread with all of this long winded repeat of “the rule book for beginning debaters”
You seem like the standard beancounter conformist who suddenly had a ‘revelation’ on 9/11 and are now rediscovering the wheel.
Enough of this nonsense.
ww
Fair dos Mr Once, it was starting to do my head in too. I’ll take your advice. I’ll simply link to the relevant points.
Peace
OSS
Dr. Fetzer, for a philosopher of your experience to engage in unwarranted assumptions seems quite peculiar.
Not only have you not shown that any of my “assumptions” are unwarranted but you have made many claims that are not only unwarranted but clearly false: a Boeing 757 could not fly 500 mph at the altitude of the Pentagon; ground effect would have made it impossible to get closer than 60-80′ of the ground; and hitting those lampposts would have ripped the wing from the plane, its fuel would have burst into flames, its trajectory dramatically altered and tail broken off, with the consequence that it would have cartwheeled and done great damage to the unblemished lawn.
Since I have made all of these points in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, where I substantiate them with photos and other graphics, I find it stunning that you continue to post comments in ignorance of the data that substantiates the points you are attempting to refute. That makes this a case of someone who knows less attempting to debunk those who know more, which is your style. I don’t mind having you here to demonstrate the depths to which those who want to obscure truths will sink.
Dr. Fetzer, your assumption that my research is inadequate is unwarranted. I have trounced Craig Ranke and Rob Balsamo in debate–Ranke no less than five times. They can not refute my points and they can not answer my questions.
If as I suspect, your information about the ground effect comes from the sole source of Mr. Sagadevan, then your assumption that Mr. Sagadevan’s claims are true would appear to be unwarranted and a clear case of confirmation bias. Have you read the paper by Karl Rader that claims that ground effect is a low speed phenomenon and disappears at high velocities?
One reason I do not post much here or anywhere else for that matter is that I consider engaging with disinformation agents to be counter productive. The reason it is counter productive is that disinformation agents do not follow any debate rules. In a legitimate debate one side makes a point and the other side tries to counter that point if they can. If they cannot counter then that point is conceeded and the debate moves on having “resolved” that issue. Disinformation agents MUST avoid legitmate debate at all costs simply because their material is false and can be easily proven false in a legitimate debate. Disinformation agents therefore refuse to answer direct questions and constantly change the subject when cornered. They do anything and everything to avoid a real debate and instead try their best to muddy the waters by planting false information often repeatedly. The theory being that if it is repeated long enough and often enough it will begin to take hold. The disinformants have done this already quite successfully by getting even some of us truthers to refer to the WTC towers as “collapsed” instead of “demolished”.
All Brian Good is doing here is trying to:
1. Muddy the waters (through relentless repetition of false and/or misleading information)
2. Discourage truthers (through relentless repetition of false and/or misleading information)
3. Plant false meme’s (through relentless repetition of false and/or misleading information)
He will not engage in a legitimate debate or answer direct questions. My sincere suggestion to all truthers is to not engage with Good and those like him. Ask a few direct questions of new people and if you do not get direct answers quit engaging them. Let them go blind posting their BS over and over until the end of time, simply skim right past their posts and treat them the way you do spam e-mails from Nigeria saying you are the beneficiary of a $1,000,000 dollar trust fund. I am supremely confident that I will not miss anything of value by ignoring Brian Good forever. Try it. Think of him as another branch of the MSM and store his babblings in the trash can where they belong.
Very well stated, Adam. I think this is good advice for people to follow. I think you’re spot on with Mr. Brian Good. I’m starting to wonder why A.Wright is here and what his agenda is. He doesn’t seem to be a very honest fella.
To me, what matters most about the other members of a blog community that I participate in is not whether their views are similar to mine, but that they are honest and well intentioned and can debate and share knowledge and learn together productively and civilly.
I usually give people several chances to correct their disinformation or dishonest arguments, and to stop ignoring my questions, and if they continue to refuse to have an honest debate with me and it becomes obvious that they have an agenda far afield of honest debate, I set them on ‘ignore’ and stop allowing them to waste my time. At some point, though, it is up to the moderators to ensure that their discussion forum is not so overrun by trolls and disinformation agents and blathering idiots that the good honest members decide “the heck with it” and go elsewhere. Unfortunately, most discussion forums I’ve participated in in the past ended up being sabotaged by those types and became not worth my while. It has become very hard to find online discussion forums that keep my interest for very long because of this tendency. I really hope that T&S maintains the right balance and doesn’t end up like so many other forums that I no longer post at.
@keenanroberts
Can you tell what I have said here or elsewhere that has been dishonest? I’d really like to know what it is that is supposed to be dishonest because I try not to be. And just out of interest do you actually think I’m some kind of ‘disinformation agent’ or anything other than an ordinary person, like I assume you are, debating this and other topics?
@A.Wright,
You make regular use of fallacies in your comments, particularly non sequiturs and argument from incredulity, and ad hominems seem to be your favorites. I haven’t decided on whether or not you are a disinformation agent yet, but your continued intellectual dishonesty makes it hard for me to give you the benefit of the doubt as time goes on.
Very few of your comments here that I’ve seen are of substance, and most seem to be attempting to belittle people here. The peculiar thing about this is the fact that many people who post here at T&S were banned from 911Blogger, such as myself. It seems that we were banned primarily because of our views about that Pentagon attack, and not because we violated any rules. I understand that you became a 911Blogger mod late in the game, and did not have much if anything to do with the banning. However, you have never indicated any willingness to properly investigate why all those dozens of people were banned, mostly silently without being warned and without being given any reasons. But you’ve indicated in the past that you side with the 911Bloggers in their banning actions against us, and agree with them that we are basically a bunch of misfits who deserved to be banned.
And yet you’ve decided to come here and join the discussions with all of us misfits, and mostly stir the pot and insult and ridicule. For what purpose? Why even bother with us if you feel that we are mostly a bunch of dupes and misfits for endorsing CIT and refusing to just accept the “reasonable” position that AA77 crashed at the Pentagon? I really can’t be sure what your game is.
A.Wright,
I just realized that I may have errored in assuming you were John Wright from 911Blogger. If so, I apologize for the mistake. If you are not John Wright aka “leftwright” from 911ABlogger, please disregard any references to 911Blogger in the above comment.
Adam, the reason that engaging “disinformation agents” is counterproductive for you is because you can not counter their arguments. The reason you label them “disinformation agents” is because you can’t counter their arguments.
What false and misleading information have I repeated? Did CIT identity a practical flyaway flight path? Did they find flyaway witnesses? Did they explain how the light poles could be planted and nobody would see them?
The suggestion that you not expose yourself to counterargument is a tactic right out of the religious cult playbook. Do you want to live in the real world, or live in a cult?
Brian,
I put a question to you because I want to know where you are coming from with respect to 9/11. I know what you’re against, but I don’t know what you believe happened. You’ve ignored my request for an answer. I would like to hear your “official story” before posting other comments from you. I look forward to your answer.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.
Example: “Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?”
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Example: “All he’s done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren’t qualified. Where’s his proof? Show me wreckage from Flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!”
Note the dates and the complete reversal in statements by Brian Good
Brian Good says:
April 18, 2012 at 11:04 am
“Adam, the reason that engaging “disinformation agents” is counterproductive for you is because you can not counter their arguments. The reason you label them “disinformation agents” is because you can’t counter their arguments.
Did they explain how the light poles could be planted and nobody would see them?”
And…
Brian Good says:
April 17, 2012 at 11:41 pm
“TMP, yes, that’s very thorough theory. All I would add to it is that we can suppose the light poles were moved out of the way to remove the threat that they might cause the plane to crash…”
“Quagmire”? Bollocks. It’s the unchallenged, unmoderated trolls like Brian Good and Chris Sarns that confuse, lie and spin to put people off the Pentagon issue.
This behaviour wouldn’t be tolerated when discussing the towers. Why the laissez-faire attitude when the Pentagon is being discussed?
For the record, I think it’s a fucking disgrace that a mockery is made of these people.
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200045.jpg
http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/140456d1269093132-9-11-victims-pentagon-wtc-p200042-1.jpg
http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/140457d1269093162-9-11-victims-pentagon-wtc-p200047-1.jpg
http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/140458d1269093171-9-11-victims-pentagon-wtc-p200048-1.jpg
I think some people need a reality check as to why some of us get a little pissed off putting up with this shit.
Brian Good is also known by the name ‘truebeleaguer’.
Beleaguer: To harass or oppress. To annoy persistently.
Brian is basically a self-confessed public “shit-stirrer”.
He has ‘proudly’ declared: “Annoying scumbags is kind of a specialty of mine.”
It seems to me that’s probably the only reason why he’s here, so take heed all good people!
I too, will support ruffadam’s suggestion and wise admonitions –
Cheers
No Plane Theory ,High School Physics, Versus The Official 9/11 Story:
To try to make clear a few points about the here much derided “no plane theory” [NPT] :
Was there an aircraft at the Pentagon that day? Nobody who was not there can know for certain, which makes all alleged “eyewitness testimony” unverifiable, and pretty much useless.
NPT adherants [to the best of my knowledge] do _not_ claim that there were no planes at the Pentagon, only that because the elementary laws of physics as taught at the high school level [e.g. Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion] that were not , and could not be suspended that day, that if there were planes present at the Pentagon that day, then they were:
[1] not captured on any “live” video to date released,
and more importantly..
[2] because of Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion [i.e basic principles of physics], if a plane was in fact present, it was not, is not, and could not be physically capable of causing the type of damage depicted in the official photos, either to the alleged downed lightpoles [which would have shredded the wings], nor to the walls/rings of the Pentagon itself.
Exactly the same basic physics issues apply to the WTC complex itself. Planes may or may not have been in the vicinity. “No planers” simply assert that if they _were_ in fact present that morning, that:
[1] they were not captured on any video released to date, because….
[2] All claimed “live” network videos that depict plane-like images [e.g . the Fox 5 segment, the CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC etc. mainstream “live” footage ], and all of the [approximately] 36 “amateur” “live” videos released to date [e.g. the Fairbanks footage, the Hezerkhani footage etc. etc.], that supposedly depict a plane [ allegedly fl. 175] effortlessly gliding inside the steel reinforced concrete facade of the 500,000 ton WTC2, are fraudulent ,because, just as with the Pentagon, they depict events that were/are impossible, simply because they are in direct violation of those exact same fundamental laws of physics, [specifically Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion], that were in operation at the Pentagon that day. For example, see:http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html
And apart from the sheer scientific impossibility of the events so depicted in all of those “live” WTC1 and 2 “plane into/through building” videos, all of those videos have been exhaustively analyzed frame by frame, and are proven forgeries from a purely technical aspect [i.e. impossible camera tracking of a plane allegedly moving at 500mph., impossibly coincidental zooms, impossible exact centering of plane subject in the frame, physically impossible locations of alleged cameramen/women, incorrect lighting for time of day, entirely contradictory flight paths – the list is pretty much endless, see: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html
Also see Simon Shacks analysis of the Fox5 “live” , “plane into/ through building” footage, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
Bottom line? If planes were present at either Pentagon or NYC locations that day [or even in PA], then they obviously were not captured on any live film released to date [ because all of the released footage is obviously fraudulent for both fundamental scientific reasons and because of internal technical impossibilities] .
Speaking only for myself, if planes were present that day at the Pentagon or WTC complex, [as some witnesses claim], they were: [1] not captured on any film released to date, and [2] in any case could not have caused the type of resultant damage subsequently depicted , either at the Pentagon, or at the WTC.
Admit it, we bin had.
Regards, onebornfree.
There are some excellent commentaries here, but none of them come from Brian Good, who is practicing the very techniques of disinformation that he alleges others, such as me, to employ.
NPT asserts the following four theses:
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
For proof that all four of these claims are true, see “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo” (Pilots for 9/11 Truth).
Since Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day, those crash scenes have to have been faked. And Pilots for 9/11 Truth has made a major contribution by establishing that
(5) Flight 93 was in the air over Urbana, IL, at the time it was allegedly crashing in Shanksville;
(6) Flight 175 was in the air over Pittsburgh at the time it was allegedly hitting the South Tower.
We have videos that are supposed to show Flight 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South. Given the evidence above, neither can have happened, where both planes were faked.
(7) Check out the evidence for Flight 11 on “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, for example.
(8) Check out the evidence for Flight 175 on “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, for more.
Since the phrase “video fakery” covers any use of videos to convey false impressions of events on 9/11, the use of fake planes means that video fakery was being used for Flights 11 and 175.
(9) But that means that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(10) And that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Which means that, not only was video fakery taking place on 9/11 in New York City, but that all four of the theses that comprise NPT have therefore been demonstrated to be true. Q.E.D.
Dr. Fetzer, the problem with no-planes theory for flight 175 is the same as the problem for the flyaway theory for flight 11–the perps had no control over who might set up a video camera and record the fact that WTC2 suddenly exploded without an airplane hitting it or who might record flight 11 flying east of the Pentagon.
I didn’t accuse you of practicing disinformation techniques. I asked you if you had considered the possibility that data upon which you rely, data which comes from the government, might be disinformation provided to incite conspiracy theorist to make fools of themselves.
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Because I’m for the most part a no-planer and the resident champion of September Clues here, it pains me to point out that your Q.E.D. jumps some steps and exposes sloppy logic errors. You wrote:
Flights 11 and 77 not being schedule to fly on 9/11 only questions the extent of the alleged involvement of those specific aircraft. “Faked” is such a heavy description that you’ve left without clarifiers. If an actual aircraft were involved in those crash scenes, how “fake” does it make the crash scenes just because the aircraft were (purposely and disingenuously) misidentified as the alleged aircraft?
In my mind, an actual albeit misidentified aircraft crash does not constitute a fake crash scene. My pointing this out just means that you are missing steps required for the true Q.E.D. proof of what was faked.
The way I see it, Flights 11 and 77 not being schedule to fly on 9/11 and your other points about where aircraft were at the time of significant events at the WTC and Pentagon are data points. They combine well with data points about the lack of crash physics, excessive speeds, inconsistent flight paths, faking of radar blips (as per the multiple military exercises), no collaboration of serial numbered aircraft parts to actual aircrafts, and obvious tainting of imagery with pixels-of-planes.
FTR, I believe that media imagery of aircraft at the WTC was faked: pixels on the telly. It became truly a low-risk operation compared to real planes. I believe that full spectrum domination translated on 9/11 to control of the network imagery and message to being the OCT fairy tale. The Clues Forum (and Mr. OneBornFree) take these nuggets of truth and bury them with concepts that they have only marginally provided convincing proof: the ole “take ownership of a topic and run it into the weeds” ploy.
onebornfree,
You lie a lot about the WTC attack to support your NPT. Repeating disinformation over and over again, such as
“[no planes] were captured on any video released to date, because….
[2] All claimed “live” network videos that depict plane-like images [e.g . the Fox 5 segment, the CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC etc. mainstream “live” footage ], and all of the [approximately] 36 “amateur” “live” videos released to date [e.g. the Fairbanks footage, the Hezerkhani footage etc. etc.], that supposedly depict a plane [ allegedly fl. 175] effortlessly gliding inside the steel reinforced concrete facade of the 500,000 ton WTC2, are fraudulent ,because, just as with the Pentagon, they depict events that were/are impossible, simply because they are in direct violation of those exact same fundamental laws of physics, [specifically Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion]”
does not make it true no matter how many times you repeat it.
onebornfree, you don’t know your physics. Kinetic Energy explains how fast moving planes were able to penetrate the sides of the steel towers. No physics laws were violated.
The “nose out” disinfo has been debunked years ago.
Craig, I really hope that this place does not become overrun by these NPT disinfo trolls. It would be a shame, as there aren’t very many places left for intelligent discussion on 9/11 issues.
Keenan,
While I agree with your critique of Onebornfree’s lack of lucidity, I think that the terms, “Lying” and “Liar”, are such strong indictments that they should be abandoned in such forums as this.
I may find Onebornfree a whacky duck, but the thought of tossing him out of the lake is an obvious injustice to free debate.
I agree that there aren’t many places left for intelligent discussion of 9/11 – and there aren’t many 9/11 threads left with a moderator willing to post opinions that are far from their own, such as the tolerance and balanced fairness Mr. McKee has become known for.
I think the banning of agent Albury Smith was and remains justified, as per his MO of being a total disruptive ingredient to any sane discussions. He is the only poster ever banned at my home base blog, COTO.
Banning should be seen as the most extreme of acts in a society that cherishes free speech.
ww
Craig,
I very much support what Keenan has said with regard to the trolling of blogs, and muddying the waters by mixing excellent rock solid evidence in with wild speculations and nonsense, such as what we’ve seen in this thread by known provocateur Brian Good (aka “truebeleaguer”, at truthaction, “snug.bug” at blogspot.com and “punxsatawneybarney” on youtube), and also the ridiculous “plane bomb” theory put forth by TruthMakesPeace.
I do appreciate the fact that you’re trying to keep speech as free and open as possible here, since censorship and bannings were the order of the day at 911blogger and similar sites, to where many sincere and legit activists were purged.
But on the other end of the pendulum, too much disinfo spamming from the trolls serves to adulterate the scene in the opposite way from the censorship and bannings; good activists won’t leave because they’re purged; they’ll leave because the quality of the discussion has been so intensely diluted. I’m glad you pulled the plug on SnowCrash being allowed to post here; keep those senses active.
There must be a balance.
keenanroberts says: “You lie a lot about the WTC attack to support your NPT Repeating disinformation over and over again, …”
Yes , I get it , keenanroberts , I lie, you tell the truth.I’m just a disinfo agent blah blah blah. :- 0
Bottom line: if you choose to believe that commercial aircraft can :
[1] attain speeds of 500 mph at below 1000 ft. and still have their engines function normally, _and_ at the same time perform maneuvers requiring pin point accuracy, [with or without a real pilot] , and …
[2] that those same thin-skinned [with aluminum] commercial aircraft [with, I might add, plastic nose-cone sections ], can slice virtually uninterrupted through multiple 20 ton sections of steel columns and floor trusses embedded in 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, without even losing any parts on initial impact , or without even slowing down considerably upon impact , but just merrily go on their way into the building, virtually unimpeded,like a hot knife through butter, as the Fairbanks video allegedly depicts: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html , that is your choice, and yours alone.
Mr Roberts, for your information, I have no interest in debating or trying to change your choice of belief.
Personally speaking, I think your post displays an alarming lack of understanding of basic 200+ year old scientific principles of motion that govern moving bodies in collision with stationary objects, but if you choose to believe that I know nothing about physics ,and you, on the other hand, know everything, so be it, but you are going to have to find other people to argue with about it .I am not into “greater expert” games.
And I especially am not here to discuss these issues with someone whose first post [or is it the 2nd?] to me starts out by calling me a liar and one who is allegedly “Repeating disinformation over and over again” .
You will be studiously ignored by me from now on.[Except possibly as source of entertainment when bored] .
Goodbye Mr Roberts, have a “nice” life, and no regards, onebornfree [Keep taking those blue pills by the way 🙂 ]
Dear Mr. KeenanRoberts,
As the resident champion of no-planes (at the WTC), you make some valid points about Mr. OneBornFree’s defense of the same. I have chided him in other threads for his obtuse debating behavior being counter productive to an agenda of truth.
You wrote:
This has been proven true in other venues. No argument there. (However, it doesn’t apply to me, so be careful.)
You continued:
Not completely true.
– The speed of the aircraft at sea level in heavy air exceeding its maximum rating at high altitude violates laws of physics both for the integrity of the structure of the aircraft as well as the thrust capabilities of the engines to even obtain that speed in anything other than a steep dive — which the telly pixels don’t show.
– The aircraft exhibiting no crash physics in terms of deformation and deceleration violates laws of physics.
– The tail of the aircraft entering the towers and into its own fuselage space at the same speed it traveled through thin air violates laws of physics.
– The miraculous zoom-in’s that upon reverse-play zoom-out’s did not show the aircraft where its calculated speed predicts where it should be violates laws of physics.
– The differences in depicted flight path from view-to-view violates laws of physics.
Consider the portion of the wing from the engines out to the tips as well as the tail. These are not inherently strong structures; they are in fact built with light material. These materials slicing through the inherently strong steel mesh structure of the outer walls violates laws of physics. Slicing up and pieces bouncing off were to be expected, but didn’t happen.
No it hasn’t. You can provide links, though. And even if attempts on this facet were made and even validated, it is but one facet.
[Mr. OneBornFree is known for not presenting the strongest NPT arguments because he has two agendas. Agenda 1 is to so poorly defend NPT that forums like this will write it as not being worthy of further research. Assuming Agenda 1 fails, Agenda 2 is to hook potential believers to the point they disqualify all imagery so that you can’t use it to prove squat about anything.]
All of the attempted debunking of the September Clues that I’ve seen — even by Anthony Lawson — run out steam pretty quickly and jump to the conclusion: “False in one, false in all; I just need to prove this one nugget as fool’s gold and then can dismiss the rest of the body of work.”
Stronger arguments for NPT would be the already mentioned miracle zoom-in’s that don’t show the plane on reverse-play zoom-out’s and the four different versions from a helicopter: (1) one with nothing, just the explosion; (2) one with an orb; (3) one with the background masked out to be sky and a plane flying some whacked out different trajectory; (4) one with the orb replaced with pixels almost resembling a plane, which in my estimation was a very late entry. In any event, the four different versions proves that some video manipulation happened and is a huge smoking gun to legitimately get us to question 9/11 imagery.
I am NPT. I suppose you could even call me a troll, but I’ve been on T&S a long time and try to play well with everyone.
Disinfo? In my case, I’m duped. All it takes is intelligent discussion using properly applied science and analysis to dupe me another way and we can be in agreement. I’d like to be set straight, if I am wrong.
Alas, this NPT is forbidden in most forums, and curiously so. This is always a red flag. Dr. Wood is also forbidden. Few have the nuggets to mine the aforementioned for nuggets of truth. I believe that all — literally everything — we have on 9/11 is disinformation, so we have to be mining it for nuggets of truth.
Mr. OneSliceShort references an article that in other places is called 25 Traits of a Disinformationalist. Sorry to say that Mr. OneBornFree and even Mr. Shack himself exhibit this.
#16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. They don’t off anybody, but their agenda doesn’t stop with distrust all 9/11 imagery. They want it all off of the table, even images of the aftermath and clean-up. Can’t use it to prove squat.
#20. False evidence. This is my conclusion from having looked at the Clues Forums that tries to make the case the collapse imagery is all faked and the aftermath imagery is all faked.
#22. Manufacture a new truth. Hollow towers comes to mind. Some level of SimVictims as well.
#23. Create bigger distractions. SimVictims was probably the Clues Forums attempt in this area. Certainly very emotional and designed to really piss people off. I don’t discount that some degree of this was in play given that it was part of Operation Northwood; but the extent remains in question.
My point is that NPT is championed (by Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree) in such a manner to shoot holes in nuggets of truth and disinfo alike. Between these and some who engage them, the design is get readers to the point where they would sooner ban them (and their topics) than explore this. Plays by design right into the hand of disinfo to get nuggets of truth swept off of the table.
So in conclusion, we know that disinformation games are being played right within the very pixels of this thread of Mr. McKee’s blog. All disinformation, to have any traction, must be built on a solid foundation of truth.
I encourage participants to keep an open mind, to explore things on their own, to come to your own conclusions, to judge nuggets of both truth and disinfo, and to not hastily dismiss nuggets of truth due to the actions of others. Oh, and remain respectful while you’re ripping faulty concepts or poor arguments a new one.
@hybridrogue,
I’m not suggesting that obf be banned at this point. My suggestion that I made to Craig in another comment was to create a specific thread called “NPT” and then confine NPT discussion to that thread in order to try to stop the NPT trolls from spamming all of the other threads with the same crap that has been debunked over and over again, which seems to be their MO.
Perhaps that special thread can be called “NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood” since those things all sort of go together and their champions mostly seem to be of the same breed, or the same trolling and spamming MO.
@Señor El Once
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Although I do not wish to have an in-depth discussion or debate on NPT at this time, as I’ve become thoroughly exhausted with the subject after having to deal with the same debunked crap for the last 6 years on various online discussion forums, I will respond to some of your points.
FIrst of all, It is not my preference to ban people because of their views, and I’ve never stated or implied that we should ban people for their views. My preference, as I’ve suggested to Craig, is to create a special thread where NPT discussion can be confined to so that other threads are not hijacked and spammed by the NPT folks, which is their MO too much of the time.
I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not like most of the NPT folks I”ve encountered over the years and display much better behavior. You do seem like a pretty reasonable and intelligent fellow.
Now, to address some of your points (I’m assuming that all of these are referring to the WTC crime scene unless otherwise stated):
“- The speed of the aircraft at sea level in heavy air exceeding its maximum rating at high altitude violates laws of physics both for the integrity of the structure of the aircraft as well as the thrust capabilities of the engines to even obtain that speed in anything other than a steep dive — which the telly pixels don’t show.”
A plane exceeding its particular maximum design specs and a plane violating the laws of physics are 2 completely different things. You seem to be confusing the 2 concepts. We don’t know what exact plane was used, though it seems that the government’s contention that a normal Boeing 767 passenger plane was used is false. I believe that most likely a modified Boeing, or another military aircraft that had higher maximum speed specs was used. Just because A plane exceeded its supposed or official design specs does not in any way prove that laws of physics were violated.
“- The aircraft exhibiting no crash physics in terms of deformation and deceleration violates laws of physics.”
This has not been proven. In order to prove this assertion, clear, high resolution videos need to be available in which the center of gravity of the plane can bee seen through the whole process to be able to make a determination. It is not sufficient to just look at the tail section to determine the rate of deceleration of the entire plane, because the tail section would continue on its forward momentum even as the front of the plane was already crumpling and ceasing its forward momentum. Most NPT advocates are using invalid methods and improper assumptions in their determinations.
In most cases, the videos are not of high enough resolution or of enough frames to clearly see. In many cases, the center of gravity of the plane was already obscured before enough frames passed to be able to sufficiently measure and calculate the deceleration.
“- The tail of the aircraft entering the towers and into its own fuselage space at the same speed it traveled through thin air violates laws of physics.”
Not true. The tail of the aircraft could still be traveling close to its original (thin air) forward momentum even while the front of the aircraft was already crumpling and stopped in its forward momentum. The videos are not of high enough resolution and of sufficient frames per second to detect small decreases in forward momentum as the tail entered the building. There have been some studies done that did detect some deceleration. Look it up.
“Consider the portion of the wing from the engines out to the tips as well as the tail. These are not inherently strong structures; they are in fact built with light material. These materials slicing through the inherently strong steel mesh structure of the outer walls violates laws of physics. Slicing up and pieces bouncing off were to be expected, but didn’t happen.”
False. Look up Kinetic Energy. KE = 1/2 m * v^2 KE equals one half the mass times the velocity squared. Speed makes a HUGE difference in the penetrating power of one object into another. Things behave differently when accelerated to extremely high speeds. Why do you think bullets are made out of lead – the softest metal there is, even softer than aluminum? The reason is because when lead bullets are accelerated to thousands of feet per second in guns, the physics change, and suddenly those soft lead bullets are able to go through steel plates. Consider also Karate masters able to bust wood and concrete with their bare hands when accelerated to high speeds. Consider that NASA worries about tiny little space particles punching holes through space vehicles because when the tiny particles are traveling at 20,000 mph in relation to the space vehicle, suddenly the tiny particles act as though they are stronger than several inches of steel. Consider that hurricanes can accelerate sticks and straw to puncture the trunks of trees.
Besides, the tips of the wings did break off, and the videos are not of high enough resolution to have captured all of the pieces that did break off. Nevertheless, Kinetic Energy perfectly explains
You should get a physics book and study the effects of Kinetic Energy.
Anyway, here’s a few nuggets to chew on. I’m really not interested in spending any more time debating NPT, for reasons I’ve already stated. September Clues video is blatant disinfo because it was deceptively edited for the purpose of misleading the viewer. You say that just because there are some parts of it that are faulty doesn’t mean that it is false in its entirety. My response is that it doesn’t matter. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So what? If the makers of the video were caught engaging in any disinformation, it cannot be considered a trustworthy or valid must be rejected, regardless of something(s) might be true in it.
Anyway, that’s all I’m going to say on the matter at this point. I appreciate your willingness to have an intelligent and civil discussion on the issue. But this has been debated ad infinitum in other places.
keenanroberts seems to think the speed of the aircraft–which was analogous to an empty beer can–impacting with a massive 500,000-ton building–which was like a brick wall–matters, when Newton’s third law dictates that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph hitting a stationary building are the same as a statonary plane being hit by a 500,000-ton building moving at 500 mph. He is ignorant of physics and his arguments show it. Is he unaware of the damage done to a plane by impact with a tiny bird weighing a few ounces? It should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. But none of that happened.
What this means is that we are not watching a real plane but something that looks like a real plane but performs feats that no real plane can perform. It passes its entire length into this massive building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That is impossible, unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to an aircraft in flight than does air. And Senor El Once seems to discount the fact that the image in the Naudet footage looks NOTHING LIKE a Boeing 767, while many witnesses reported seeing a plane that looked like A BOEING 767 enter the South Tower. Unless we discount all of the witness reports, we have to accept that they saw something that LOOKED LIKE a plane but was not a real plane.
I think it would be wise of persons like these to actually look at the evidence I have presented in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, because they are committing mistakes that they would not make if only they were more familiar with the evidence. We have to account for the witness reports as well as the laws of physics, where it turns out that both planes appear to have been simulated. It was not a matter of pixels after the event but of creating images that, without close inspection, could pass for planes hitting those buildings. But we know much more now, which I have laid out in detail in those two studies. Absent replicating them here, I strongly recommend that they study them.
Mr. Fetzer,
You can’t possibly be that be silly enough to actually believe that the whole entire 500,000 tons of the building was involved in resisting the plane when only a very tiny hole was punctured through the structure. If this is the asinine way you are going to begin a supposed “scientific” inquiry, I’m not even going to bother attempting to have a reasonable debate with you. Besides, this is way off topic to the title of the thread and I’d rather not participate in yet another NPT hijacking of a thread.
I have been waiting for keenanroberts to demonstrate that he is at least as ignorant as Brian Good, which he has now done. There are multiple indications here he has no idea what he’s talking about and that he has not been doing his homework, even though I have recommended it to them both:
(1) “the plane” purported to be Flight 175 was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete and connected to the core columns at one end and the external steel support columns at the other, which would have posed enormous horizontal resistance;
(2) “the plane” nevertheless passes effortlessly its complete length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its complete length through air; since equal distance in equal times implies equal velocities, there is no diminution in velocity, when it ought to have dropped to zero;
(3) Roberts adopts the model of stacks of coins, such as a stack of dimes on top of a stack of pennies on top of a stack of nickles on top of a stack of quarters on top of a stack of half-dollars, where, if you hit them right with a sharp object, you might dislodge one of them from the stack.
But that is faulty analogy, since the floors of the building were interconnected and welded together. A suitable analogy would be a similar stack of coins WELDED TOGETHER. The fact is that these guys have no idea what they are talking about and do not even understand the tower’s structure.
Those buildings were rooted in bedrock, just as a gigantic tree is rooted to the ground. No matter how fast a car might be traveling, it will not pass through the tree and more than a real plane, no matter how fast it might be traveling, is going to pass through a 500,000-ton building. It is absurd.
Since I have explained these points in multiple places, including “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, which I have recommended they study lest they make complete fools of themselves, we have yet another indication that they are incompetent at research and should not be posting here.
By your logic, a bullet would never be able to penetrate any human being, being that the mass of a human being is anywhere from 3000 to 15000 times the mass of the bullet. Dip shit. Are you really that stupid, or are you just pretending to be?
Further substantiation that keenanroberts has no understanding of physics and lacks the elementary competence to be addressing these issues. In conflicts between materials, the more dense prevails over the less dense. Steel is more dense than aluminum. Bullets are more dense than flesh. That he does not comprehend that the towers were massive lattice structures with mutually reinforcing components reveals the dimensions of his ignorance. That he attempt to parlay his ignorance into a virtue and makes nasty ad hominems to conceal it suggests to me he has no business being here.
Mr. Fetzer,
All of your bull shit pseudo-science arguments have been debunked many times over in other forums that you’ve been involved with, and yet you persist in pulling out the same debunked arguments over and over again. I’ve already tried to explain to you Kinetic Energy physics in other forums, and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any of it. You never concede anything. You are not as clever as you think you are. You use a lot of big physics words but spout utter bull shit that people who are somewhat conversant with physics can easily see through. That fact that you NEVER even back up ANY of your claims with calculations should be a red flag to most people. I guess you feel that as long as you fool a lot of laymen with your pseudo-science bs that you’ve succeeded with your agenda. You apparently are very much an expert in intellectual dishonesty, however, I’ll give you that.
How you’ve made it to PHD level with your complete inability to grasp so many basic science concepts is beyond me. Although your degrees are not science degrees specifically, I would still think that people with PHDs should still have a good understanding of basic physics and chemistry science. At least for someone with a “Philosophy of Science” degree, you should be way more conversant with Physics and Chemistry than you are. Or maybe you are just pretending that you are so completely confused about those concepts.
Either way, I see no reason for wasting any of my time debating with someone as intellectually dishonest as you. I’m setting you on ‘ignore’ from this point forward. Just realize, though, that you aint fooling very many people on this forum. Shame on you, professor Fetzer, for using your professor credentials for obfuscation rather than truth.
Craig, I already posted my answer. Lies in the official story: the claim that fires were burning on a part of floor 12 of WTC7 at a time when photos show there were no fires there. The claim that steel cooking a long time in the rubble pile could reach melting temperatures. Truths in the official story: airplanes hit WTC 1 and WTC2, which subsequently fell down. WTC7 fell down,
Brian,
This answer is unsatisfactory and disingenuous. First of all, I’m not aware of your previous answer. If you have a link to that, please provide it. Failing that, I would like a real answer repeated here. I’m sure the current contributors to this thread would find it illuminating as well.
I want you to tell me what you think happened. I mean based on the evidence; I’m not asking you to speculate on things we can’t know for sure. We already know very well what you ridicule in the opinions of others.
If someone asked me this question, I wouldn’t hesitate: I believe 9/11 was a false flag operation pulled off and covered up by the U.S. government and very likely other governments. I believe the World Trade Center buildings were brought down with explosives of one kind or another. There were many explosions prior to the buildings coming down, and some before the first alleged 757 impact. I don’t believe that flights 11 and 175 with real passengers hit the buildings.
I highly doubt there were any real hijackings, and I certainly don’t think genuine terrorists were involved at all. I don’t think that Osama bin Laden ever confessed to anything and that the one video allegedly showing him doing so is fake.
I think Building 7 was probably intended to come down in the morning but something went wrong. I don’t believe anything hit the Pentagon. Explosives were used to simulate a crash. A large plane flew towards the Pentagon on a path north of the Citgo gas station but it did not hit the building. I think some of the media personalities who claim to have seen a plane impact are lying. Hello, Mike “the wings folded in” Walter.
Oh, and I don’t believe Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, burying itself underground except for one terrorist’s passport.
You get the idea. I want to know where you stand because I think you like to jump around keeping the discussion spinning in circles by asking silly questions. I agree with others who have accused you of this.
The buildings fell down? That’s quite a limb you’ve gone out on. No fires on the 12th floor?
So, take a short break from insulting our intelligence and tell us what you think happened.
Craig, I told you what I think happened. I think airplanes hit buildings and the buildings fell down. I think the government’s investigation of how that happened was corrupt. You are free to believe what you want. I try to avoid believing things, myself.
If you examine the structure of an airplane wing you will see that the first part that hits the building is the shoulder where the leading spar joins the wing box. Soon after that the middle spar hits the wall and then the wing loses all fore-and-aft structural stability.
I don’t ask silly questions. Where did the flyover plane go? is not a silly question. How could the light poles be planted without detection? is not a silly question.
It seems that you want to have a 9/11 Theories Club instead of a 9/11 Truth discussion board. That’s your prerogative.
Here is my earlier post:
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4248
April 17, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Craig, I don’t see why anybody should care about my opinions, and I suspect that most of those who are interested are just looking for an excuse to disregard my facts. Right off hand the only things that come to mind that I’m certain are false is NIST’s chart showing fires in a place on the 12th floor of WTC7 at a time when photos show there was no fire there, and NIST’s claim in the FAQs that long heating in the rubble pile could have caused steel to melt. I suspect that the tale that Cheney did not arrive in the White House bunker until a few minutes before 10:00 is not true.
I’m sure there are others, but I can’t think of anything right now. What do I think is true about the official story? I think airplanes hit the twin towers and they fell down, I think building 7 fell down, I think Bush sat on his ass in a Florida schoolroom.
I try not to have opinions about things unless there’s some very good reason–especially when my data are incomplete and my sources are unrealiable and contradictory.
Brian,
You say: “Craig, I don’t see why anybody should care about my opinions, and I suspect that most of those who are interested are just looking for an excuse to disregard my facts. …”
But isn’t this what you always do? Take shots at others’ positions without putting one forward yourself? Aren’t you just looking for an excuse to disregard other people’s facts? You ridicule the idea that the light pole evidence was faked. But you never tell us what you think happened. Anybody can do this.
“What do I think is true about the official story? I think airplanes hit the twin towers and they fell down, I think building 7 fell down, I think Bush sat on his ass in a Florida schoolroom.”
I’m sorry, but this isn’t saying anything. We know Building 7 fell down. But how and why? Bush sat on his ass? We know that. Why? What does this tell us? When you stick to rehashing the same talking points over and over, and never argue FOR anything, then people are naturally, and understandably, going to question your sincerity and your motives. And your pet subject, the Pentagon, doesn’t get a mention in your cursory overview. Why not?
“I try not to have opinions about things unless there’s some very good reason –especially when my data are incomplete and my sources are unreliable and contradictory.”
This leaves me none the wiser about what you think. Are you just misunderstood? Why do so many people think you’re trying to derail genuine discussion?
Spot the Freeper
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits:
1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Their disdain for “conspiracy theorists” and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) An odd kind of “artificial” emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the “image” and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to “act their role in type” as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.
OSS,
So I gather you think I should have banned Good by now? Perhaps so. I do agree with your characterization of him. I have asked him to go on the record with a thorough opinion about what happened on 9/11. I suspect he will not do this, at least not to my satisfaction (based on his last offering). If he doesn’t then you won’t be reading any more comments from him.
With all due respect, Craig, and although I am a newbie and therefor unfamiliar with Mr Good’s prior posting history, I think it would be wrong to ban him – it reveals the bias of the moderator and sets a bad tone.
Surely a good moderator needs to stay away from banning someone just because they disagree with a particular posters point of view ? And yet time and time again, this is exactly what happens in discussion forums. You have clearly stated your own view of what happened/did not happen on 9/11 to Mr Good [and which I pretty much agree with], but it seems wrong to threaten to ban him because he does not agree with it. Or am I missing something here?
Personally, no matter how much I disagree with him, I see nothing wrong with him expressing his point of view as long as he’s reasonably respectful, [unlike another long time poster here apparently].
Anybody who disagrees with Mr Good is surely free to ignore him, just as they are free to ignore anyone else here, including myself.
Regards, onebornfree
Onebornfree,
It doesn’t necessarily reveal a bias on the part of the moderator. In fact, I take more criticism for allowing certain comments and certain people than I do for being too quick to ban. In fact, I’ve banned just one person in the 20 months this blog has existed, and that was because I came to believe he was purposely trying to derail honest discussion. I would have banned Snowcrash had he not agreed on his own to go away. That was because he was making nasty personal attacks and basically daring me to ban him.
I’m quite happy to debate subjects with people who don’t agree with me. But I don’t think it’s right if a person tries to lead a debate in circles to cause mischief for their own reasons. I hate censorship, and I wasn’t pleased to be banned from 911blogger because of my views, but every publication – whether on paper or online – reserves the right to publish what they want.
It’s a very tough call, and it’s possible to make the wrong one, but ultimately this is my home field. As Senor El Once has said several times, everyone is free to have their own blog (including Brian Good) and to control that forum. It’s easy to sit back and take shots at what others say, as Brian does. Taking a stand of your own and opening yourself up to scrutiny is something else again.
Onebornfree,
It doesn’t necessarily reveal a bias on the part of the moderator. In fact, I take more criticism for allowing certain comments and certain people than I do for being too quick to ban. In fact, I’ve banned just one person in the 20 months this blog has existed, and that was because I came to believe he was purposely trying to derail honest discussion. I would have banned Snowcrash had he not agreed on his own to go away. That was because he was making nasty personal attacks and basically daring me to ban him.
I’m quite happy to debate subjects with people who don’t agree with me. But I don’t think it’s right if a person tries to lead a debate in circles to cause mischief for their own reasons. I hate censorship, and I wasn’t pleased to be banned from 911blogger because of my views, but every publication – whether on paper or online – reserves the right to publish what they want.
It’s a very tough call, and it’s possible to make the wrong one, but ultimately this is my home field. As Senor El Once has said several times, everyone is free to have their own blog (including Brian Good) and to control that forum. It’s easy to sit back and take shots at what others say, as Brian does. Taking a stand of your own and opening yourself up to scrutiny is something else again.
Hi Craig,
No mate, I wasn’t having a pop at you, I was talking about moderation in general on all forums.
It’s up to you who you ban of course, but I just wish that discussion based on sourced evidence and valid counterargument would be enforced. You’ve had just a taste of the Good roadshow and I can tell you’re peeved!
Adam Ruff and Mr Once have suggested (and rightly so) that it’s better to ignore trollish posts and pisstaking verbiage that goes nowhere but if it is deemed as garbage, why allow it in the first place? It can in no way, shape or form be regarded as censorship when what started as a good blog where real truthseekers can have a rational, even if heated discussion, turns into a farce.
In fact, I would actually send the examples of disruptive tactics being used here to Gage. After all Good and Sarns read from the same hymnbook in their tactics. And the latter is referenced in his “withdrawal” from endorsement of CIT!
OSS,
And I understand that Brian Good is working on AE911Truth videos as a volunteer.
I’m becoming peeved indeed because I can see that Good’s claims about seeking the truth through weeding out weak arguments are crap. He won’t even state where he stands on 9/11. All we know is what he’s against.
I really hate the idea of banning people. I don’t want to stoop to the level of other sites (and we know which ones I’m talking about) that ban everyone who disagrees with them. But when I come to believe that someone is not being sincere, then I move in that direction.
Having said that, it’s not always easy to determine what’s garbage and what isn’t. What criteria should be used? It’s going to be subjective. That ignoring thing sounds pretty good to me as well. I know we don’t want false statements not being refuted, but there are times when I think we give the Goods of this world more attention than their limited insights deserve.
Anyway, thanks for your input. You’re one of the people who keep the discussion constructive.
OSS, I attack the issues head on.
I point out that your claim that the light poles were “hidden” is not true–they were right out in the short grass visible from the off ramp, the on ramp, and the pike.
I point out that your claim that the cab was on the bridge is not true–photos clearly show it south of the bridge.
I point out that your claim that the NoC plane can not hit the Pentagon is based on your imposition of exaggerated ground-clearance requirements.
I point out that a flyover plot would be like planning to escape from a bank robbery on a pogo stick. There was no way to control who might see or video the departing plane.
I point out that you have not one flyaway witness.
I point out that runway 15 is not used by 757s and so any 757 landing there would be very noteworthy. I point out that once the plane lands on runway 15 there’s no way to dispose of it.
Craig, I have a suggestion. Is there a way to confine all of the NPT stuff into a separate thread, so that that NPT trolls don’t clog up the discussions and hijack unrelated threads?
Craig,
Once again, I agree with Keenan. For the record, even though I think the DEW and WTC NPT theories are rubbish, I think 911blogger started their slippery slope into fascism by declaring that certain topics would be forbidden to be discussed since they are ridiculous on their face. At the time in 2008 when Reprehensor did this, I actually agreed with the move, since I cared about credibility. However, when they extended this censorship to include Kevin Barrett, vocal Pilots and CIT supporters, and the entire WTCDemo crew, I had a different opinion with 20/20 hindsight.
So I don’t think you should ban discussion of WTC NPT theories, but perhaps get conversation diversions more compartmentalized, as Rob Balsamo does when the conversation goes off-topic at Pilots.
With your current blog settings, there is no feature that takes the viewer to the latest comment in a thread, so this means having to wade through many off topic posts in order to find the new one you’re actually looking for. When the thread goes into the hundreds of comments, this gets very wearisome.
But then again, the fact that you’re getting hundreds of comments is, for the most part, a “good” problem! I actually prefer to see more discussion and participation even if there are a few trolls, than to see places like 911blogger, wtcdemo and 911oz that are veritable ghost towns. In fact they’re SUCH ghost towns that any newcomers to 9/11 truth now would peruse them and get the impression the truth movement is dead. Your blog fills in a HUGE void, I’m just saying, like most human experiments, it’s not perfect (yet) so of course any critiques from me to you should be taken in that light. 🙂
…”trolls don’t clog up the discussions and hijack unrelated threads?”
You say Mr. Roberts. This is quite interesting after “clog{ing}” up the previous thread with an insistence that you and I debate the totally unrelated topic of whether the Mossad/Israel is the sole party for the instigation of 9/11.
But the designation of “troll” applied to yourself would be met with sputtering incredulous blasts of thermate breath. Perhaps you should attend to your epistemic sense for the topic of “hypcrisy”.
ww
Keenan,
That’s tricky, because the threads on this blog are not exactly like the threads on a regular forum. The topic is defined by the subject of the article. But since most of the debate shifts to the most recent thread, it’s not that practical to have certain subjects relegated to other article threads. If I could figure out a way to do this then I would consider it for certain subjects.
Keenan, I left a message for you on the last thread – now that most eyes have come over here, I left some info on the Saud-Jewish genealogical story.~ww
Keenan, if you have seen this info on the last page over, please acknowledge such.
Thanks, ww
Hydridrogue,
I will check out the genealogical story when I have some spare time. My time is limited in how much of it can be spent in online disussions at this point because of other prioritites I need to be attending to, so I can’t promise you that I will read and respond to it in a timely manner.
keenanroberts says: “Craig, I have a suggestion. Is there a way to confine all of the NPT stuff into a separate thread, so that that NPT trolls don’t clog up the discussions and hijack unrelated threads?”
Yet another person with an infallible point of view who wishes to have it enforced on every one else [because it is soooooo infallible, and so everyone else with a different POV is obviously a “troll” who “clog[s] up” the forum].
How about the opposite occurs, Mr Roberts, i.e. Mr McKee confines all of the none- NPT stuff into a separate thread, so that that the none- NPT “trolls” [your term] like yourself don’t “clog up” [your term] the discussions and “hijack” [your term] “unrelated” [your term] threads?
Unsatisfactory somehow? Why am I not surprised?
Nice try, but no cigar 🙂 regards onebornfree.
OBF, the content of McKee’s essay has nothing whatsoever to do with WTC no plane theories. Therefore, the “none-NPT stuff” is on topic, the NPT stuff, off-topic. When the discussion (which is supposed to be about the saga of Richard Gage offering support for CIT, then withdrawing that support, and now somewhat backpedaling to a middle “I don’t know what happened” ground) turns toward “nose-in, nose out” at the WTC, the conversation has been hijacked. Can you seriously not see that?
Regarding the Pentagon though: You spouted some nonsense earlier on which I must challenge you:
“Was there an aircraft at the Pentagon that day? Nobody who was not there can know for certain, which makes all alleged “eyewitness testimony” unverifiable, and pretty much useless.”
Ridiculous. If that’s the case, it could be said about any event of any kind anywhere in the world. If you yourself weren’t there, how do you even know it happened?
Yes, even if there are no other humans around to hear it, that falling tree in the forest DOES make a sound because of the laws of the physics of sound, not to mention that there would be non-human life forms in the forest who WOULD hear it.
Adam Syed said: “OBF, the content of McKee’s essay has nothing whatsoever to do with WTC no plane theories. ” .
Sir, if you cannot see any direct connection between the alleged physics of the Pentagon “attack” and the various claims of the alleged “eyewitnesses” discussed in the article, to the alleged physics of the WTC attacks, then that is your problem, not mine. I think it is relevant ,therefor I posted what I did. Deal with it.
Regarding alleged “eye witness” testimony you say: “Ridiculous. If that’s the case, it could be said about any event of any kind anywhere in the world. ”
Exactly. What are you suggesting, that there is nothing procedurally wrong with yourself [or anyone else] cherry-picking any alleged “eye-witness testimony” you fancy that backs up your own particular iron clad version of what happened? How old are you, 14?
Personally I have no idea as to whether _any_ of the alleged witnesses are telling the truth, and the fact of the matter is that neither do you [or anyone else].
Some may be, but still I have absolutely no idea at this time failing a rigorous cross-examination of those concerned by a skillful, knowledgeable defense attorney or similar.
As to this quote from you :” ….. You spouted some nonsense earlier ” .
This already indicates the level of discourse you wish to assume with me, in your very first response, no less, so I will hereby refrain from further interactions with you. So, just as I previously told Mr Roberts, goodbye [for good], and no regards, onebornfree.
kthxbai 🙂
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
What Schadenfreude I get when participants like Mr. Syed thump you for your stupid actions here.
One day, Mr. McKee will undoubtedly write an article on no-planes and another on Dr. Wood. I expect both articles will be unsatisfactory to both their champions and their die-hard opponents, because the nuanced truth will shoot holes in the dug-in-encampments and myth-making of both.
I agree with you that NPT has a place in this thread. After all, NOC flight path and fly-over ultimately means “no plane hit the Pentagon”, although an actual plane was deployed as part of the ruse. In terms of full-spectrum domination and military objectives to control the media in all operations, parallels between WTC NPT and NOC fly-over run deep.
But this hasn’t really been your argument.
In fact, I’ve been in agreement with more of your opponent’s points than yours. I view you as purposely trying to create a bad reputation for NPT, September Clues, Clues Forums, etc. precisely so that the tenor of responses of participants will swing negatively against NPT and no rational discussions can happen.
Therefore, I ask that you clean up your act. Don’t start flame wars. Don’t argue unreasonable and irrational points. Be objective in all things including criticism against that which you champion, because the modus operandus of the powers-against-us will clearly sow seeds of disinfo into all things. If you aren’t cherry-picking nuggets of truth, you are (for lack of better terms) either an ignorant brain-dead wannabe or an agent with an agenda.
Because I’m the resident champion of no-planes (although I’d gladly give up these duties to some other rational thinker so I could be a “me, too” echo chamber), the fact is that the important nuggets of truth from that genre are probably already well represented. What does that make your participation? Needed or not? Valued or not? It says a lot when even I, as a duped useful idiot of a no-plane trick pony rider, must dress you down.
Here’s a test of your objectivity. What elements of the Clues Forums and September Clues do you NOT believe? What elements of the same do you consider to be disinformation? Do you believe the whole kit-and-caboodle?
Mr Señor El Once , let me make myself perfectly clear , as I obviously failed to do so in a previous post in a different thread. I have NO intention of conversing with yourself , or hybridrogue1, [or anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude], about anything relating to what I believe did or [more importantly ,could not have happened at NYC, the Pentagon, or in PA on 9/11.
After this post ,your posts will be studiously ignored by me, except if I’m bored and looking for light entertainment perhaps. I suggest you do the same regarding my posts.
I’m pleased my posts disturb here you in some way. Go “fly a kite”, or “get a life” as they say. Zero regards, onebornfree
No-plane-at-WTC2 is impossible for the very simple reason that the perps had no control over who might focus a video camera on the WTC and if the building were to blow up without the benefit of an airplane, dozens of video cameras might record that.
The flyover hypothesis is impossible for the very same reason. There were hundreds of high-rise rooms looking out over the Pentagon and the perps had no control over who might set up a camera the morning of 9/11 and leave it running just on the chance that something interesting might happen.
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
Clap! Clap! Clap! Bravo! Brav-oh!
Loved your witty response! Would have been even more effective, however, if you would have taken your own advice and ignored me.
It was so precious, I just couldn’t help but extract and repeat the highlights (with some minor corrections):
By the expression “anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude”, is that a reference to anybody else who “knows their shit & science better, defends their shit & case better, pokes legitimate holes in my own shit & weak knowledge, exposes my agenda for what it is, and pegs me correctly for what I am.” Got a problem with cherry-picking nuggets of truth?
You ignore me and more importantly, my advice, at your own peril in Mr. McKee’s forums. The natives appear restless for the banishment of an agent. You’re building yourself up to be a likely candidate and are pushing the limits, because maybe you know it could be your swan song. [Doesn’t have to be that way.]
Maybe we should escalate the test of your objectivity as a condition of continued participation here?
Dear Mr. Good,
You’ve made these arguments before and again overstepped your case just to be contrary.
Other than rumors of electronic jamming and blocking and other than pushing observers back a block or more, you are right that “the perps had no control over who might focus a video camera on the WTC.”
But what they did have control over was what amateur videos would make it out to a wider audience through the military-corporate media and what vidio manipulation such footage might undergo before such wider publication. Evan Fairbanks said himself that he was surprised at what his footage contained after he gave it to “authorities” or his “employers” and saw it broadcast live.
Face it: if you or I or just about anyone would have been lucky enough to capture a recording of the buildings blowing up without the benefit of an airplane, we wouldn’t be thinking how curious this was. No! Due to the repeat-repeat-repeat of the pixel planes, we would be thinking: “Damn! There were real planes and I was unlucky enough to have missed the money shot. No sense giving this footage out; it is boring and inconclusive compared to those other 44 shots of an airplane. No money for me. No five minutes of fame. No nada. Damn.”
Who cares how many hundreds of hotel rooms and offices looked out over the Pentagon? Not a single one of them had any reason at all to be studying the Pentagon intently at the moment of impact (or even seconds before) with eye balls, let alone with a camera.
And oh! The couple of dozen or so legitimate security cameras that did have reason to have some or all of the Pentagon in their view finders? Their footage was snapped up rather quickly by the FBI and never… no, never… ever released to the public in 10 years, except for 5 fateful and inconclusive frames.
Going around in circles, I see, Mr. Good. You and Mr. OneBornFree might have a lot to talk about in your free time away from Truth & Shadows.
“I have NO intention of conversing with yourself , or hybridrogue1, [or anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude]..”~onebornfree
At which point the question arises, who are you conversing with on this blog? Obviously you are having a conversation with yourself. Which is rather just a fart in the wind.
Stages in moods are a common human experience. Such stages in lucidity are however another matter. An “indicator” as is said in medicine.
Obviously your manner and attitude is mysterious to many of us here. Depending on my mood, I find it entertaining, at other times quite troubling. Whatever it is going on with you, I wish you the best of luck with it.
ww
Craig, I knock down faulty arguments. Most people not only can’t do that, most people don’t even recognize the value in it.
Here’s an example: Somebody comes in here and says “I know there are MIA POW’s in Vietnam. I saw a movie all about it. Sylvester Stallone was in it.” I say, “That movie was fiction. Don’t you know that?” Then Adam and Adam will be all over me “Don’t you care about the POW’s? How do you know there are no POW’s?” And I say “I don’t know if there are POW’s or not. I don’t have an opinion. I did see some evidence once that the Vietnamese were less than forthcoming.” Then oneslice is all over me: “First you say there are no POW’s and then you say there are! You contradict yourself constantly!” And you say “How can you take potshots at Rambo if you won’t share your opinions?”
I do argue for something. I argue for discarding weak arguments and sticking to strong ones. I argue that bullying and obfuscation are inherently self-discrediting rhetorical techniques. I argue that the official reports are inadequate, clearly corrupt, and scientifically untenable. We need new investigations. I argue that a bunch of hobbyists sitting around debating theories is a waste of time. I argue that CIT should do what you do with a hypothesis–go out and test it. Go out and look for flyover witnesses. Their reluctance to do so should be puzzling to everyone here, but it’s understandable to me.
The Pentagon doesn’t get a mention in my overview because I don’t believe the official story but I can’t prove it’s a lie.
People claim I’m trying to derail genuine discussion because they are unable to respond in any substantive way when I point out the flaws in their arguments and ask them questions they can’t answer. Look at oneslice! Still hasn’t seen that picture that shows the cab south of the bridge?
After all these years?
I am going to give you some points for this comment Brian Good. I think it does address the questions asked of you.
I think you may often have problems articulating this point of view, as well as misinterpreting answers by others that should satisfy you as a point countered. I will offer no examples but I have seen you answered with counter arguments that should cause reevaluation on your part, yet you stubbornly reject them. You often demand a negative be disproved.
I see this with Legge as well, in such attitudes as “it would be difficult to stage all the evidence of aircraft wreckage inside the Pentagon”. Well many things that are ‘difficult’ have nevertheless been accomplished. Very few things are impossible under the rules of the chain of command and need to know in military affairs – at least in the realm of appearances.
And it is in an attendant aspect of this that I found your arguments against staged light poles inadequate. You may be pretty reasonable, but you have proven a certain lack of imagination in your arguments. I do not mean imagination in is the sense of ‘fantasy’ but in picturing within your mind a speculative scenario.
ww
Brian, your arguments are pointless because they used simulations of aircraft, not real planes. It would not have mattered how many cameras were recording, because NPT does not require that NO SIMULATIONS OF PLANES WERE USED but only that, in New York, Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower and Flight 175 did not hit the South. I have offered many arguments that support that conclusion and the dual tenets of NPT that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. So you need to get a better grasp on NPT, because you arguments are, by and large, irrelevant to these questions. And if you think the flying thing in the Naudet video LOOKS LIKE a Boeing 767, you haven’t studied it. And the image of a plane shown in the footage of Flight 175 flies faster than possible for a standard Boeing 767, enters the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws, and all that. Plus it has no strobe lights, casts no shadows, and has a left wing that disappears EVEN BEFORE IT ENTERS THE BUILDING. I’ve explained all of this in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video faker'” and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. So do yourself a favor and study these articles.
~ Jim Fetzer,
You say this about the Naudet video :
“Plus it has no strobe lights, casts no shadows, and has a left wing that disappears EVEN BEFORE IT ENTERS THE BUILDING. I’ve explained all of this in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video faker’” and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate…”~Fetzer
Which is a confession that you don’t know ANYTHING about photography – digital or analog, and know zip about photo analysis. The claim that this object casts no shadows is balderdash on the face of it.
The main problem with this video is the lack of quality, not the lack of a real plane.
ww
I find it amusing that you hand wave – or fail to acknowledge any of my feedback to you Jim.
If I were to say “Dear sir” and refer to you as “Dr, Fetzer” and stroke your ego, would that make some difference in this?
I have more than a little professional experience in special effects cinema. I have looked deeply into this issue of ‘fake planes’ and phony video and still images, and it is my determination that the whole issue is hogwash.
~Willy Whitten Special FX Artist [Retired]
Interesting article, There will always be 2 sides to the ‘story’ some people will say it was all a setup others will go with the information released by the media. It is up to you what you be leave, fact is people will debate 9/11 for a long long long time to come!
Just as a general observation, I find people who get overly nervous over the presence of dissension to their particular views, are showing ‘bravado’ to blanket the case of their own subconscious insecurity for their own “certainty” in their own arguments.
In other words, they are afraid to face the possiblilty that some strong argument may arise to shake the foundations to their firmly held beliefs.
Those in favor of banishment’s do so from fear and insecurity. My opinion is such advice as theirs should go unheeded.
ww
“In other words, they are afraid to face the possiblilty that some strong argument may arise to shake the foundations to their firmly held beliefs.”
Yeah, “may” being the operative word. Any time you wish to discuss actual evidence, I’ll be here Hybridrogue.
A. Wright,
You assert:
“The only explanation that makes any sense at all is flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, flown by a group of Islam fundamentalists with a hatred of the US.”
Such a statement is only possible from someone who is totally indoctrinated in a myth of false history.
And as you and I have discussed this before, the historical evidence is clear, even from official sources that both the Taliban and al Qaeda are products of western intelligence in the creation of a “controlled enemy”.
It should be no great challenge to grasp that if this enemy is controlled by western intel then any act they purportedly commit is actually done under the control of western intel.
Any mind not under the influence of the propaganda of those in control of western intel can see in an instant the absurdity of your propositions. Your pretense at lucidity is belied by the dullness of your lumination.
ww
To those who would disparage Gage’s use of the word “quagmire” to characterize the Pentagon issue, have but to go through this very thread to see that the word is quite applicable.
It is self evident, regardless of ones personal take on this issue:
The Issue of the Pentagon is indeed a quagmire for the movement. But this is not to discourage debate on my part. I am only pointing out that it is such a contentious issue that anyone standing in wonder over how anyone cannot take for granted that a certain scenario is the ‘truth’ is not in living in the present moment.
ww
WW,
Don’t you think this thread is a “quagmire” because of the people who’ve hijacked the discussion into the direction of “no planes at the WTC”?
Hi Adam,
Actually I see it as a quagmire because of the breadth of opinions on the topic generally. But I would be easy to agree with you on the topic of “no planes at the WTC” as a primary example here, as I have great issues with that view personally.
But I do see the issue as so complex that it leads to battling beyond the issues raised in this particular thread. Who it is that has hijacked the thread is again, going to be a matter of opinion.
ww
Adam,
Just a short slice of addendum to my last comment: Of all the posters on this current thread the one I find most offensive is OSS, with his spamfest of copy and paste new age numerology technique of shill spotting.
This information should be standard fair for any in this business for any length of time. As far as clogging up the blog with BS, OSS takes the prize on this particular thread.
ww
As I said Hybridrogue, any time you wish to discuss evidence I’m right here.
And let’s set the record straight here. In the “Hollywood” blog, I was very patient with you and answered all of your questions with sourced evidence in the face of your dodging and arrogant posturing.
I even posted a detailed response to the actual flyover evidence which you demanded while ignoring the majority of the flawed arguments and sidestepping issues where you were proven wrong. What was your answer? “Banjo music”?
You went from endorsing the validity of the NOC evidence to demanding the impossible in one day. You were the one who labelled research by me as “spitoon juice” without actually addressing the issue.
Now, throughout this blog, continuing on from the other one, you’ve added nothing nor taken anything away. You talk a lot but don’t actually say anything. So, if you want to discuss anything that you’ve labelled “spitoon juice” or “banjo music”, I’m all ears.
OSS
OSS,
As you point out:
“I even posted a detailed response to the actual flyover evidence which you demanded while ignoring the majority of the flawed arguments and sidestepping issues where you were proven wrong. What was your answer? “Banjo music”?”
And you know why OSS…I already told you that I followed your arguments carefully and have been swayed by them. What pissed me off, and I have stated this clearly before, is that you stalled on naming your ‘flyover witnesses’ purposely for the entire thread until the very end. And we both know why – it is weak – unless buttressed by your ‘banjo music’… BTW, I actually appreciate banjo since seeing Deliverance. Yes, I pissed you off on purpose.
Like I have previously said…in fact time and again, I think the fly-over hypothesis is a very strong circumstantial case. I will not hand you ‘certainty’ on a silver plate, that is what has your panties in a knot.
Now you yourself finally admitted that this spamathon of the numerology of shill spotting was too much.
So why don’t you get off my case? What more do you want than 90 percent agreement, an oath of allegiance to the ‘Church of the Immaculate North Path’?
Get off your dogma and don’t put it away wet.
ww
Craig, if it’s easy to poke holes in what others say, then one should poke holes in what they say. Weak arguments don’t help the movement. There’s no need for any theories at all. The corrupt and unbelievable nature of the official investigations discredits them on their faces.
Brian
That’s not what I meant by “easy to poke holes.” I meant that all you do is pick at what others say, endlessly challenging for the sake of challenging, but never offering something yourself. By the way, you have not answered the question I put to you to my satisfaction. If you can poke at what everyone else believes then they should have the right to know what you believe.
Craig, if you don’t recognize the value of knocking down faulty arguments, then you don’t understand how ideas improve. I don’t “believe” anything except that the official investigations are obviously corrupt and that this country can not begin to set itself right until it faces the truth about 9/11.
Brian,
If you truly believed a new investigation was where the focus should be then you wouldn’t spend so much time picking at perfectly reasonable positions. You should spend more time attacking the official story instead of attacking other truthers.
“I believe in nothing everything is sacred”
“I believe in everything nothing is sacred”
The Chink, in the novel EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES
“I don’t “believe” anything”~Brian Good
The novel I quote above deals with existential issues of theology and philosophy.
Now as a grounding in the core epistemology of someone’s structure of thinking, this assertion as of, “I don’t believe anything” is certainly a valid base. However as one travels down the levels of paradigms one is faced with decisions. Those decisions are commonly referred to as beliefs, and systems of belief are manifest in practical terms as per mortal existence as material beings in the time/space continuum.
Denying that one has beliefs then can only be a matter of etymology, picking the term, “believe” and applying the central core paradigm as if it adequately addresses the realities of this practical situation of survival.
“Belief” and all its attendant variations is derived from the Sanskrit, a combination of “Bel” and “Eva”.
Bel is in essence to do with anger, tensions, the juvenile, war, rebellion…etc.
Eva is in essence to do with nurturing, motherhood, tranquility, calm, nature, earth…etc
Together they form a dialectic: Beleva. As one may notice the word itself is in tension, as it presents a dialectical in its very structure. It is inherent within the term itself that a rigid holding on to beliefs is error. That is dams the flow of the river of time and experience. In essence the term would be translated today as “True Believer”, as in the realm of “faith”, wherein logic is overcome to reach a desire not based on experience or reason, but a leap based on hopes and wishful thinking.
Now, as I said, using the phrase ‘I believe nothing’ is valid as an existential position – but it fails in the affairs of material existence, so many bardos below the primary existent point of ‘I am’.
What you are saying then, appears to me as, a quasi intellectual dodge. You apparently have opinions that are deeply held, that most would term belief {in a valid sense} – and you wish to hold those opinions from the eyes of this forum, as they seem to show you as less than a Truther, as most of us would define that term.
ww
I don’t need to attack the official story. It’s obviously a coverup and we obviously need new investigations. But going around spreading easily-debunked conspiracy theories is no way to bring credibility to the movement that is seeking new investigations.
Brian,
Your logic is starting to make me dizzy. You think we need new investigations, but instead of showing why we need this, you endlessly “debunk” the same ideas over and over again. You seriously think attacking flyover is the best way to get a new investigation? By the way, name one idea that has “improved” due to your intervention.
Craig, do I really need to show you why we need new investigations? Isn’t that assumed around these here parts? It’s true, I debunk the same ideas again and again. OSS is repeating the same erroneous claims I showed were wrong years ago. Flyover has had the effect of discrediting the testimony of the NoC witnesses–which might have been very serious had it been shown to be serious.
Brian,
Yes, I believe YOU do have to explain why we need a new investigation. Because you only seem to tell us whose theories you think need to be eliminated from the debate. You still haven’t adequately answered my question. Why do you believe 9/11 was an inside job? What exactly DID happen at the Pentagon (I know that may involve some speculation, but that’s okay)?
It’s only fair that you answer this because it will help the rest of us understand where you’re coming from. Give us the chance to check for “weaknesses” in your arguments.
“Flyover has had the effect of discrediting the testimony of the NoC witnesses–which might have been very serious had it been shown to be serious.”~Good
Not so Brian, the only “discrediting” of such testimony is that it did not necessarily make these witnesses, “NoC witnesses”, in most instances. That it has been ASSUMED that their testimonies are SoC, does not stand to further research in some instances – but this does not refute their entire testimony. It just proves that ASSUMPTIONS as to the official flight path have been cast in concrete by the msm.
ww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H81A3bU68k
Thank you Michael Cook
As per light poles – manholes in the sewer system under streets may be a key to that ‘magic act’.
ww
Show me the sewer covers.
And then Brian…if there should be manhole covers there?
Then it’s, ‘go down in one and show me the angles that would allow for the poles to be placed in and out’, right?
No, of course there is NO POSSIBILITY for anything until it happens or is proven.
THEN suddenly your attitude is “of course…it figures”
You’re an accountant, right? A beancounter.
ww
To Jim Fetzer,
You source Dennis Cimino within your articles as having the following credentials –
“Dennis Cimino, A.A., EE; 35-years EMI/EMC testing, field engineering; FDR testing and certifications specialist; Navy Combat Systems Specialist; 2,000 hours, Pilot in Command, Commercial Instrument Single and Multi-Engine Land Pilot, Eastern Airlines 727-200, Second Officer”
Can you please explain to us how Dennis Cimino can be a Second Officer on a 727-200 when the FAA Airman Database shows that he does not hold a Flight Engineer Certificate for such a position?
Thanks.
Well, Dennis has the documentation to substantiate it. Why don’t you send an email to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu about this and I will forward it to him and make sure the reply comes to you?
May I suggest Mr. Fetzer, that you arrange with Mr. Cimino to put all of this to rest by publishing his entire resume of his career with verifiable sources.
At this point he is rather a ‘masked man’, like the lone ranger, or zorro, which is fine for pulp novels, but is a point of intrigue in the practical world.
ww
I want to reiterate here Mr. Fetzer, I for one will not take Cimino’s credentials at face value. I want to see verifiable proof that he is what he claims to be. Otherwise it is just more hot gas billowing through the Internet.
This plan you have to pass this info around in personal emails is inadequate. There is more public information available on the web for myself than there is for Cimino, all roads lead to your joint paper in web searches.
~Willy Whitten
Senor Once, you are clutching at straws, including the “dumb witness” theory.
Pray tell, how does electronic jamming work on battery-powered video cameras miles away from Ground Zero?
Why do you restrict the publishing options for home videos to corporate media? There are many options today.
You think somebody could shoot the view of the west side from Brooklyn, note that there was no airplane when WTC2 blew up, and then see the same view on the news with an airplane flying in and tell themselves “Aw shucks, I missed it!”? New Yorkers are not dumb.
Your belief that nobody had a reason to run a video camera on the Pentagon is silly. Tourists stay in hotels. Tourists have cameras. Tourists staying in their room to watch TV could be expected to set up a camera to record whatever happens at the Pentagon–whether it be armored vehicles getting stationed at the perimeter, an evacuation, the arrival of a motorcade, helicopters flying in and out. You put the camera on a tripod, you set it running, it shoots two hours of tape.
You are inventing reasons to ignore the obvious challenges to your beliefs just as the debunkers invent reasons to ignore the issues raised by 9/11 Truthers.
Among the many postings of dear Mr. Good were these three that I’ll make brief commentary on in one go:
April 19, 2012 at 1:20 am
April 19, 2012 at 1:28 am
April 19, 2012 at 1:56 am
Mr. Good writes:
My claim was based on the validity of the following image that shows light pole and signage placement with respect to a NOC flight path into the Pentagon. Prove it in error, and I will amend my claim.
http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathmissespolescringhol.jpg
from
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51
Assuming the validity of the obstacles, the plane can either go around or over them.
One simulation shows the plane making steep almost-wing-dragging banking one way and then another to get from NOC to the SOC downed pole path. The simulation shows that it possible, but that the wildness of this manuever did not match eye-witness accounts.
An alternative is that the plane fly high enough to clear the poles and then swoop down to enter at ground level (yet leaving no crater in the foundation) in the extraordinary span of less than 400 feet, if memory serves me well on the width of the Pentagon lawn. Traveling at 500 mph (777 feet per second), this span is covered in 0.5 seconds. That pesky lack of a crater in the foundation kind of pours water of the inertia of an aircraft flying a downward trajectory from the height of the last NOC pole to the ground floor “entrance hole.”
You write:
9/11 had lots of mistakes. The NOC flight path was probably one of them, as was WTC-7 not going down with the WTC-2 or WTC-1, telly news people talking about WTC-7 going down 20 minutes before it did, videos of emergency responders pushing people back from WTC-7 and saying it was going to come down, WTC-7 having 100 feet of measurable free-fall, the overkill pulverizing aspects of WTC-1 and 2, …
The implication of an inside job is inescapable.
The continuation from you, however, is irresponsible, has no bearing, and is a very representative example of your truthy spin:
I’m not going to go too deep into your other postings.
Don’t ask for research that you have no intention of validating. Here’s a thread to give you a start.
Wild-ass speculation. Most electrical devices have at least one energy source (mains or battery) that undergoes conversion to different voltage levels as dictated by the requirements of various integrated circuits. Among the components used to convert energy are inductors and capacitors. These components can serve as antennas to receive incoming jamming electromagnetic signals at sufficient magnitude and appropriate frequency. In the parlay of the power management industry, these signals could trip built in protection circuitry (e.g., over-voltage protection).
The operative phrase is many options today. Options 10 years ago? They existed, but they were the vanguard. Common cellphones (and electronics) of 2012 are worlds apart from those of 2001.
Jumping to your conclusion of that posting:
The so-called obvious challenges to my beliefs have not stepped up to the plate with obvious actual videos from tourists gawking out of hotel windows with video cameras or any additions to the 44 or so clips of the (alleged) 2nd plane strike. Other than what videos we know the govt suppressed from locations around the Pentagon, the public pool of 9/11 imagery isn’t expanding by leaps and bounds any more.
I point out to you that even removing the ground-clearance requirement, the direct NoC path cannot do all of these: miss poles, enter the near ground-level Pentagon hole, and avoid putting a crater into the foundation. Any last-split-second change from the NoC path to the SoC path that would benefit from staged down poles to enter the ground-floor hole would result in serious wing tilting that no witness observed.
Bad analogy. A better one is that a flyover plot would be like planning to escape from a bank robbery in a guard uniform and armored truck. They don’t need to control who might be able to see or video the departing plane; they just need to control (a) what subordinates under their control say and (b) what gets edited for publication to the masses. [Paraphrased from Stalin: I care not what people vote for, but who counts the votes.]
Not true. I don’t remember his name. (Roberts?) He was on some South dock area [which is a bit misnamed from its actual location.] Because he heard the explosion and saw smoke eventually over the building (and all the later talk of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon) and because he saw an aircraft flying away right after the explosion, his belief was that there were two planes.
Runway 15 has been discussed before: ho-hum. While not recommended for fully-loaded 757’s, a proven exceptional (auto-)pilot already at 100 feet could accomplish this. Noteworthy? Please cough up the names of the regular plane spotters and all of the anomalous things they noticed at Dulles on 9/11? We ought to have detailed records of all the unscheduled and unprecedented landing of aircraft due to the FAA edict sent out nation-wide at or close to the very minute the flyover plane would have been landing. At which point, the anomalous plane is one of many scattered throughout the airport, and all it needs is a tail number tweak. Disposed of in plane sight.
Meanwhile, I point out to you that you are playing games.
There’s a very important fact that needs to be taken into consideration when listening to Roosevelt Roberts’ testimony (on two fronts).
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=roosevelt_roberts_jr__1
One is that he was totally aware of the trail of alleged damage through the lightpoles. Why? Because he was on duty at the heliport for 13 hours. This could very well have caused some of the confusion in his description of the finer details of “another aircraft”. He may very well have been moulding what he actually saw with the “directional damage”.
The other factor is his and another Pentagon police officer’s testimony that “military personnel” were “stealing evidence” during the evacuations. That is, military personnel were seen with alleged plane parts in their hands in the confusion. “Stealing” or placing? Depends on how you interpret the sight of it in that situation.
Slightly OT but in the same vein (in that the DPS – Pentagon police – arrested 3 fake firefighters on the 12th while a firefighter described fake firefighters on the 11th. Never been fully explained.
“Fake Firefighters and Military Imposters at the Pentagon After 9/11”
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com.es/2008/10/fake-firefighters-and-military.html
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php f=17&t=457&sid=752ea17c6b7f3ad267209f934baf68b5
This whole page is based on vague supposition and speculation- a stack of ‘maybes’ remains maybe. I am surprised your would direct us to such nonsense Señor.
Of course you did say this is “wild ass speculation” didn’t you? Well indeed it is, and nothing else. So what is the point in taking this flatulence into account?
That this is part is merely speculation is one thing, but that it is used in a long string of other propositions that are nothing but speculation as well, it comes to the point that the whole general proposition is a black hole of vacuous nothing.
ww
Craig,
If person A says there were no visible squibbs from the WTC towers as they went down and person B counters with multiple videos, photographs, and testimony of sqibbs. It is then person A who must either refute those arguments or conceed the point. Any point conceeded in this way will NEVER be used again by an honest person. An honest man who debates in good faith will never say there were no visible squibbs again. Therefore ANY time you see an individual repeating points that have been addressed and refuted previously you can safely conclude that the person is not debating in good faith. Erlier in this thread I layed out 3 logical reasons why Brian Goods argument “zero chance a flyover wouldn’t be seen” is a completely bogus argument. I also debunked the same argument from Brian over a year ago on youtube. Brian did not counter my 3 points then or now nor did he withdraw his bogus assertion. In point of fact Brian has continued to use that same bogus argument (argument from incredulity logical fallacy BTW) here and elsewhere regardless of how many times it is refuted. He is therefore proven to be dishonest and proven to be promoting disinformation. I can document multiple instances where Brian has been thoroughly and effectively debunked on a variety of points, was unable to counter those debunks and yet continues long afterwards to promote those same debunked ideas all over the internet.
If you have documentation that a person is dishonest and is promoting disinformation and if you give that person ample opportunity to address the issue and they can’t or won’t then it is NOT censorship to ban them. If you catch a person stealing money from your cash register you cannot allow that person to work in your store again. It is NOT wrongful termination to fire such a person it is appropriate.
I consider it my responsibility to debate in good faith, be honest, admit when I am wrong, and only promote information I can personally back up. When a person wants to post here they should live up to that standard at least. If they don’t then they are actually infringing upon the free speech rights of the other bloggers and doing damage to your blog no less than the person who steals from the cash register. How?
1. By hijacking or derailing threads they render them virtually unreadable.
2. By flooding threads other member posts become lost or diluted by sheer volume alone. (33 of 180 total posts were made by Brian Good at the time I posted this comment. Next closest was hybridrouge1 with 28 posts.)
3. By promoting disinformation other members feel obliged to spend their time countering it instead of adding to the ON TOPIC discussion.
Keeping people on topic is not censorship, it is necessary to prevent hijacking of discussions. If you see a post such as this one I am making now, which up to this point, has nothing to do with the topic at hand you would not be censoring me if you choose not to post it Craig. It is my responsibility to stay on topic which is why I am going to conclude this post with the following points ON TOPIC that tie all this together:
Brian Good was working very closely with Mr. Gage when I drove up to the bay area to interview Richard. In fact Brian’s desk was in the same small room as Richard’s. Brian was therefore in an ideal position to employ these same disinformation tactics, described above, on Richard on a daily basis. He was also in an ideal position to spy on everything A+E did and planned. He also had access to WTC dust samples Richard had. I know from meeting Richard, years ago now, that he was at the time VERY naive about infiltration of the truth movement. He was also naive about the importance of A+E in those early days and naive about what an important target for infiltration he would have been right off the bat. Those of us who went to interview Richard discussed that very issue with him at the time. All of us experienced truthers sensed he was in danger and sensed his naivete as well.
I don’t have a pay stub proving Brian is a professional disinformationist (an impossible standard of proof to meet BTW) however I do have proof he is a liar and that he is promoting disinformation repeatedly and relentlessly all over the net. He uses alias identities and has denied some of them are him while confirming to others that those same identities are him. One cannot be a liar AND a truther. The question for you Craig is how much money does Brian have to steal out of your cash register before you fire him and press theft charges?
I like to come here and read your excellent articles Craig but I hate having to sift through all the BS.
PS. No plane theories and DEW theories have been thoroughly debunked already and all any of us should have to do at this point is refer people who hold such theories to those debunks and see if they can counter those debunks. We should not have to address the same old debunked crap again and again and again. I don’t have the time or the patience to do that.
ruffadam says: “When a person wants to post here they should live up to that standard at least. If they don’t then they are actually infringing upon the free speech rights of the other bloggers ”
Get real. You [nor anyone else] has a free speech “right” here. It’s a private forum [as far as I am aware] , run by an individual who can make his own rules as he sees fit. If you don’t like his rules you are “free” to speak elsewhere. [hint-hint].
Your appeal to the moderator here seems “transparent”, to say the least.:-)
As to your claim that: “No plane theories … have been thoroughly debunked already” . Weeeell, maybe in your own mind. 🙂
And: “We should not have to address the same old debunked crap again and again and again. I don’t have the time or the patience to do that.”
Easy! So don’t engage in your fabulous, self-fulfilling NPT “debunks”, instead of whining to the moderator in hopes of , what exactly?
{ Although frankly, I’ll miss the sheer entertainment value of yet another person convinced that ordinary lead bullets will pierce even 1″ thick steel plating, that armor-piercing bullets could in fact be successfully made of aluminum instead of lead, that space capsules are made up of steel plates , or that the kinetic energy of a karate master punching through wood or bricks in a set -up demo [been there-done that myself!] has anything remotely to do with a 2mm thick skin of aluminum cutting right through 20 ton steel columns [question: why don’t they make saw blades to cut steel out of aluminum?] , and so on and so forth, “pie in the sky” fantasizing with a complete disregard for the actual real world physical principals that dictate exactly what _must_ happen absolutely every time 2mm of aluminum skin on a 140 ton plane collides with a stationary 500,000 ton immovable object made of 10-20 ton steel uprights and floor trusses with a layer of concrete over all of them}.
But, I digress. Regards, [for the time being] onebornfree
OBF,
I don’t need to debunk NPT or DEW theories because it has already been done many many times so I would simply refer you to those debunks and if you could not counter them I would expect you to conceed the point. If you are honest you will conceed. If not you won’t. It is simple and I don’t have to waste my time reinventing the wheel. Let me know if you would like to be refered to some NPT debunks. Keep in mind that plane swaps are a different issue from NPT though and plane swaps are still a strong possibility on 9/11.
P.S. Did you know that they can use high pressure water jets to cut metal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9hAM68K9OU
So please don’t tell me a fast moving airliner could not penetrate the WTC.
Adam, if you want to claim that I have lied you must prove it.
The argument against flyover is not an argument from incredulity. It is that there is no evidence–zero evidence–that it happened.
Your alleged “3 logical reasons why Brian Good’s argument ‘zero chance a flyover wouldn’t be seen’ is a completely bogus argument” are very weak.
1. Against the fact that not one credible flyover witness has been produced, you claim that nevertheless someone may have seen the plane and this person may have remained silent. Yes, and monkeys may have flown out of my butt, and one of them may have been wearing your wristwatch when they did it. CIT’s refusal to go out and test their hypothesis by looking for flyover witnesses is damning. Their inability to recruit anyone in the DC area to do this is damning,
2. Against the fact that not one credible flyover witness has been produced, you then argue that the view of the plane may have been obstructed. The thing about airplanes is that they are in the sky, and they move, and you can hear them. The thing about marinas and freeways is that they don’t have roofs over them. Anyone who spends any time at all on Google street view east of the Pentagon will see that the view is only very rarely obstructed. Your claim is based on need and ignorance.
3. Your idea that an explosion on the other side of the Pentagon should distract people from the sight of an airplane a few hundred feet high making a high-g 110-degree turn at a bank angle (I used to know exactly) of maybe 80 degrees is absurd.
So much for your “logical reasons”. So much for the flyover theory. All you have is stubborn denial of reality, and snitchjacketing.
Adam,
I wrote a long response to this post and then lost it. Not pleased. So I’ll abbreviate. I agree with you about the value of keeping threads on topic. I’m toying with the idea of creating other threads where other topics can be debated so that this thread, and subsequent ones, might not be pulled in so many directions. Not sure how I would do this just yet, but I’ll work on it.
Brian’s last post was a final straw for me. I’ve had enough of him. Perhaps this will help.
Craig,
Thank you for all that you do my friend. I share your concerns about censorship and agree with you that banning should rarely if ever be done and only as a last resort. When a person refuses to debate in good faith (no pun intended) and instead uses disinformation tactics and disruption tactics with the sole purpose of shutting down legitimate discussion you are justified in banning them. That is nothing like what 911Blogger did bgy purging masses of people who held positive views about CIT. You have given Brian more than enough opportunity to adhere to basic rules of debate and he won’t do it. I could write a lengthy article about Brians response to my 3 points and expose the layers of deception and obfuscation in just that single post. I would rather not do that though and instead read your next article. Anyway Craig you have again produced a great article well worth reading and discussing.
Thanks, Adam, for that support. And thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent contributions.
Craig,
I wholeheartedly agree with all of Adam Ruff’s major points above. Banning should be reserved for extreme cases as a last resort. However, there are certain criteria that make banning entirely appropriate when specifically applied to truth movements and truth forums. I would like to re-iterate one of Adam Ruff’s statements:
One cannot be a liar AND a truther.
The main criteria that should lead to automatic banning in a truth forum such as this is when one has established themselves through a clear pattern of behavior over a period of time as a liar and a remorseless disinformationist.
In the past I have personally been subjected to unjust bannings from certain online forums by overly controlling and biased moderators who seemed to want to force a certain limited range of consensus among the members or to pressure the members conform to a certain restricted range of views. In other words, most of the times it seemed to have more to do with reasons of censorship than anything else, despite claims to the contrary. So I am quite sensitive to the over-use of the banning hammer.
If I were a moderator of a discussion forum in charge of deciding who should be granted membership and who should lose such privilege, my criteria would be entirely based upon issues of the person’s integrity and honesty and disruptive behavior, and not at all based upon their views (the only exception being the restricting of certain kinds of hate speech, advocating of violence, or things of an illegal nature that could jeapardize the legal status of the site). But my tolerance for repeated and unrelenting dishonest behavior is extremely low and I do feel that there should be some clear rules for restricting such behavior.
Again, one cannot be a liar AND a truther.
“I know from meeting Richard, years ago now, that he was at the time VERY naive about infiltration of the truth movement. He was also naive about the importance of A+E in those early days and naive about what an important target for infiltration he would have been right off the bat. Those of us who went to interview Richard discussed that very issue with him at the time. All of us experienced truthers sensed he was in danger and sensed his naivete as well.”
I also agree with you on Mr. Gage’s lack of street smarts when it comes to 9/11 truth. Unfortunately, for all his smarts in mathematics and physics and design, Richard shows a stunning naivete in the social realm.
I remember on the very first day, in early 2007, when AE911Truth launched its website. Gage was actually so naive as to make the petition completely open, so that any charlatan could sign it and claim to be a structural engineer. And indeed, infamous JREFer Mark Roberts signed as “George W. Bush, structural engineer” and similar JREFers followed suit, then went back to their home forum and openly boasted about it, about how this proved Richard was a naive fool and hence a perfect addition to the “twoof” movement.
Even for someone who, at that time, was a complete novice at political activism, I felt Richard showed a breathtakingly stunning level of naivete to have not even considered the possibility that the enemies of the movement would sabotage an open petition right from the get go. I emailed him to inform him of the existence of the JREF forum and how nasty they are, and he replied with a message basically saying Thanks — guess we had to learn the hard way.
That was all the proof I needed to know that Richard was clueless with regard to movement infiltration. If he hadn’t even considered the possibility that open enemies of the movement, like the JREFers, would try and sabotage his project, then it certainly wouldn’t have occurred to him that the movement would be infiltrated by “fake truthers” as well.
His weakness is that he’s a good man who believes everyone is well intentioned and who wants to please everyone, yet he’s also the spire on top, and when you’re on top you can’t please everyone. That’s true in any large organization. Increase the order of magnitude by 100 when you’re dealing with the revolutionary nature of the 9/11 truth movement and the infiltration it would attract.
Thanks for this post about Gage. I see him the same way as you outlined. I think he is an honest broker that ended up in a pit of vipers. His work on the architectural and structural analysis of the WTC has been a boon for the movement, regardless of his mind boggling naivete.
ww
Dear Mr. KeenanRoberts and the honorable participants of Truth & Shadows,
I apologize for not responding under your posting of April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm. I felt an off-shoot of the topic deserved to be promoted to the top level.
You make excellent points on No-Planes (NP) and its physics that certainly have me thinking and reconsidering perspectives. In fact, many nuggets of truth on related but tangential topics have been jarred free for me to see.
For the sake of discussion at this point (because you tire of it), let’s assume your points on physics and poor quality video to be more or less correct.
When the dust settles, two themes come into view. This passage from you is a lead-in for the first theme:
I haven’t seen it debated ad infinitum in other places. I haven’t been everywhere or to JREF. I’ve been to 9/11 Blogger which is supposedly more mainstream 9/11 Truth; they banned me while in the registration process saying that certain topics (coincidentally the trick ponies I ride: NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood) were too contentuous. I don’t don’t this, given what online provacateurs can do.
I am personally experiencing a revelation in thought that is akin to a rabbit-hole tunnel collapse throwing formerly buried nuggets of truth down upon my head.
Nuggets of truth.
Nuggets of truth have to be mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from the disinformation sources before anyone should dismiss them. Why?
There is not a single facet of 9/11 that hasn’t been run through the disinformation process. This includes even super duper nano-thermite [nugget of truth] that we are led to believe is the end-all-cure-all for explaining the destruction and its after math [nugget of disinformation].
Here is the incorrect framing:
The proper extension to this analogy is:
A shiny nugget of truth is indeed September Clues and Dr. Wood’s textbook as being “deceptively crafted for the purpose of misleading.” But the bruise on my noggin came from a particularly hefty nugget regarding the lack of rational discussion on the topic. Where is the movie review or book report that goes chapter-by-chapter and gives us all three: the good, the bad, and the ugly? Who has the courage to see the good therein?
You lament the brain-dead trolling [on T&S of Mr. OneBornFree for Clues Forum and Mr. Goldberg for Dr. Wood’s textbook]. It is suspect for sure, and I took no pleasure in clobbering them for their clumsy efforts. By my analysis, their worst fault is that they overlook the truly good in what they supposedly champion and in a display of ugly misframe the bad as good. Easy pickings to be debunked.
On the flip side, we have things like this statement from you:
I’ll ignore “same breed… trolling and spamming MO” comment. To a balanced degree that it applies to me, it also does not.
More importantly…
Sweep it out of sight, eh? Proving that the methods are numerous by which the derailment of objective review is attempted.
The reason that these topics — NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood — keep re-appearing is that they have unaddressed truths [e.g., massive energy requirements, anomalous after effects, full-sprectrum dominance in the military-corporate media]. Normal duped useful idiots like myself see this, but we are few who can articulate a stink. Any 9/11 theory-du-jour to be valid is required to address these nuggets of truth.
We should be fearless when we reach into disinformation pits to snag and rescue nuggets of truth.
Part one of such a thread already exists. Until Mr. McKee can write on these themes, this is as good a place for any for Part Two. It is rather appropo that the article is about Mr. Gage.
Senor El Once, I like your posts and have something to discuss with you. Please make email contact via jfetzer@d.umn.edu. Thanks very much.
Good point, hybridrogue. Conventional sewers would make the transport of 20 foot lengths of lightpole difficult. Thanks for acknowledgeing that it’s not even worth looking for manhole covers.
Brian Good…good gawd, what absolute bullshit thinking…
You say:
“Conventional sewers would make the transport of 20 foot lengths of lightpole difficult. Thanks for acknowledgeing that it’s not even worth looking for manhole covers.”
“Difficult”? How the fick would you know? Have you ever been in the sewer system yourself to estimate how much headroom there is? What is ‘conventional”? There are reasons for a variety of sizes of pipes used underground – there is no standard ‘conventional’ size, it all depends on the amount of flow in particular places.
As a teenager I actually did exploring in the LA River system, you have no idea how large some of these pipes are…obviously.
Of course you are loath to factor in the unknowns – even for speculative purposes. I would posit that it is more than a bit likely that there are underground facilities under and around the Pentagon. I KNOW that there is an underground Disneyland in So Cal almost the size of the above-ground complex. We all should know by now that the military is big on underground networks, and hypothesizing that the Pentagon isn’t in this network is very weak supposition.
You speak to others for ‘grasping at straws’, while this last post to me is a prime example of a handwaving dismissal riding a straw.
As others here, I am getting way tired of your truncated manner of thinking and instant leaping before looking where you are going to land. This time you land in another pile – and I know you still won’t cop to it.
ww
Very interesting detail about Brian Good, Adam.
1. On the one hand, we have Richard Gage allegedly retracting his endorsement (quoting Chris Sarns’ ridiculous paper – Brian Good and Chris Sarns are on the same “page”)
2. We have just been told that Brian Good shared the same office space as Richard Gage (which needs to be confirmed by Richard Gage himself)
3. Brian Good is a full time disinformationist/sock/disruptor on anything Pentagon related (plus his attacks on Willie Rodriguez and sexual harrassment of Carol Brouillet). This is beyond doubt to honest researchers and activists.
Craig, is there any way that you could contact Richard Gage and ask him if he indeed shared an office with Brian Good? And if he’s aware that this same person is guilty of disruptory tactics/disinfo? That his style of debate is partially the reason for the manufactured “Pentagon quagmire”?
Cheers
Yes I personally went inside Richard’s office along with Jeremy Roth Kushel of WACLA, Drew Piper also of WACLA at that time now webmaster of Oathkeepers, and Cheri Roberts. We all met Brian there sitting at his desk on the other side of the room from Richard’s. Contact Richard, he won’t deny it. Contact Jeremy or Cheri or Drew as well.
Brian Good says: “I don’t need to attack the official story. It’s obviously a coverup and we obviously need new investigations. ”
Brian, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are living in fantasy land if you believe that a new errmmmm “investigation” by an ermmm, “independant commission” [or whatever :-)] , in otherwords an “investigaton” run by the exact same corrupt government bought and paid for individiuals and institutions as the first time around, would somehow come to any significantly different conclusions, next time out.
To roughly paraphrase, isn’t the definition of stupidity [ or at the very least , naivete] something like: doing exactly the same thing over and over and expecting a different result the next time?
Elsewhere in this thread you have said that you do not trust the governments story- why on earth would you be looking for it to investigate itself yet again, using [presumably] your very own money to reach a conclusion you surely must know it would inevitably reach?
Regards, onebornfree.
That onebornefree, is the most lucid post I have seen you make in my whole experience with you here.
A new investigation, to be deemed valid, can only take place after the illegitimate regime ruling this nation is put in the dustbin of history. And the chances for the “nation” surviving such an upheaval are slim indeed.
ww
Craig, I never said 9/11 was an inside job. Why would I say such a stupid thing? It’s a 9/11 Truth movement, not a 9/11 Inside Job movement. What happened at the Pentagon? How would I know? I wasn’t there, the government lies, eyewitnesses tend to be confused–and some people have been so busily heaping the issues with nonsense like invisible flyaway airliners and secret agent cabdrivers that the whole area is just a toxic swamp. Even the claims to which Dr. Griffin gives credence of damage in A-ring and B-ring are based on very weak evidence.
Brian,
Yes, it’s all weak evidence, isn’t it? You have no beliefs to challenge but everyone else’s research is weak. I don’t believe that and I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you are discussing in good faith. This LAST post shows that clearly. Believing 9/11 was an inside job is stupid? No, I’m the stupid one for letting you lead the Pentagon discussion on this blog in circles for this long. It’s enough.
Bravo Craig.
His intention has always been to disrupt and poison rational debate. His flawed tactic is the insistence that others run in circles to prove his point. When his illogical and impossible demands were whittled down to the bare bones he’d do a complete flip and totally contradict his original stance.
Good, Chris Sarns, Adam Larson, Jeff Hill (and his muppets) and Snowcrash used the same tactics. Others like Victoria Ashley, Erik Larson and the other snipers used their gatekeeper positions to censor and spread disinfo.
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42641&postcount=50
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42642&postcount=51
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42645&postcount=52
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42646&postcount=53
Brian Good is even on record as admitting that his sole intention was to disrupt and antagonize
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/ar/t1094.htm
My head is completely flipped on reading what Adam Ruff just disclosed. Imagine having that character in your ear all day?
I can’t imagine. And that’s a very revealing quote from Good.
“I never said 9/11 was an inside job. Why would I say such a stupid thing? It’s a 9/11 Truth movement…”
Well, there we have it Good, you finally packaged your bullshit and labeled it.
You could have saved a lot of web space playing this Joker card from the get-go.
If you actually think that the Truth Movement as a grand majority isn’t of the opinion that it was an inside job, you have been sedated for ten years. You are a thud on a lead bell.
ww
As per Jim Fetzer’s commentary on the airplane strikes on the towers, I would like to point out what the structural engineers who built the buildings thought as per aircraft crashed into them:
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door — this intense grid — and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”~Frank A. Demartini
Isn’t it interesting then that when we do have airplanes crashing into them it looks remarkably like Demartini’s description of a pencil puncturing the screen netting?
He had no idea that the building should have batted the plane to the street without damage to the building as the ‘new physics daydreamers’ are now claiming must be the case.
It is obviously not the ‘physics’ that is wrong here, it is the application. Everyone here is aware of the basic Newtonian laws – those are not in dispute, it is the allegorical rhetoric that is disputable.
Clearly there are qualified scientists that have diametrically opposing view to this matter.
For Fetzer to pick his favorites and ignore the visual evidence as well, is clearly a form of ‘appeal to authority’, as he is only ‘advised’ and is no more a physicist than I am.
And as far as Senor, he may know some, but he is not a physicist either. Yea yea, “woojie woojie” yourself pal.
ww
Some of those commenting here are obviously unqualified, which includes hubridrogue1. He not only does not understand the structure of the Twin Towers or the laws of aerodynamics, but appears to be massively ignorant of elementary physics. I earned my Ph.D. at Indiana in the history and the philosophy of science, where the history of science is dominated by the history of physics. As an undergraduate at Princeton, while I majored in philosophy, I also took a year-long course in physics, when Princeton was ranked #1 in the world in physics, philosophy, and mathematics. Not all of us are as ignorant as he appears to be.
Moreover, if he had read any of my studies, he would see that I offer photographic and documentary support for every claim I make. That he cannot do simple research on me before he attacks me is overshadowed by his indifference to the arguments I have made and the evidence I have amassed to which I have provided links. He needs to get a grip, because this pretense of knowing what he is talking about has grown thin. Review “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, to appreciate the full dimensions of the problem, including relevant videos.
Ho ho ho, Now an appeal to your OWN authority…that’s rich Fetzer. How can you assume I haven’t read any of your bullshit? How can you even begin to assume I haven’t read various critiques of that very same bullshit as well?
Thanks for the load of hot air.
So Mr. Fetzer, where can we find your champion’s precise calculations for the impact on the towers? I would like an explanation of how he chose certain values and left others out. If he claims he has left nothing out, let me confirm this myself, and through second opinions. Has this work been confirmed through a peer review of capable physicists?
Is there an abstract containing his initial assumptions?
Please confine your response to the specific issue of the impact, and skip any dramatic yada to ‘set the stage’. We all know the stage. At the moment the plane strikes building…what? This must be addressed as part of the overall analysis – even if there is an assumption that the plane could not have hit the building, for both purposes of falsification and continuity – all aspects must be addressed.
ww
I will address just one more aspect of Fetzer’s contentions as per video fakery at WTC. If there is no response, I will leave it here. This concerns the video analysis aspect:
Ace Baker is in my view a voodo hoochie dancing showman. He is good at building models in CAD programs, and adequate with limited digital animation, but as far as visual forensic analysis he crashes and burns.
His, and others claims that the plane flying into the second tower, ‘ just glides in as if it is flying through thin air’, is proven wrong for years now, by other video experts as well as scientific calculations.
It is proven that the video evidence shows this substantial slowing as the plane’s center of gravity reaches the impact point, and in fact this matches the same percentage as the famous Jet on a skid-rail smashing into the concrete barrier.
And before mixing apples and oranges about the utter disintegration of the jet in that test, and no penetration of the barrier, this aspect has no bearing, as the concrete structure was built specifically for this test to have that strength.
The point to the comparison is simply the momentum calculations at impact. They are almost exact for both impacts as far as percentage of momentum lost from center of gravity to tail impact.
ww
As another example of this man’s complete incompetence, the Sandia fighter blew into millions of tiny pieces and its velocity dropped to zero. It did not penetrate that concrete barrier, any more than a Boeing 767 could have penetrated the South Tower, when it was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete. In this case, however, it effortlessly enters the building with no deceleration at all. I recommend him for “Dunce of the Year” award.
You know Fetzer, comparing the concrete barrier to the structure of the tower is an idiots game that anyone with two brain cells to click together can figure out.
The point of the Sandia comparison was the momentum measurements. That jet didn’t merely smash to pieces all going at the same speed, there was measurable slowing from the center of gravity impact point — JUST LIKE the plane impacting the tower. This has been shown numerous times, and no matter how many times you deny it the fact remains.
I recommend that people recognize you for the charlatan you are.
ww
The Sandia plane was an F-14 that was filled with water, strapped to a railroad frame, and run at around 500 mph into a concrete barrier. It’s momentum fell to zero. It blew into millions of tiny parts. None of it passed through the barrier.
The South Tower plane was supposed to be a Boeing 767 which was mostly filled with air, was not strapped to a railroad frame but was shown to be flying at around 500 mph, which is not even aerodynamically possible for a 767 at that altitude.
The South Tower plane displayed no loss of momentum, as frame-by-frame analysis shows, where its momentum should have fallen to zero while the plane crumpled, its wings and tail fallen off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground.
None of that happened. The Salter argument, which this guy endorses, would be ridiculous if it were true, since a modest deceleration doesn’t cut it. In fact, he blundered by using two frames of reference. But the equal distance/equal times argument destroys that illusion.
That a buffoon like this guy continues to post more and more drivel in an endless stream would indicate that he has no brains at all, until you realize that he is simply trying to blow smoke in the hope that some here are going to be misled. I think most of the forum has caught on.
Where does he come up with this stuff? I have explained over and over again that, when we do a frame-by-frame advance, the plane purporting to be Flight 175 passes through its own length and enters the South Tower in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That means there is no deceleration at all, when the velocity of the plane should have dropped to zero.
I cannot understand by persons who are so blatantly incompetent insist on posting on issues where they have no grasp of the issues. This point, by the way, was first made by Joe Keith, who was the software engineer who designed the on-ground “shaker system” for Boeing to determine the stress levels at which aircraft fall apart. His article, “Joe’s Law”, may be found at http://nomoregames.net.
“Joe Keith, who was the software engineer who designed the on-ground “shaker system” for Boeing”
C”mon Jim, Joe Keith? This person is not an aeronautical engineer – he is a software code expert. All he did was translate actual engineers information into code. He has no more comprehension of the physics than a layman.
I imagine you will jump to Lear soon enough…when you have nothing, you don’t recognize when others have nothing either.
ww
This is idiotic. Anyone can do a frame-by-frame advance on those videos. Everyone knows that d = r x t, which means that equal distances in equal times entails equal speeds. I cited Joe because he was the first to advance the argument, not the source of its validity. Someone like you must enjoy making a fool of himself, because you do it again and again and again. You are a total absurdity.
“Everyone knows that d = r x t, which means that equal distances in equal times entails equal speeds”~uncle fester
yea yea yea – anyone can read the analysis in the papers I cite and see that the times are NOT equal on close examination…except for you and your woowoo cult.
You cited Joe, because why? I thought he was mr shaker rattle and roll…now he’s also the origin of this cutting into the towers like butter spazdrivel?
Say hi to your CIA, Air America pilot friend – Mr. Lear for me the next time you chat.
He really blew it for your ‘too fast’ woowoo didn’t he? Too bad, that really knocks the legs out from under this whole load of loony baloney.
ww
How many truly stupid posts are we supposed to tolerate from this man before we conclude that he is either incompetent or corrupt? The decleration would not be more subtle than at Sandia, in case you didn’t notice. The F-14 came to a complete halt. None of it penetrated the barried. It’s velocity dropped to zero.
I have observed that the South Tower was somewhat more porous than that barrier because of its small, narrow windows, which were designed to keep light and heat out to reduce the problems that more air conditioning would pose. Some of its parts would have entered the building, but most of it would not have.
To keep pushing some sublte form of deceleration when the frame-by-frame analysis shows that it did not occur–that there was NO deceleration–is truly stunning. Here we see a high-wire act by a seemingly intelligent man in promoting an hypothesis that has already been refuted. It is fascinating to watch him squirm.
Why is this too difficult for hybridrogue1 to follow? IT ISN’T. He just can’t bring himself to admit that he has been wrong in believing that remote controlled planes were involved and therefore he wants to deny the evidence that shows these cannot have been real planes, remotely controlled or not. He blundered and won’t admit it.
So anyone who disagrees with his false claims about deceleration, which are absurd on their face, has to be the one who is not only wrong but actively trying to thwart the discovery of truth, when it is he who is promoting falsehoods. So who’s pushing disinfo here: hybridrogue1 or Jim Fetzer? Not a difficult choice, but embarrassing for him.
Jim Fetzer says: “when we do a frame-by-frame advance, the plane purporting to be Flight 175 passes through its own length and enters the South Tower in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That means there is no deceleration at all, when the velocity of the plane should have dropped to zero.”
Exactly. But then, you and I are in the presence of many people who would claim [with a straight face, mind you 🙂 ], that the video in question [ for example: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html ], is “too low resolution” and lacking in detail to make that “outrageous” claim.
As if resolution/clarity effects the number of frames in which the purported event occurs. You have to laugh 🙂 . Har, har, errrr… har. 🙁
My advice Mr Fetzer? Give it up. You cannot sway the minds of persons who already 100% fully committed to the governments story, at least in this regard [i.e.that there were real planes flying into buildings , all captured on film by fine, upstanding citizens, to prove the governments case beyond a reasonable doubt -hooray for those fine upstanding citizens and their amazing skills with instantaneously tracking objects moving at 500mph !] .
Even if you point out that what they are actually are defending/upholding is a crucial part of the governments very own pack of “evidence” lies, it makes no difference; it is psychologically impossible for them to ever conclude the “amateur” videos [let alone the Fox5 sequence] are all low quality fakes, so don’t even try.
In my own experience, such persons will steadfastly review any/ all evidence that contradicts the idea that planes were captured on video entering either the WTC1 or 2, with a sharp pre- bias towards their own fiercely held, pro-government [with regard to plane crashes] convictions.
Psychologically speaking, because of their own pre-bias towards a part of the governments story [ a bias of which they are not even aware], they are incapable of impartially reviewing any/all evidence examining the physics of the events depicted , simply because it threatens what they believe they already “know”, and , [subconsciously perhaps ,sense], that reaching the common-sense conclusion that the video and others like it are all fakes is simply way too much for their fragile psyches to handle.
Which to a degree, I understand. After all, it is no easy thing to come to the conclusion that the government was also lying about the 9/11 plane videos, when historically speaking [and forgetting 9/11 for the moment, even though every part of that official story is also a lie], in its entire existence, they’ve already lied about just about everything else for 200+ years! 🙂 . I mean, whodathunkit? JFK, Pearl Harbor, MLK, Tonkin, Apollo 11 – Fake plane videos as well ? Good heavens- whatever next , a fake currency ?
Hybridrogue, ruffaddam and others here are all stuck in their own little ‘the government is telling the truth about the planes” world. Let them stay there. Lord have mercy on their naive little souls.
Fortunately, common sense [and the truth] _will_ win out.
Any unbiased, physics uneducated layman will eventually conclude , just by employing their own common sense, that there’s a very good reason why steel-cutting saw blades are not made out of aluminum, nor armor-piercing bullets, and likewise, that 2mm thick aluminum plane “skins” on aluminum frames, even if traveling at the impossible,[government claimed- therefor a lie] close to ground speed of 500mph, cannot instantaneously cut through multiple 20 ton steel girders and cause planes to disappear whole, inside 500,000 ton steel framed buildings without slowing down by even one frame, even on a low res. video.
Regards, onebornfree.
“As if resolution/clarity effects the number of frames in which the purported event occurs. You have to laugh . Har, har, errrr… har.” ~ reports our darling soup brain oneboringfree
The argument as per clarity and pixels has nothing to do with with the number of frames, it has to do with the illusions extreme pixelation/resolution can cause when not enough information is contained in an image – ei, the appearance that a wing seen edge on at a distance seeming ‘disappearing’.
We have gone over your lack of visual acuity and ignorance of the technologies sufficiently on this forum at length back and forth on several different threads.
ww
Another dumb feint intended to induce the false belief that a subtle deceleration would have proven an impact with the building. How many times do I have to explain that that is wrong?
As at Sandia, a real plane would have come to a complete stop, its velocity dropping to zero. But that didn’t happen. There is no way to salvage his argument, no matter how long he tried.
Brian Good says:
“What happened at the Pentagon? How would I know? I wasn’t there, the government lies,”
Brian, if you truly believe that ” the government lies”, as you say it does, why would you then choose to believe selective parts of its very own story in order to “refute” other theories which contradict the governments claims? This does not make logical sense .
Regards, onebornfree
“Where does he come up with this stuff? I have explained over and over again that, when we do a frame-by-frame advance, the plane purporting to be Flight 175 passes through its own length and enters the South Tower in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air…”
Says Mr. Fetzer…
Then you have “explained over and over again” a load of twattleplat – who’s your “we” in this instance, you and your monkey?
Here are a few instances of actual lucidity on this subject {which you should be well aware of by now}:
Rebuttal of Ace Baker’s “Chopper 5 Composite” Analysis (August 1, 2007)~Eric Salter
Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity (April 11, 2007)~Gregory S. Jenkins, PhD
Letter added to A Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories (March 21, 2007) ~Eric Salter
Your sources are not trustworthy and have committed blunders that have been exposed in the past. Eric Salter, for example, used two frames of reference to produce a modest deceleration. But in fact there was none and the velocity of the plane should have gone to zero. You are truly incompetent.
Brian Salter is backed up by Gregory S. Jenkins, PhD, as well as a personal analysis by Professor Jones – all of these analysis showed the same thing, that there was indeed a slowdown as impact occurred. of course it is imperceptible with the naked eye – many things happening at high speed are.
The plane DID go to zero while inside the building, but for the jet fuel and some parts making it through the other side. You are truly incompetent…and you claim to be a PhD.
As far as I can tell you are either a charlatan or you are really as flat out stupid as you are making yourself out to be here. If you took the time to read Jenkin’s paper and STILL won’t admit you are wrong…well, let the miller tell his tale.
ww
You are either incredibly stupid or are here to stir up rubbish. There is nothing subtle about this. The plane’s velocity should have dropped to zero. That is what happened at Sandia. The F-14 did not pass through the barrier, and Flight 175 should not have passed through this massive concrete and steel structure. Citing unworthy sources, with whom I am completely familiar, doesn’t cut it. I have already explained how we know what you are peddling is false and all the phony arguments from all the Salters, Jenkins, and Joneses of the world cannot change true into false. People like them can have a powerful affect on the weakminded, however, of which you are a sterling instance.
So now we cut to the chase aye Fetzer, your dispute with Jones et al….so now they are the villains in this movie. You can’t keep up with real science is your problem.
Those who buy into your rubbish, and the Shack’n’jive BS, are the same loosers off on a wild goose chase with their favorite woowoo guru.
As I said before, I have a long resume as a special effects artist, and I know special effects when I see it, and I know real world photography when I see it. The whole trip of ‘digital fakery’ is a red herring to lead away from valid research.
Why would you want to invalidate all of the visual evidence in the 9/11 case?
This is the real question.
ww
*cough*quagmire*cough*..
Any chance Hybridrogue?
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4450
As for the off topic NPT. Jim, I asked you this question at Pilotsfor911Truth (maybe you didn’t see it).
You’re basing your claims on the visual evidence of the impacts caught in the very same footage that you claim has been doctored. In one of the videos you linked to, “Ghostplane”, it was shown that the impact could also be inserted.
If as you say, all videos of the tower impacts have been manipulated, and that aircrafts were inserted into those videos, shouldn’t all of the footage be rejected as a basis for anything?
Well as far as cough cough, etc…???
But I cannot agree more that Fetzer’s tale is a circular argument.
I have to agree with Keenan, arguing with Fetzer is like arguing with a carny hawker over whether his solid gold watch is worth the twenty bucks he’s asking for it.
He has obviously blazed a trail out into the weeds like a pied piper – and the children have followed.
ww
There is nothing remotely circular to infer from the occurrence of impossible events in a video to the conclusion that something is wrong, since impossible events cannot possibly occur. Hence, either the video has been altered (by CGI or video compositing) or the planes have been faked (in different ways regarding Flight 11 and Flight 175). I explain all of this in such excruciating detail in “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo” that only someone who has no capacity to reason or an op spreading disinformation could play the games that you play here. I leave it to readers to decide which you are–and possibly both.
You have not proven the crashes into the towers are “impossible events” Fetzer.
Personally I think these were specially modified aircraft, and certainly understand all of the evidence proving they were not the commercial craft involved. It is a leap into fantasy however to postulate video fakery or holograms to explain the visual evidence.
I’ve read the debates between you and Balsamo on the Pilots site. If you think you came off as anything other than a fool in those exchanges…well here we are at the bottom line again.
How you were ever able to manage getting PhD in anything is a grand mystery.
ww
You misunderstand my position. Because they include impossible events, they cannot be authentic with regard to both the integrity of the videos and the reality of the planes. Some, such as Rosalee Grable and Ace Baker, believe there were no planes and that the videos were altered after the fact by means of CGIs or video compositing. If that is the case, however, then all of the witnesses who reported seeing a plane BEFORE any videos were broadcast have to be wrong.
At least some of the witnesses seem to be completely sincere. (Hear my interview with Scott Forbes on “The Real Deal”, for example.) Since no real plane could not perform the feats that we observe in the videos, we must be dealing with something that looks like a real plane but is not a real plane. Indeed, it has no strobe lights, casts no shadow, and has a left wing that disappears BEFORE it enters the building, as the last video on “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” shows.
When you study the evidence I have presented there and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, it should be obvious that “Flight 11” does not resemble a 767 and has to be a simulation, which I conjecture may be four UAVs in close formation. “Flight 175 likewise has to be a simulation, but of another kind, probably a sophisticated hologram. If you or another serious student has a better explanation, I would be glad to consider it. Flakes can wait.
Since Pilots has shown that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh at the time, by the way, what we have here cannot possibly be Flight 175, which means that one or another form of video fakery has to be taking place here, which is why I cannot understand Rob’s rejection of video fakery. I suspect he does not understand the meaning of the phrase, which covers either altered videos or faked planes. If this isn’t Flight 175, then we have to be dealing with here video fakery, necessarily.
I have been meaning to say that I have appreciated your posts here. I have probably not read all that you have written, but your comments, like those of several others, are a breath of fresh air compared to some of the moronic drivel that keeps popping up again and again and again. So I appreciate your being here and have yet to figure out why we were at odds on the Pilots forum. From what I can tell, we seem to be very much on the same page about these four crash sites.
Anyone who does not understand classic Newtonian physics should not be addressing any of these issues. Anyone who has studied the design of the South Tower should recognize that no plane could enter this massive, 500,000-ton building without displaying the effects of a collision.
But this “plane” effortlessly passes through eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns, filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which represents an acre of concrete apiece and enormous horizontal resistance.
Some here completely ignore these eight (8) floors and accept the Purdue animation, which I have demonstrated to be completely fraudulent in “Reason and Rationality: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. It is pitiful to see grown men offer childish claims and expect to be taken seriously.
“Anyone who does not understand classic Newtonian physics should not be addressing any of these issues. Anyone who has studied the design of the South Tower should recognize that no plane could enter this massive, 500,000-ton building without displaying the effects of a collision.”
Says Mr. Fetzer, as if there was no display of the effects of the collision. The impact did show an explosive impact, debris did fall, the very shredded type of debris one would expect.
It is as if Fetzer is reporting from some alternate universe here – as if he is talking about completely different videos than everyone else has seen.
Yes the buildings were massive, and they were also built in that unique tube fashion, with a facade meant to impart a certain amount of flexibility – certainly not the bunker facade of the Pentagon, and especially not the massive reinforced concrete structure Sandia built specifically to test the impact of a plane against an immovable object.
Failing to recognize the vast differences of these two structures is jejune or dishonest.
ww
I want to make an important point about the “Hani Hanjour flying skills” argument.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4305
First off, there is no verifiable proof whatsoever that “Flight 77” crashed at the Pentagon.
F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14406
Secondly, the alleged “hijackers” were never verifiably identified
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf
The official spin about “hair samples” allegedly taken from a hotel room to identify some of the “hijackers” is mentioned nowhere in that report.
An FOIA requesting the “bodies identified” only reinforces the above when only “58 victims” were allegedly listed ( bar 2 year old Dana Falkenberg). No “hijackers” were listed.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Olmsted_foia.png
There were allegedly 64 passengers.
http://www.911myths.com/images/b/bf/Flight_77_Manifest_Moussaoui.gif
Even though the debate over this alleged personality, Hani Hanjour and his alleged “pilot skills” is irrelevant seeing as how there is no verifiable proof that “Flight 77” crashed at the Pentagon, even that claim is full of holes and leaves more questions than answers.
http://www.crono911.net/public/doc1/Hanjour%20License%20AP.pdf
Just 3 weeks before 9/11, “Hani Hanjour” was described as a “shoddy” pilot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html
Cached here
http://web.archive.org/web/20020405020924/http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story
More details and chronology of events here
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/53603/1/
The “Hani Hanjour” is on record as being a “bad pilot”. End of story.
Even the CIA mouthpiece, CNN, didn’t mention Hanjour’s name in initial “intelligence reports” of alleged hijackers involved on 9/11.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/bn.01.html
Discussed here in David Ray Griffins piece “Was America attacked by Muslims on 9/11?”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-America-Attacked-by-Mu-by-David-Ray-Griffin-080909-536.html
Finally, which of these people is “Hani Hanjour”?
Taken from the FBI released images of the alleged “hijackers” here
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6eonppuEMEo/S5EL-G7UP1I/AAAAAAAAJwU/edOOTBykCxw/s640/untitled.bmp
A “Hani Hanjour” as per FBI
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Hani_Hanjour_1.jpg
A “Hani Hanjour” still withdrawing money
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/images/hani_hanjour_3.jpg
A “Hani Hanjour” in alleged Dulles Airport security camera still
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/hijackers/dulles_hanjour2.jpg
Which is it?
No doubt Good would label this as “spam”, but there is nothing linking “Flight 77”, let alone terrorists to the Pentagon attack. “Hani Hanjour” is a phantom.
“Hani Hanjour” is a phantom.” ~ OSS
Agreed, the whole hijacker tale is a story they made up: al Qaeda is a subsidiary of western intel.
The whole ‘War on Terrorism’ is a myth of gargantuan proportion.
Let’s cut the spat OSS – we have more in common than in dispute.
ww
What a ridiculous claim: OSS is honest and sincere and dedicated to the truth. You could not be more opposite. It is disgusting that you are here trashing everyone who is speaking 9/11 truth.
KMA Fetzer, I have had enough of your oink.
If 9/11 ‘truth’ is confined to your bullshit no-planes nonsense then it’s finished.
ww
Gage said to McKee just now, ““It would have been a more honest approach to declare that, ‘We think the plane flew over the Pentagon, but our witnesses who we using to make that point didn’t see anything like that. In fact, they said they saw the plane hit the building.’ ”
It appears Gage is still leveling charges of dishonesty. Let’s see if this charge stands up to scrutiny. Here’s a link to the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
William Middleton does say on the film that it hit: “Where it hit at, it used to be the heliport.” See 36:25.
Craig Ranke says at 44:15: “While all these witnesses believe the plane hit the building, their unanimously corroborated placement of the plane is in direct contradiction with the South Side approach.”
And less than a minute further, the point about witnesses ducking, flinching, running the other way after first seeing the plane is made. Darius Prather is quoted as saying: “No body was really tryin to look to see if it would hit the building or not hit the building, everyone was running for their lives.”
And at 48:56 “It was almost like, not really going in nose first, it’s like almost just like at an angle.” Those are the words spoken by Sean Boger, the guy in the heliport tower. Mr. Gage, did you notice dem words “going in?” That would indicate that the witness believes the plane hit.
Furthermore, at 49:34, Ranke says: “Although [Boger] reported the plane hit the building, his corroborated placement of the plane on the north side proves it could not have.”
So how could Mr. Gage possibly claim to have been “surprised” to later learn that the witnesses say the plane hit?
@Cubic Sphere
What worried me more was this statement in the interview
“RG: “Right. Ya. There’s a lot to be resolved there. I actually don’t have an opinion on whether the plane flew over the building or went into it. That’s not part of my statement. But I do believe there was a plane. These witnesses saw a plane, that’s an important distinction and also a disruptive set of elements in the 9/11 Truth movement. Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement think there was a plane.”
And
“RG: “I didn’t want to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, because both sides of this argument are very convincing and very difficult, and I needed to be done with the issue and get off the fence.
“I’m not interested in pursuing the points any further because I’m already behind in the work that I’m doing and I need to focus on that. But if there’s some kind of information that proves something I might be inclined – probably not, though – if it draws the 9/11 Truth movement together instead of splitting it apart then I’d be … I’m a servant of the 9/11 Truth movement, ultimately.”
He needs to distinguish between the truth and an organization that calls itself the “Truth Movement”.
onesliceshort says:
“I want to make an important point about the “Hani Hanjour flying skills” argument……….”
You see what Mr Good is doing?
He says elsewhere that the government lies, and yet he repeatedly counters none- believers alternate hypotheses with an assumption that the government is telling the truth about whatever government learned “fact” he employs to counter with .
Thus, Hanjour is absolutely assumed to be an unarguably real person [ i.e absolutely no possibility that he’s not], and therefor a real pilot who piloted a real plane into the Pentagon.
Then that “fact” is used to “refute” an alternative proposition regarding what did/did not happen at the Pentagon[ or wherever].
However, as you demonstrate, the problem with Mr Good’s initial assumption [that Hanjour was/ is real] is that there is absolutely no good reason to assume that Hani Hanjour , or even Fl. 77, ever existed.
Even more curious than that: why does a person who repeatedly claims here that the government lies, then assume that the government is telling the truth about Hanjour, or about any other “fact” that the government claims about what happened at the Pentagon, or indeed anywhere else on 9/11?
Beats me.
Others here do exactly the same thing when they start their counter arguments by assuming that a certain parts of the governments story are undeniably true [e.g. that planes flew into the North and South towers and into the Pentagon, or disappeared whole into the ground in PA, [ an even more blatant violation of the laws of physics than even the WTC1 and 2 fantasy tales, if ever I saw one 🙂 ].
And yet out of the other side of their mouths they will ,at the very same time, all seriously argue [with a straight face, no less], and insist that the government is verifiably lying about _other_ [individually cherry-picked] parts of its grand fairytale story – but just not the bits they have, for some strange reason, assumed to be unquestionably true. [for example, that planes really flew into buildings- it must be true because the government says so, “eye witnesses” say so, and because they saw it on some crappy “amateur” video, or “live” on Fox5 TV etc. 🙂 ] .
And so it goes.
regards, onebornfree
Onebornfree,
I think Mr. Good has been “sent to the cornfield” {as in that old Twilight zone episode}…
ww
Jim Fetzer said: “it should be obvious that “Flight 11″ does not resemble a 767 and has to be a simulation, which I conjecture may be four UAVs in close formation. “Flight 175 likewise has to be a simulation, but of another kind, probably a sophisticated hologram. If you or another serious student has a better explanation, I would be glad to consider it.”
Well, Mr Fetzer, whether or not I am a serious student is very much open to debate [especially here 🙂 ] , but nonetheless, I have a perhaps “better” [than plane inserts,UAVs ,holograms] explanation concerning the videos allegedly depicting both Fl 11 and Fl. 175.
If you are interested, I will email it to you.
Regards, onebornfree
Sure. I would be glad to hear from you–a refreshing break from dealing with some who post here.
“Jim Fetzer said: “it should be obvious that “Flight 11″ does not resemble a 767 and has to be a simulation, which I conjecture may be four UAVs in close formation”
Yea that;s it sure…four little planes in tight formation, that’s what it was….jeeeeezis, this is too funny, this is burlesque – right you guys…??
WTF?
ww
This is the crux of the paper by Jenkins:
There is a 70% decrease in velocity just after the tail section passes through the outer wall, not 0% as alleged by Morgan Reynolds3 and others, representing a net loss in kinetic energy of 91%.
A very small change in velocity of the tail end is not unexpected. Analysis of an F-4 Phantom jet aircraft impacting a massive slab of concrete at Sandia National Laboratories shows no loss of velocity of the tail end during collision within the measured error.
However, this miniscule deceleration does not represent the deceleration of the entire airplane,
only the tail end. The center of mass represents the motion of the entire airplane. Since the front of the aircraft decelerates faster than the tail due to impact, the center of mass shifts towards the tail end. Therefore, the center of mass of the plane travels less distance than the tail.
Using Figure 7-34, 0 one can see that the center of mass only travels approximately 75% of a plane length over 0.2 seconds which represents an average velocity of 406 MPH. This results in an average decrease in velocity of 406/542 = 25%.
[[ For chart and full argument see:
Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower – By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics ]]
ww
This is incredibly insulting. There is no decrease in velocity–none! If there were, then a frame-by-frame analysis of the plane passing through its own length into the building could not possibly occur in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. This proof does not require more complicated calculations than addition and comparison, which overrides what he is shoveling here. If there had been deceleration, this method would have detected it; and, since the effect should have been gross (by its velocity falling to zero as it impacted with the building), no amount of subtle hand-waving can salvage the case. This man is insulting your intelligence.
Repeating the same argument over and again against this material isn’t going to make your argument any stronger Jim.
Are you now going to tell me that this PHYSICIST is “obviously unqualified–does not understand–massively ignorant–complete incompetence– ” and perhaps even recommend him for “Dunce of the Year” award ”?
ww
What could be simpler: d = r x t. So if “the plane” passes through its own length (distance) into the building in the same number of frames (tiime) it passes through its own length in air (distance), then it has to be passing through both (equal distances in equal times) at the same rate (speed). That a member of this forum is suggesting that I am a dunce when the most elementary physics shows that I am right and he is wrong is beyond belief.
If I believed he was sincere, he would qualify as a mental midget, but the explanation obviously lies elsewhere. His repeated claims that I am supposed to be some kind of “disinfo agent” or “liar” are contradicted by the evidence, including our respective positions about elementary physics. If he were both serious and competent, he would be so embarrassed that he would not show his name here again. This is a nice example of projection.
“If there were, then a frame-by-frame analysis of the plane passing through its own length into the building could not possibly occur in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air.”~Fetzer
That is the whole point of the analysis presented here mr repeato – a frame by frame analysis shows it does NOT pass through toe impact site in the same number of frames…did you even read the damn thing? Or are you just bluffing, hoping no one else will read it themselves, because the great and mighty wizard of Oz has spoken?
Remember by your assessment of the act of criticism – this is an “attack” on this person, perhaps even characterized as vicious because of it’s repetition.
ww
Jim Fetzer says: “This man is insulting your intelligence.”
That’s pretty much all he/it does, as you are discovering , Jim .
P.S. He appears to believe that the government and its bought and paid for media is somehow telling us the the truth about planes hitting buildings. Why , I have absolutely no idea, but I’ll hazard a guess:
Specifically, this would appear to be because so doing [ i.e. supporting the idea that there were planes hitting buildings because the government /media said so] , supports his very own fiercely defended theory that remote -controlled planes were used – therefor the videos _must_ be real, otherwise his very own pet “how they did it” theory is “cooked”, which is a threatening idea for him. Persons like him simply cannot allow their pet theory to be wrong. Not a chance. Its a [big] ego “thing”, if you will.
The never-ending” insulting your intelligence.” ingredient is all a part of the same “modus- operandi” , used in order to defend an “incontrovertible” conclusion that appears to be under attack and cannot afford to be proved wrong [resultant ego damage because of inflexible position held].
Outside of my own, admittedly weak guess, why anyone in their right mind would believe _any_ part of the governments “official” story, such as: ” there were planes and they flew into buildings”, and actually vigorously defend it in print, and yet still claim , out of the other side of their mouths, that [paraphrased] “it was an inside job and the government has lied about just about everything else”, is beyond me, but what do I know?
Still, in the end, if nothing else, his “posts” do have a certain amount of “curiosity value”, I suppose . 🙂 . Regards, onebornfree
The plane in the Naudet video occupied a space only about 20 by 20 pixels, not enough to show much detail even if the video were in focus. You might as well try to duplicate Michelangelo’s “David” using bricks. The claim that the video should have clearly shown a 767 is an amateur argument born out of a lack of understanding of how
resolution affects the clarity of that image. And this misunderstanding continues.
Compounding the misinterpretations due to blurry footage, the no-planers were originally using a half size, compressed mpeg movie to conduct their analysis. Moreover, Webfairy performed processing on this low quality movie which created even more degraded images, aptly described by Mark Bilk as “abstract video art.” The no-planers, not knowing what full quality video was or what compression artifacts were, claimed these muddy, altered images were proof of the absence of a real plane. The observation of wings “flickering” on and off is one good example. These “flickering wings” only occur in the poorer quality video in which the brightness of the wing closely matches that of the background.
What is happening is simple: noise and compression artifacts blur what little visual data there is of the edge of the wing. The wing then becomes indistinguishable from the background in that frame, hence the “disappearing wing” anomaly. Whether it happens or not in a particular frame is determined by random dispersal of noise and compression artifacts. But stepping back from the technical analysis, the flickering wing claim itself is fundamentally illogical: Other video angles show no flickering wing, undercutting the idea that the hologram was malfunctioning. And flickering like this simply does not happen in 3D animation unless the artist programs it to happen, thus eliminating the TV fakery hypothesis. `Salter
[[ A Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories ]]
ww
To appreciate the irrationality of his position, just look at the evidence. See, for example, “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'”. A 767 has a wingspan of 150′ which should cover 3/4 of the 208’ width of the side of the North Tower. I looks nothing like a Boeing 767 and creates four hit-points when it comes into contact with the building, a “Z” configuration that turns into an elongated “V” after the smoke clears. Anyone who tells you this is a 767 is contradicted by readily-available evidence.
WTF Fetzer??? You repeat again: “It {sic} looks nothing like a Boeing 767” – after the whole point of the paper is to explain why it looks nothing like a Boeing 767 — because of lack of resolution and focus. The wingspan issue is resolved by the same token – the combination of lack of resolution and focus means a loss of visual information for the thinnest parts of the airplane – so you arent seeing the total wingspan to the tips. All of this is explained in plain straight forward language above.
You’re claim of “Z” to “V” is due to the same problems of lack of focus and resolution, the smoke is obviously going to change shape at the impact point.
You say,” Anyone who tells you this is a 767 is contradicted by readily-available evidence.”
But by the same token and this is the point of dispute: Anyone who tells you this cannot be a 767 doesn’t have any idea of what they are talking about, has no aptitude in photo analysis, and completely mis-comprehends the issues of this argument.
ww
No one who reviews the videos I have included at the conclusion of “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'” is going to be taken in by this smooth-talking used car salesman. Check them out. No real plane could enter this building without displaying any effects of collision. There is no deceleration. The plane does not crumple. Its wings and tail do not break off. No bodies, seats or luggage fall to the ground. It does not even explode until it is ALL THE WAY INSIDE THE BUILDING. But that is impossible. It should have exploded upon impact. This cynic believes he can deceive you with his silver tongue. But he is in fact exposing himself has someone who trades in falsehoods and fraud.
“No real plane could enter this building without displaying any effects of collision. There is no deceleration. The plane does not crumple. Its wings and tail do not break off.”~Fetzer
Regardless of the resolution/focus problems with this particular film – you are making the same tired and disputed arguments that you have been making for years for all of the visuals of the WTC plane hits
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your argument has brought, not only no extraordinary evidence, but has in fact only offered loopy unfounded theoreticals and absurd argumentation.
And you further assert this:
“But he is in fact exposing himself has someone who trades in falsehoods and fraud.”
Which is the crux of the whole biscuit; just WHO in fact is the one, “who trades in falsehoods and fraud.”
ww
Sorry, WW, missed this one when moderating.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqXb2CTu50?rel=0&w=480&h=360%5D
I see no reasons that suggest this video to be anything but real.
Please pay special attention to the starboard wing of the plane and notice how the two timber poles slice right through the wing with relative ease.
By the looks of it such round timber poles would have a diameter of around 12”.
It’s hard to gauge the speed of the plane, but for argument’s sake let us say 300 Km/h.
(We can of course already imagine what will happen when the speed of the plane decreases proportionally, i.e. the wing resist the impact with the poles more and more, ending up remaining completely intact).
The question we must ask ourselves is simply this: What happens to the wing in regard to the impact with the timber pole when the speed of the plane increases?
Will the timber pole with more ease slice through the wing the faster the plane fly?
Or, as some would argue, will the wing experience a regeneration of strength in direct proportion to the increase in speed, and become stronger and stronger again, in such manner that a reversal will occur and a point will be reached by the increase in speed where it is now the wing which will slice clean through the timber pole?
(At this point let us quickly replace the timber pole with a 14” x 14” steel column firmly anchored in its place, and continue).
If the latter is the preferred option by the plane-hugger-impact people, and which it seems like, then i can see nothing but big problems ahead, as some very pertinent questions will then have to be answered!
In this case where a transition between two mutually extreme possibilities take place based on speed and impact, a point of absolute equilibrium between the one condition and the other must be found.
We must ask, at what speed does the wing experience its optimal stage of vulnerability to the impact with the steel column before us, as seen in the video? (Remember the poles got replaced)!
At what further faster speed does this vulnerability start to decrease, finally to stop, and instead a transition suddenly begins whereby the wing continuously gains in strength, along with the increasing speed of the plane, getting so strong that it is now the wing which actually slice through the steel column this time?
Do we measure this point of transition within the speed/distance of one kilometer, a meter, a centimeter, a millimeter, smaller??
At what speed between our estimated 300 Km/h. and ca. 900 Km/h. do we find this equilibrium? And why?
These are some of the questions the plane-huggers will have to answer first and foremost, but will be unable to, as this problem is of course unsolvable. It cannot happen this way, so we have no other choice but to simply disregard this second option.
The first option must therefore be the right one: The faster the speed, the more easily the steel columns will slice through the wings of the plane. It is as simple as that!
But that’s not what we see at the cartoon cut-out holes in the towers façade. On the contrary. Here we see the steel columns sliced through by the wings of the alleged plane, which in true reality is an impossibility shown by the foregoing proof.
In addition to this, we see the alleged plane with an estimated speed of around 900 Km/h. slice effortlessly through the perimeter wall and stop dead in its track just inside the building!
We know this, because a fireball first starts to take place on the east side of the building within the first 1/3 of the total horizontal tower depth of 64 meters, followed by a fireball coming out of the entry hole straight after. Not to forget also of course the third fireball coming out from the north wall in hot pursuit after the famous nose-out configuration that appears first.
We know that the alleged plane was banking prior to the alleged entry into the tower; starboard wing tilted up and port wing down, covering over 6 floors.
We know the flight path of the alleged plane, so know that the fuselage and the starboard wing and the vertical stabilizer would have missed the center core columns.
We know that most of the alleged plane would have encountered nothing but open floor space; reason being that we can disregard the resistance of the trusses owing to the angle of approach of the alleged plane; and that 6 to 7 floors of 4” concrete on steel pans only constitute approximately 800 – 900 mm. of spread out solid resistance. (Remember that the steel columns and spandrels had allegedly already been penetrated by the whole plane at this point)!
And yet the alleged plane comes to an instant halt from a speed of 900 Km/h.!!! while there was little to hinder that most of the broken apart or broken up parts of the plane, ostensibly caused by the no- more-there-façade-lattice and the floors, continued their forward momentum at high speed (in spite of the explosions and fireballs) through the empty spaces of a very short distance with a split second to the next perimeter walls!
But we see none of that. We see nothing of substance penetrating from the inside either the east wall or the north wall. We see no indication whatsoever.
(We can forget about the alleged ‘engine’ part)!
And we can forget all about the so-called ‘physics’. All we really have to do is using all the power and all the strength of our minds, together with the imaginations and the intuitions we have all been so handsomely endowed with, and soon we should all be able to recognize the total baloney and all of this inane and insidious humbug they are trying to stupefy and stultify us all with!
Conclusion: There was no plane impact. All plane-huggers will have to rethink. There’s no other way!
Cheers
Tamborine man,
It is obvious from this video that the plane has already impacted the ground at the time it’s wing is hitting the pole, which means the integrity of it’s structural properties are already compromised.
In other words, nice try but no cigar.
ww
“plane-huggers”….now ain’t that cute?
As the rest of your argument has been address countless times, I will leave you to stew, as per my daring to even address your majesty.
ww
Tamborine man,
You obviously don’t understand Kinetic Energy Physics. You can babble on all you want about what you speculate “might” or “should” happen at such and such speeds, but, as they say in technical parlance, “You don’t know shit from shinola”. FIrst of all, the plane is not just impacting the pole/column with the mass of just the leading edge of the wing, it is impacting with all of the mass behind the leading edge of the wing that is greatly increasing its momentum, whereas the pole/column is standing perpendicular to the lateral force of the plane, which means much less mass is being used to resist the plane, as well as the fact that the plane is impacted the pole/column at its most vulnerable orientation where it is most likely to give. Think about it: If you were to flip the pole/column around to where it is impacting with the plane head on at its smallest profile, the pole/column would go through the plane rather than vice versa. Steel skyscrapers are designed primarily to resist vertical forces from the gravity of the structure pulling downwards. Steel skyscrapers are not engineered to resist anywhere near as much force laterally. Second of all, Kinetic Energy multiplies this difference in mass exponentially as the speed of impact increases. KE = 1/2 M x V^2 (Kinetic Energy equals one half time the mass times the velocity squared). For example the difference in Kinetic Energy, or penetrating energy, of an object traveling 10mph as opposed to 500 mph, which is multiplying the velocity by 50 times, results in the Kinetic Energy being multiplied not just 50 times, but by 2500 times!
Now, Tamborine man, why don’t you run along and do some homework. Go study some Kinetic Energy Physics, and when you can prove to us that you have grasped the subject, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, when you come back with some CALCULATIONS where you can show us some actual NUMBERS (i.e., how much mass of what is impacting with how much mass of what and how much kinetic energy, etc.) rather than your baseless uninformed babble, then we MIGHT be able to have a worthwhile conversation about the subject. Otherwise, don’t expect anyone to take your pseudo-science nonsense seriously. Mkay?
This is very revealing. Where are the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed to the entry of a Boeing 767? Speaking only of one force involved is clearly a form of deception. And remember that, the effects of a 767 flying 500 mph into a stationary 500,000 ton tower would be the same as a 500,000 ton tower flying at 500 mph into a stationary plane!
He has never even acknowledged that, as Pilots has shown, a standard 767 could not fly at that speed at that altitude. So we know something is wrong from the beginning. And, as I have explained many times now, it was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other.
They were filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which means each represented an acre of concrete. Think about the effects if a plane in flight were to encounter just one of those floors suspended in space and you can being to appreciate the enormity of the fraud that this man has been attempting to perpetrate on this forum–again and again and again. It is insulting to our participants’ intelligence.
To appreciate the depths of deceit involved in these replies to Tambourine man, just remember that the effects of a plane traveling at 500 mph just skimming the ground (which is not even aerodynamically possible) and hitting a lamppost (not to mention a series of lampposts) would be the same as a stationary plane being hit by a lamppost (not to mention a series of lampposts) traveling 500 mph: the wing would have been ripped apart and the fuel stored there would have burst into flame. What could be more obvious? According to the official account, none of that happened, which means we are being sold a fantasy. But these guys–who must be among the most gullible saps I have even encountered, if they are sincere–buy it hook, line, and sinker. I guess P.T. Barnum was right when he said, “There’s a sucker born every minute!” Here are two.
Fetzer exclaims:
“This is very revealing. Where are the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed to the entry of a Boeing 767? ”
But his question is even more revealing, the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed to the entry of a Boeing 767, would only be applicable if it were asserted that the airplane knocked over the building by it’s impact.
The only applicable calculations are those involving the physics of materials, momentum, and kinetics.
It should be very obvious that this argument you have is misplaced and misleading.
ww
Faulty Conceptualization
The bat and ball analogy is misplaced unless adjusted for materials and configuration of both objects.
I would assert that the more exact analogy would be an orange slice batted by a tennis racket.
So the logical result in that would be if the building were “picked up” and swung at the plane, the same effect would ensue as we have seen at the impact. Just as the orange slice would be strained through the racket, the plain would be ‘strained’ through the building.
ww
The weaknesses of the “9/11 Truth Movement” is that it is vulnerable to distractions, to infiltration, to bogus evidence, and even to nonsensical arguments.
I have pointed out in a lucid manner that Fetzer’s arguments are nonsensical. I have pointed out here on this forum that he has zero comprehension of photographic analysis – his arguments against Salter’s quotes being a prime example.
Fetzer also makes spurious arguments against a PhD in physics – a credential that Fetzer dare not claim for himself. He continues to argue that ‘counting the frames’ proves his point, when it is indeed verifiable that on closer examination by actual video experts, verified by the Sandia data as well proves him wrong.
I am therefore unwilling to continue any more debate on these issues. If Fetzer has other issues he wants to bring into the picture, I will address those. But continuing a back and forth on the aspects we have already been through is futile.
I will state for the record here, it is my opinion that Jim Fetzer is a 9/11 disinformationist, that he is being dishonest and is attempting to lead the movement into untenable ground. I see this as not only self evident, but also that I have given some prime examples of this behavior. That I am not alone in this assessment is a matter for others to discover – I only speak for myself in these public exchanges.
This is my bottom line on the issues of what is shown in the visual evidence. If Mr. Fetzer would like to proceed to other issues it is fine, I will address those.
ww
“it is my opinion that Jim Fetzer is a 9/11 disinformationist, that he is being dishonest and is attempting to lead the movement into untenable ground.”
I concur, and I would further add that Mr. Fetzer has so sullied the reputation of Indiana University where he received his PHD in the history and philosophy of science, that if I were Indiana University, I would revoke his PHD immediately.
I consider Jim Fetzer to be just as dishonest and ill-intentioned as Brian Good and has no legitimate claim to being a member of any truth movement. To put it simply, Jim Fetzer is a liar, not a truther.
Well, then it should be easy to show what I have wrong, which neither you nor your little buddies have done, in case you haven’t noticed. Just show what I have claimed, explain why I have made that claim, and then explain what I have wrong and how you know. It is certainly true that I have no patience for fools and frauds, where you and hybridrogue1 take large pieces of the cake.
You’re too funny, Mr. Fetzer. You know full well that your pseudo-science nonsense and false interpretations of Newton’s Laws have been debunked over and over again on so many forums, and yet you always pretend that no-one has ever responded to your bull crap. On top of that, you make all kinds of bogus physics-related claims without backing any of it up with calculations and refuse to submit any of it for peer review like any legitimate scientist would do (for obvious reasons). Then you attempt to reverse the burden of proof onto others who have been asking you to prove your claims when there is no numbers or calculations presented by you to disprove. Who do you think you are fooling?
It requires no more than elementary physics, d = r x t, to demonstrate that no deceleration takes place. Counting frames and comparing them is elementary calculation. So you are wrong on both counts: I have proven my point. And onebornfree has confirmed the impossibility of what we are observing, where there is no deceleration and the plane does not explode on impact. Some of us may have a few loose screws or display ignorance of physics, but that would be you two, not us.
Here we have a typical example of the feeble arguments that hybridrogue1 has advanced. When he suggested I had no background in physics, I explained that I had earned my Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science, where the history of science is dominated by the history of physics. I also observed that I had taken a year-long course in physics at Princeton, when it was ranked #1 in the world in physics.
I have explained several times why this massive, 500,000-ton building would have posed enormous resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight, especially when it would have been intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete, where each represented an acre of concrete.
He talks about the kinetic energy of an aircraft that was traveling faster than is aerodynamically possible for a standard 767, as Pilots has confirmed. So at the very least, if he were candid, he ought to acknowledge that this cannot be Flight 175. Moreover, Pilots has also determined that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh at the time.
He cites Eric Salter and Greg Jenkins as thought they were trustworthy sources. But their claims of modest deceleration upon impact are absurd on their face: the plane should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. Its fuel ought to have exploded on impact. None of that happened.
Most importantly, its velocity should have fallen to zero, as occurred with the Sandia experiment. In that case, the F-14, which was filled with water, blew apart into millions of pieces. None of it passed through that massive concrete barrier. The South Tower had small and narrow windows, so some parts would have entered the building.
But most of it would not. Even the engine found at Church & Murray was not from a Boeing 767 and turns out to have been planted. How much of this rubbish are we supposed to swallow? It is a common technique to resort to ad hominems when you are out-gunned in argument. What this man has been arguing has no basis in physics.
So he can cite all the authorities he wants, but bad arguments are still bad arguments. The fact that, using frame-by-frame advance, we find that “the plane” passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames as it passes through its own length in air settles the question. One of us is a fraud, I agree, but it ain’t me.
“I also observed that I had taken a year-long course in physics at Princeton, when it was ranked #1 in the world in physics.”
If that is true, then that proves that you should know better and are intentionally presenting bogus physics arguments. Shame on you.
Again, repetition will not correct a false argument.
As far as your PhD it is in the History of Physics as I recall.
I had a teacher who was a PhD in Art History…he could draw and paint at about the 6th grade leve. Appreciation for and a master of are two separate propositions
But it is not any ability that I doubt – it is the matter of intent which is my indictment.
I think Onebornfreak is just a silly dupe, but Fetzer is another case, he is a mucking shill, a saboteur of 9/11 Truth…worse than an Albury Smith, as he is inside the gates of the movement.
ww
Since you are unable to defeat any of my arguments, you resort to more ad hominems. But even at that, your incompetence at research is showing. I earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. I also spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. I can spot phony arguments as effortlessly as that plane entered the South Tower, where you turn out to be as flaky as they get. Why are you posting so much rubbish? Have you no sense of shame? If you think I have something wrong, then prove it. Your puerile ramblings show you have nothing of value to contribute here, where I am sure I am not the only one to question why you are here at all.
Jim Fetzer says: April 22, 2012 at 1:23 am
“Since you are unable to defeat any of my arguments, you resort to more ad hominems.”
Rather than address the rest of the post which is another redundant bout that has been addressed over and again, just let me say that Fetzer has that grand ability to be insulted by another,s “ad hominems” , while being quite adept at slinging these at others.
In the very first posts on this threat that he addressed me we find:
“obviously unqualified–does not understand–massively ignorant–complete incompetence–I recommend him for “Dunce of the Year” award ”
~Fetzer in just his first two responses to my comments, which he characterized as “attacks”.
Whether anyone has defeated your arguments Fetzer is not for you to judge for yourself. As you claim to have taught, ” logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,” you should already realize this.
ww
Sorry if I’ve missed it, but could somebody please point out the response to my earlier question?
How can video footage that has been claimed to have been tampered with, be used in any capacity whatsoever, to draw any scientific conclusions from? If it’s claimed that holograms were used, and that aircraft were inserted into the footage, who’s to say that other elements weren’t manipulated?
I haven’t got the credentials to debate the physics of the impact, but there is one image that stood out to me.
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcsouthtowerzoomhole.jpg
If this impact hole were indeed created by explosives/shaped charges, how were the indentation marks created where the left wing and lower part of the vertical stabilizer would have struck?
As for the “nose out” footage (as with the real reason I personally believe NPT is designed to distract from other anomalies regarding impacts), discussed here
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804353
Particularly this superslowmo video of an 84mm Carl Gustav HEAT 751 Shaped Charge tandem warhead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6j9wEF1sf8
Can you see the “nose out” effect?
Addition to above post
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/attacks_nyr124.jpg
OSS,
How does the left wing enter the building without breaking off when there appears to be no opening much beyond where the engine would have gone through? And don’t some of those steel columns look like they’re bending out?
I know I’m committing blasphemy by wondering these things, but that hole doesn’t strike me as one that would accommodate a 767 without the video showing large pieces breaking off. I don’t have the credentials either, but this pic doesn’t convince me of much. If I’m missing something, please help me out.
Hi Craig,
If you are speaking to the first jpeg, I have given my impressions in my first comment to OSS since I have been back from lunch. I don’t see any steel members sticking outward.
In what portion of the photo do you see this?
As for the second shot of the outward blast, I see nothing whatsoever incongruent with this photo as per the angle the plane would have been at – it appears to me as a fuel ignition blast, with mostly small particulates. A larger piece of something seems to be just above the flaming part….what is the question here?
ww
One more point, it is my opinion that the wingtips and tail would not have simply broken off, they would have shattered to confetti – and we do see this in the impact video, quite a bit of shrapnel flies off the front of the building with a fairly substantial flame burst – nothing to compare to the burst on the exit side of course.
ww
Hi Craig,
I can’t explain the more central area of the impact hole. It would be a lie for me to say that I don’t have problems with how the aircraft managed to penetrate.
So, I looked at the impact damage itself and tried to envisage how they would create or physically carve the “illusion” of an impact using explosives. What I can’t figure out is how they could create precise indentations in line with the left wing tip. The lower part of the vertical stabilizer is a clean slice.
As for the notion that no debris fell on the outside, there is clearly debris of some kind falling from the impact side of the facade which canbe seen towards the end of this video:
Flight 175 stabilized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zWVfsYZP90
I looked for possible alternatives such as the appendage clearly visible not only underneath the aircraft but having a physical interaction with the facade. It’s clearly discernible from different angles.
http://911anomalies.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/clipboard01rh3.jpg?w=450
http://911anomalies.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fussbg31.gif?w=450
http://911anomalies.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/4montqgearrowbw8.gif?w=450
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMayTWzOGY0
http://911anomalies.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/boeingwtc2qi02.jpg?w=450
I recommend watching this video in full.
I don’t necessarily agree with the “drone out” claim as that section of facade opposite the impact side shows no sign of a solid object being punched out but I strongly believe that we’re seeing the effects of a shaped charge explosive event seen in the video I linked to inmy last post.
Uranium shell penetration and UA175
Flight 175 – Hijacked Boeing Or High Tech Military Weapon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjpFnYMBoBg
There were also flashes seen (more noticeable in the first impact) that have been washed along on the NPT rollercoaster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4I_uuU4N6E
And this alleged audio captured where two explosive events are captured 3 seconds apart
9/11 WTC Rare Video of First Plane Attack – WNYW TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ
All of those anomalies have been handwaved away or left to rot because of NPT. In my opinion.
OSS,
I just came in from lunch, and this is the first time I saw your questions – having been unduly involved with that other argument…
As per the fist image, what I see is almost all indicative of an entrance wound…and yes the slice of a scar where the wingtip hit is pretty affirmative of this. There are a few slices of the aluminum fascia angling outward some off of the steel members to the left, but this seems like they are ‘sprung’ from the impact, the concussion plus loosing grip on the steel portion. This whole shot looks like very strong evidence of the impact of the plane…[Road Runner jokes aside.]
As far as your first question about tampering with the visuals, as I do not believe that to be the case, I will leave that answer to someone who believes such.
I’ll look at the other images on the basis of whether or not they load for me. I have some problems with my browser on that head.
ww
Oh yeah, Hybridrogue1, the original question was directed at Jim Fetzer.
Peace
OSS
There are four possible combinations of videos (genuine or altered) and planes (real or faked):
(1) genuine videos of real planes (no video fakery)
(2) genuine videos of fake planes (video fakery)
(3) fake videos of real planes (video fakery)
(4) fake videos of fake planes I(video fakery)
The use of computer-generated images or of video compositing to add the images of fake planes to videos has been advanced by Rosalee Grable and by Ace Baker, respectively. But then the only images of planes would have been seen on the videos broadcast after the alleged impacts.
To the extent to which we give credence to the witnesses who claimed they saw “a plane” hit the South Tower, we have to acknowledge that, since it could not have been a real plane (given the arguments I’ve posed), they must have seen something that looked like a real plane but was not.
In the case of Flight 175, which was actually over Pittsburgh at the time, that appears to have been done by using a sophisticated hologram. John Lear, Steffan Grossman, Stephen Brown and I are among those who hold this position. So I believe we have video fakery of type (2).
onesliceshort said: “who’s to say that other elements weren’t manipulated?”
Exactly, which is why to me it makes sense not to trust any of the alleged “live” network footage, all 102 minutes of it.
For as Simon Shack has repeatedly shown , for every network that ran their own version of it , every part of that 102 minute supposedly “live” footage, regardless of TV station, shows obvious [to the trained eye] signs of being merely a pre-fabricated computer generated simulation, with very little actual difference in any of the individual “live” feeds between any of them.
See:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE
and also : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802 sid=73c921635e860c909e4bca88e07e2673
onesliceshort said: “I haven’t got the credentials to debate the physics of the impact, but there is one image that stood out to me.”
OSS, that image is a photoshop job, pure and simple. It will show different dimensions, shape, damage etc. etc., depending on which version you run into on the internet. Check out the various versions yourself. Completely unreliable as evidence of anything. [Question: Could the planes actual wing tips themselves, in real life, have cut through steel girders, which is what the photo depicts?]
OSS and Craig, you do not need an advanced physics degree, just an impartial mind-set for review, and a fair helping of basic common sense. A real ,140 ton aircraft with its plastic nose cone and 2mm thick aluminum skin, surely [?] could not/cannot travel through concrete and steel weighing 100’s of tons, at anything like the same speed as it does through the air immediately before it contacts that concrete and steel, as this supposed video of Fl. 175 [ by alleged “amateur” videographer Evan Fairbanks] attempts to have you believe :http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html.
As Mr Fetzer has repeatedly stated, in real life, the laws of physics [i.e Newton’s 3rd law of Motion] dictate that plane must start an almost complete deceleration the moment it contacts the building, with the wings and tail section continuing forward at a speed closer to the original speed as they break free from the fuselage while still on the outside, and then most likely falling to the ground shortly after separating from that fuselage.
But in the various Fl. 175 videos no parts break free at impact – and the entire plane travels , in one piece, inside the building at the same speed as it traveled through the air it had just passed through, like “a hot knife through butter” .
[ So that instead of having a famous “magic bullet” that did seemingly physically impossible things in the JFK err, “investigation”, we have a whole “magic plane ” [actually 1 of 4 “magic planes”], in the case of 9/11. 🙂 ]
Also be aware that a real jet will create a natural air vortex behind it as it moves through the air, [something like a miniature whirlwind]. Meaning that when the explosion occurs[ the explosion is to be seen in other videos of the same alleged event] , that the explosion would be greatly disturbed by the planes very own vortex , which would still be present in the air for at the least a few seconds – therefor the vortex should be show as a similar type of disturbance within the smoke and flame of the initial explosion, thereby distorting/influencing the shapes the explosion and smoke take. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krL4fkrySZ4
Of course, there are no visible plane vortices in any of the alleged Fl.175 “plane into building ” footage , take your pick. { A major error on the part of the various movie fabricators] .
Every pixel of that Fairbanks video I linked to via my blog entry is computer generated [i.e _no_ plane inserts, every pixel of it is computer generated ]- it is fake from start to finish, for reasons I will not get into here other than the one obvious one, that is: it depicts a scientifically impossible event.
regards, onebornfree.
“Exactly, which is why to me it makes sense not to trust any of the alleged “live” network footage, all 102 minutes of it.”
Apart from the footage of the impacts? Why does that get a “get out of jail free card”? Why is the impact footage straight up? See what I’m driving at?
OSS
onebornfree makes this absolutely astounding statement:
“For as Simon Shack has repeatedly shown , for every network that ran their own version of it , every part of that 102 minute supposedly “live” footage, regardless of TV station, shows obvious [to the trained eye] signs of being merely a pre-fabricated computer generated simulation, with very little actual difference in any of the individual “live” feeds between any of them.”
To seriously assert that Simon Shack or yourself have a “trained eye” is so spectacularly absurd as to be worthy of a Guinness world record for Tall Tales, for it is a whale of a tale for sure.
And whatever you know about science has certainly been thoroughly withheld from this forum thus far.
I refer all to the ‘debates’ on the “36 truth leaders” on this very blog. You seem to be not only visually inept but without a functioning memory as well.
Heaven forbid we have to ride this lunatic roundabout again.
ww
hybridrogue1 has no standing to fault others, when his role her has been to promote misinformation and attack those, including onesliceshort, who are attempting to come to grips with the evidence as he is not. I think the idea of a shaped charge to have created the image is an interesting conjecture, since no real plane can have done it. In both cases–the cut out in the North Tower as well as in the South–those who planned this were out to create cookie-cutter like impressions to be spoon-fed to the American public. The case of the North Tower is especially interesting, where the right-wing cut-out was even extended after-the-fact to accommodate preconceptions about what it should have looked like. I would also add that onesliceshort’s observation about some falling debris would be from creating the cut-out, not from the plane. My point was rather that the fuselage should have crumpled, tie wings and the tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground, none of which happened. I think onebornfree, onesliceshort, Tamourine and probably also Senor El Once are on the same page about this. If I am mistaken about this, I would welcome a correction.
“hybridrogue1 has no standing to fault others, when his role her has been to promote misinformation and attack ”
That’s rich Fetzer,
We all have standing for finding the faults of others when those faults are apparent. As far as aptitude for offensive arguments you have no equal.
You are an agent of Public Relations as far as I am concerned, and your mastery of plausible rhetoric is your forte. None of your other purported ‘talent’s’ come close – Expert Propagandist is your epitaph.
ww
Jim, if you remember our conversation over at Pilotsfor911Truth, I’m in no way in the NPT camp.
My observations listed in the earlier post were to show that the aircraft itself may have been modified to aid penetration, possibly within the nose of the aircraft or in the appendage seen on the underbelly. Although this appendage may also have been for the purposes of radar/remote control:
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1561881_f520.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radome
There are many visual anomalies regarding the impacts (including the flashes – especially Tower 1) but I believe that they are due to physical manipulation of the aircrafts rather than a manipulation of video and camera footage.
All of these visual and tangible evidence would have to be discarded if one were to accept NPT.
As for the falling debris seen on the impact side of Tower 2, it’s still debris whether you say it’s due to “cookie cutter charges” or not. But if I were to go down this rabbit hole, I’m still left wondering how such charges could not only cut the shape of the plane, but leave indentation marks that outline the left wingtip and lower vertical stabilizer.
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcsouthtowerzoomhole.jpg
If it’s claimed that the above image or any other video is fake (particularly the claim that the aircraft in the “ghostplane” video has been inserted), how can an entire theory be based on another aspect in the very same footage (the impact itself) that one claims to have been
manipulated?
I’m not playing games or twisting words. I’ve looked at this objectively, more out of respect for Tamborine Man than anything else. NPT was designed to fail and leaves a lot of tangible evidence on the wayside. Whether you really believe it or not.
Real Monsters Never Die
This is starting to seem like one of those serial monster movies where it looks almost certain that the monster must be dead, only to find that somehow it has miraculously escaped death by some fantastic fabrication of the script writers.
It may be entertaining “at the movies” – but it has a very sinister effect in the real world.
Sunstein has obviously set the web up for a “Really Big Show” for the death of reason in the 21st century.
ww
What’s the point of this? Acknowledging you were wrong without admitting it? I have written about Cass Sunstein and “cognitive infiltration” in “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”. Why don’t you simply concede that you were mistaken about the use of remote-controlled drones because they would have been real planes and could not have performed the feats that we observed in the videos of Flight 175? Unless these Arab “terrorists” could suspend Newton’s laws, the plane could not have entered the building without collision effects, including its fuel tanks exploding OUTSIDE of the South Tower. One of the reasons for faking it was because they needed to get “the plane” all the way INSIDE the building before it exploded as a pseudo- explanation for the “collapse” of the tower (from the intense heat of the burning jet fuel, as Harley Guy explained to a reporter on the scene at the time–all rubbish, of course, since the jet fuel was consumed in the first 15-20 seconds and the modest fires that remained did not burn hot enough or long enough to weaken, much less melt, any of the steel). But a gullible public was not going to notice because it is so used to seeing impossible events occur in the movies and television.
Uncle Fetzer,
Why don’t you stop the rhetorical bullshit of mixing “Arab terrorists” in with the argument of whether these were airplanes that hit the towers or not?
I will tell you twinkletoes, it is because you are adept at nothing – more than you are at slick and sneaky couplings of issues. This is what you are best at in my analysis of structure and subtext.
ww
OSS,
great examples in the April 21, 2012 at 10:43 pm post. I have always though that the pod scenario as proven and obvious…the shot above makes that VERY obvious.
The last two audio centered information makes it obvious an airplane flies overhead before the sound of an explosion. I think what explains the second sound of the explosion in the one video is an echo throughout the canyon of tall buildings in lower Manhattan.
BTW for the sake of disclosure; Salter disputes the pod biz, claiming it to be a shadow effect, and I disagree with that, it was one of his first efforts on the 9/11 examination. I am not sure he still holds that view or not. His later work is much more top notch…I don’t think anyone is correct 100 percent of the time – heck, I was even mistaken once {grin}
ww
There was an analysis of the “shadow” claim done by “La Vanguardia” in Spain, discussed here
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21851&view=findpost&p=10804296
And shadows don’t cause physical reactions.
I’m not throwing all of my eggs into one basket but I definitely believe there are “old school” issues such as the appendage and the flashes.
And yeah, I wasn’t 100% on the audio evidence. There was an audio recording of the first impact caught during an office meeting which caught two distinct bangs. I can’t find it anywhere.
onesliceshort said: “Apart from the footage of the impacts? Why does that get a “get out of jail free card”? Why is the impact footage straight up? See what I’m driving at?”
Assuming you are addressing me, no, not really. Who is saying the impact image is believable? [Not me.]
In my previous link to the Fairbanks video on my blog site I stated that in my humble opinion it was a 100% fake video [i.e. not just plane inserts into otherwise live imagery ] ; also that with other “amateur” footage of Fl 175 into WTC, where both the plane image and the explosion are clearly seen, that for [just] one thing, there is no visible vortex produced by the plane disturbing/altering the shape of the explosions depicted, as it should have done, therefor those videos are all also fakes[leaving aside, for the moment, the sheer physical impossibility of the event depicted in all of them]. [I previously gave a youtube link to a short video explaining the vortex phenomena and examining the lack of any discernable vortex in any of the plane crash video sequences. Here it is again, if you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krL4fkrySZ4
There are many other technical reasons to believe that all of the various Fl.175 collision footage sequences are 100% fake, mostly to do with perfect hand-held camera tracking of objects claimed to moving at 500mph, [for example, see the short gif movie taken from the Herzekhani ” amateur footage at the very bottom of my blog page here: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2009/09/dr-reynolds-and-planebuilding-meld.html , where the moving plane image somehow manages to stay perfectly in the center of successive frames even as it moves across the screen ] ; plus impossible vantage points of the alleged photographers, perfectly timed zoom-ins, lighting /shadows totally at odds with known lighting conditions that morning , etc. etc [the list of anomalies is long and I will not attempt to get into them all here, just to mention a few in passing ] .
Concerning the lack of a visible vortex distortion of the ensuing explosion, the exact same is true of the Naudet footage of the first strike – there is no visible plane vortex distortion of the explosion itself whatsoever, when there should be one clearly seen, given the cameraman’s vantage point, which indicates to myself and others that that footage was also probably faked in its entirety [i.e. no plane insert into an otherwise live feed] .
It appears that Mr Fetzer may believe that the Naudet video of the first strike is real-time, but that it had a plane image inserted into an otherwise live feed, if I understand him correctly. [Although the original Naudet footage was never broadcast as “real-time” “live”, it was not seen on national networks until the next day, the 12th, I believe] .
I would myself suggest that the absence of any visible plane vortex in that Naudet video sequence is but one of many reasons to conclude that the entire sequence is fake- there are many, many other technical anomolies corresponding to the short list I just gave above for all of the alleged Fl.175 “amateur” footage.
Also for more Nuadet sequence anomolies [e.g. missing frames] see Simon Shack’s Naudet footage analysis : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM&feature=relmfu
Regards, onebornfree.
Your analyses are very thoughtful, slice, even when I may dissent from them. My inference has been that Rosalee Grable may well be right and that we are viewing a close arrangement of four UAVs approaching and hitting the North Tower, where I show the four impact points in “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'”. So my belief is that, while all four of the crash sites were faked, they were done in different ways, where no plane crashed in Shanksville; a plane flew toward the Pentagon and then swooped over it at the same time explosives were set off in the building; that the North Tower hit was one kind of simulation, as I have described, and the South Tower yet another.
As both Keenan and I have pointed out here, Fetzer will never acknowledge his errors, not matter how many times pointed out. He has a mantra and he is sticking to it.
He has been skewered on the topic of deceleration, proven flat out wrong and will not cop to it.
He has been shown to be utterly inept at forensic photography as shown in our exchange about the Nuadet sequence, as per pixelation/resolution and focus. It is dishonest to pretend he is unaware that his arguments do not stand up on those issues – his continuance of repeating them is from either ego or agenda.
This is obvious to all but the most biased mind.
ww
Jim Fetzer says:
April 21, 2012 at 8:18 pm
“Well, then it should be easy to show what I have wrong…”
Sure it is easy to show what you have wrong. The problems comes from your refusals to admit that you are wrong.
It has been shown to the candid world on countless occasions on a myriad of web sites that you are a charlatan Fetzer. One set upon a mission to deceive will certainly not admit so such deceit.
And you can not turn this around on me. I have no mission, I have no organization, nor am I a so-called “Leader in the 9/11 Truth Movement”. My sole agenda is thinking for myself and expressing my own opinions based on such thinking. This can in no way exempt me from quoting others at times any more than it exempts anyone else.
You have proven nothing, and others have proven that too many times to cite.
ww
Jim Fetzer says:
April 21, 2012 at 8:33 pm
“He talks about the kinetic energy of an aircraft that was traveling faster than is aerodynamically possible for a standard 767, as Pilots has confirmed.”
This misrepresents Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s position. Lear has been disputed by many of the other pilots in the forum. As is plainly stated in the heading to that site, they do not deal in speculation as an organization. The forum is not their opinion, it is opinons by individual pilots.
Your choice of Lear is misplaced at your own peril:
“While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.”~John Lear
This single sentence deconstructs everything else Lear has said in this, what – 15 page affidavit.
“While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test” – this is the crux of the matter, everything else is spin.
The speed limit set for the 767 is statutory not structural – large margin of error is in place for safety purposes, and the comfort of passengers. this would have been no flight for a pleasure cruise.
ww
I don’t agree with you there HR1.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21888&view=findpost&p=10803788
http://www.apstraining.com/wp-content/uploads/video-vg-diagram.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/767_V-G_Diagram_Illustrated_Guide_To_Aerodynamics.jpg
The main problem is the proposed controllability of the aircraft at that speed. At that altitude. And during that final manouevre.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQtxTnDusk
As for Jim Fetzer’s claim that the speed issue “proves” that there was no plane..
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804528
I am NOT “maintaining that the speed shows there was no plane”, ONLY that it shows that, if there was a real plane, it cannot have been a standard Boeing 767, which, I take it, is also the position of Pilots, which confirmed that the plane seen in the videos was traveling at a speed that would have been aerodynamically impossible for a standard Boeing 767. Do we agree?
Thanks OSS,
I understand your argument here, and I personally do not believe that a commercial Boeing is the animal we are dealing with here. Obviously the statutory speeds are based on the structural issues as well. However even reading the statutes, it is said therein that the plane can be flown faster at lower altitudes in careful test flight ops, and these statutes can be waved for such purposes.
But rather than argue a point that I am not in support of, I will leave that point, and make the one I do think is applicable. And that is, to repeat what I have said before elsewhere, that these attack planes were specially modified military Boeing machines, hardened at both wing edges and nose. The engines would be modified as well, replacing the normal fan with one that could make the engines operate in the thicker medium at near sea level. I also postulate they were flown by programmed autopilot that once engaged would be tamper-proof to human intervention.
I also postulate that a missile fired at impact is a strong probability.
I made the point that Lear himself stated in his deposition, that it is the case the 767 can be flown faster. My pointing this out does not annul my further postulations I have just stated.
To be clear, I have already rejected the hijacker/hijacking scenario many times over. I have in fact made the same argument for a modified plane as far as three blog-thread back.
Bottom line, I think a real aircraft hit the WTC towers – I do not think these were the commercial craft claimed by the official story.
ww
Yes.
Now quoting Rob Balsamo, repeating the question I’ve personally asked 4 times in the last number of posts.
Do we agree?
Slice, proving something has been faked is evidence of fakery. Egad! We have proven that the backyard photographs presented as evidence of Lee Oswald’s guilt in the assassination of JFK were faked by imposing his face on someone else’s body. (See “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald” with Jim Marrs in Veterans Today.) That is proof that he was being framed.
The discovery of video fakery in New York, for example, is comparable evidence that someone was being framed, namely, the 19 Islamic “terrorists” who allegedly hijacked these planes and committed these atrocities under the control of a guy is a cave in Afghanistan. Except all four of the crashes were faked! That is evidence that other forces were at work and powerful proof of their complicity.
Egad! Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has never proven that any of those alleged hijackers were abroad any of those planes. David Ray Griffin and A.K. Dewdney have shown that all of those phone calls were faked. Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, although there are millions of uniquely identifiable parts for those planes, the government has produced none.
Given the evidence we have that all four of these crash sites were faked, how much more proof do we need of governmental–and media–complicity in 9/11? The situation is absurd. And there is no “classic logical fallacy” involved here at all! Proving that the videos were faked is part and parcel of the case implicating the government. Are we really unable to appreciate such an obvious point?
OSS,
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t agree with this point (“If you feel evidence is fake, you cannot use it as evidence to prove your case.”) I’d agree that faked evidence couldn’t be used to support the official story, which depends on the evidence, visual and otherwise, being authentic. But if you’re arguing that a deception has been engineered, I would think that evidence proving to be faked would support the idea that we’ve been lied to.
@Craig and Jim
“OSS,
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t agree with this point (“If you feel evidence is fake, you cannot use it as evidence to prove your case.”) I’d agree that faked evidence couldn’t be used to support the official story, which depends on the evidence, visual and otherwise, being authentic. But if you’re arguing that a deception has been engineered, I would think that evidence proving to be faked would support the idea that we’ve been lied to.”
Let me elaborate. It’s Jim Fetzer’s claim that because of what he sees as anomalies in the physics of the impacts to the towers, the aircraft must have been inserted into every video and image taken.
Video samples
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804272
That every verified witness to an aircraft actually reinforces the “hologram” claim(!)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804309
So, we have the circular argument that the aircraft was inserted. That is, a full blown manipulation of said footage. To manipulate the footage to the extent being claimed, this means that cameramen and videographers were placed in multiple locations and filmed an explosion in the towers and then aircraft were inserted afterwards. And that witnesses to an aircraft actually saw a hologram.
My point is, if the footage, which is allegedly manipulated to the point of pure invention, how can the same footage be used to make a scientific evaluation?
Even the “Ghostplane” footage shows how the actual impact itself can be manipulated/inserted.
On a separate note, if there are anomalies, which I believe there are, why not concentrate on those first? They’re more tangible and less open to speculation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804353
Look at the OCT “evidence” that was rightly rejected as proof of anything (NOC) because the “loop” west of the Potomac lie was part and parcel of it.
NORAD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/noradnorthpath.jpg
Or National Geographic
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/nationalgeonorth.gif
Or the alleged last RADES datapoints
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/AA77RADES.jpg
Smoke and mirrors.
OSS,
Sorry to belabor this point, but, hypothetically, if you have a video that shows a 767 flying at 800 mph into a building, couldn’t you scientifically determine that this speed was physically impossible, and therefore conclude that the video was fake? So couldn’t the fake video be used to prove that the image was manipulated?
Violations of laws of nature (of physics, chemistry, biology, but also of aerodynamics) are a sure sign that something is wrong, since they cannot be violated and cannot be changed. But what precisely is going on may require some study. We could be dealing with any of these three combinations:
(A2) Real video of fake plane
(A3) Fake video of real plane
(A4) Fake video of fake plane
What we know–conclusively, from the occurrence of physically impossible events–is we do not have
(A1) Real video of real plane
At one point in time, given the then-available evidence, it was not unreasonable to conjecture that we might be dealing with special planes or remote controlled aircraft but, as more and more evidence is taken into account–about the structure of the South Tower, for example, and the planted engine component found at Church & Murray–it becomes an increasingly difficult position to defend.
So while some prefer to cite only the evidence in their favor–such as the force of the plane on the building but not the resistance of the building to that force–that becomes more and more obvious as “special pleading” in violation of the requirements for rational belief, which I explained at the start of “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, for everyone who reads it.
I have enumerated many points about it now, including the nice point by onesliceshort about the absence of any wind vortex effects. Unless this plane is “so special” that it can violate Newton’s laws, this is no longer a rationally defensible position, but this does not preclude some here from attempting to spare themselves embarrassment by making moves to evade logic and evidence.
I am simply dumbfounded. It is not my position that images were inserted into videos. My position is that videos took images of what looked like planes but were not real planes. In the case of Flight 11 and the Naudet Brotheres footage, it looks a lot to me like an arrangement of four UAVs flying close formating (and making four points of contact with the building). In the case of Flight 175, the use of CGIs (computer-generated images) or of video compositing appear to be ruled out, because then the only images of planes would have been in the videos, not in real space/time during the event they record. But we have many witnesses who reported seeing what they took to be a plane but which was performing feats that no real plane could perform. I am therefore disposed to believe we are dealing with a sophisticated hologram, which could be projected as flying faster than a real Boeing 767, whose image could enter the building in violation of Newton’s laws, and which could pass its entire length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its entire length in air. (It also has no strobe lights, casts no shadow, and has a wing that disappears before it enters the building.) I have explained all of this in excruciating detail in my articles, especially about Rob Balsamo. Kindly do me the favor of understanding my position before you reject it. Thank you.
Craig
Yes, the speed is physically impossible for a standard 767. And for alleged hijackers to control.
Just because we see anomalies does not mean that the only conclusion that can be reached is that there was no plane and all of the baggage that this entails. In fact, if we were to accept NPT and reject the aircraft’s very existence (during the attack) and with that, all of the anomalies I’ve listed above, all that is left is unfounded speculation. Speculation based on what’s claimed to be totally manipulated footage.
This brings us back to the illogical stance of deciding which part of these videos are “manipulated” and which part is valid. One thing is to reject what the videos show in their entirity, another is to shape a theory around the same videos!
The claim is that a hologram was used in conjuntion with a multitude of operatives and “cookie cutter” charges that could simulate precision markings on the facade that include details that I can’t fathom. Yet at the same time, the simpler idea of a modified aircraft designed to penetrate, possibly made of materials designed for this purpose (such as tungsten).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHKkzuU2qtE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMTcViSApgI
That’s pure conjecture on my part but I think anything else is giving way too much credit to those who controlled the ops on 9/11. Way too much.
OSS,
Both you and Adam have provided straight answers to sincere questions, and I appreciate that. I understand that it is a subject most truthers would rather went away.
You wrote: “Just because we see anomalies, does not mean that the only conclusion that can be reached is that there was no plane and all of the baggage that this entails.”
I agree. Ideally, I’d like to be able to explain the anomalies so that no questions linger.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on your next point:
“In fact, if we were to accept NPT and reject the aircraft’s very existence (during the attack) and with that, all of the anomalies I’ve listed above, all that is left is unfounded speculation. Speculation based on what’s claimed to be totally manipulated footage.”
This seems like a circular dilemma to me. If you prove that the video evidence of planes is manipulated, then you have no reliable evidence upon which to base a claim that what we see in the video evidence isn’t real. It still seems to me that manipulated footage would be proof of some kind of deception. But I’ll leave that one; perhaps it’s more of a semantic argument.
*And I hope my reference to 800 mph was understood to be a hypothetical to make a point. I know that we’re not dealing with speeds anywhere near that.
Jet Fuel Explosion Colors?
While on the subject of observable building explosions for either WTC1 or 2, a secondary point : besides the complete lack of observable plane vortices that one might expect to disturb the explosions expansion paths : my present understanding is that the color of the explosions themselves [i.e. bright orange fireballs] is entirely inconsistent with the color that is normally produced when jet fuel catches fire and explodes.
In other words, both ensuing explosions appear to be pure “Hollywood” creations that are only consistent with what film goers are used to seeing in major Hollywood disaster movies, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRyoFgAhW4c
Regards, onebornfree
P.S. : earlier I’d said: “Also for more Naudet sequence anomolies [e.g. missing frames] see Simon Shack’s Naudet footage analysis : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM&feature=relmfu
Sorry, my mistake- on re-review, the particular Simon Shack Naudet analysis linked to does not in fact address the issue of editing anomolies vis a vis missing frames, but focuses on other glaring anomalies instead.
I was confusing it with another, more recent Naudet analysis he has done. If I find that I’ll post it if anyone’s interested, just let me know. regards, onebornfree
It should be brought to the attention to everyone, and stated clearly; that arguing with Jim Fetzer is not the same thing as arguing with Isaac Newton.
I have never argued against these physics – I have argued against their MISAPPLICATION by Fetzer.
Let it be admitted that it is the physics that any allegories are based upon, and not visa versa. It is the physics themselves that are immutable – not the tools of conceptualization and visualization such as allegory.
I mentioned several times that the ‘Bat and Ball’ analogy is insufficient to the ‘Plane and Building’, and was summarily attacked for denying the ‘physics’ of momentum and inertia. I was not, I merely said the ‘analogy’ was insufficient.
My adjustment of the analogy; replacing the ‘bat’ with a tennis racket, and the ‘ball’ as an orange slice, in no way defiles the physics behind the allegory.
As far as the physics of momentum, it is Fetzers misrepresentation of the building as a solid object such as a bat, when it indeed is more correctly compared to the tennis racket.
This argument began with Fetzer’s exclamation:
“This is very revealing. Where are the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed to the entry of a Boeing 767? ”
But his question is even more revealing, the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed *to the entry* of a Boeing 767, would only be applicable if it were asserted that the airplane knocked over the building by it’s impact.
The only applicable calculations are those involving the physics of materials, momentum, and kinetics.
It should be very obvious that in this argument he is misplaced and misleading.
The bat and ball analogy is misplaced unless adjusted for materials and configuration of both objects. Wherein I made the following argument:
I would assert that the more exact analogy would be an orange slice batted by a tennis racket.
So the logical result in that would be if the building were “picked up” and swung at the plane, the same effect would ensue as we have seen at the impact. Just as the orange slice would be strained through the racket, the plane would be ‘strained’ through the building.
~ww
I find it painful to read such rubbish. This man ignores the structure of the South Tower and, so far as I have been able to determine, offers a calculation of the force that would have been imparted by a plane upon the building without any calculation of the resistance of the building to the plane. How dumb is that?
Moreover, as I have repeatedly explained, “the plane” was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which represent an acre of concrete apiece.
How he can feign to be serious about all of this when he repeatedly ignores my points is beyond me. He must take the members of this forum to be as gullible as he in swallowing impossible events as though they did not entail violations of Newton’s laws. This guy comes across as some kind of scam artist.
The effects of a plane flying at 500 mph into a stationary 500,000-ton building would be the same as a 500,000-ton building flying into a stationary plane. Anyone familiar with the effects of a tiny bird on a commercial carrier must appreciate the complete absurdity of his position. And he claims that I do not understand Newton!
And do I need to add that I have repeatedly explained that, while the South Tower had small, narrow windows, which were designed to keep light and heat out to reduce the expense of air conditioning, they were considerably less than 50% of the surface area, as anyone can tell from an examination of photographs?
So, while some parts of a real plane would have entered the building, most it would not. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. It could not possibly have entered the building without huge collision effects. Its velocity would have fallen to zero.
All of this he wants you to ignore by talking about TENNIS RACKETS. Does anyone seriously believe that the South Tower had the structure of a tennis racket? Where are those trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete that would have posed such enormous horizontal resistance? This man has completely lost his grip on reality.
“The effects of a plane flying at 500 mph into a stationary 500,000-ton building would be the same as a 500,000-ton building flying into a stationary plane. Anyone familiar with the effects of a tiny bird on a commercial carrier must appreciate the complete absurdity of his position. And he claims that I do not understand Newton!”
Why are you doing this again Fetzer? You are not arguing against what I just said. I accept that the effect would be the same – I have noted that. I am saying that you are misinterpreting what that effect would be by asserting that the building is an analogy of a ‘bat’ – that it is a solid single object, my replacement of this bat with a racket, which is not a single solid object, but a construct more applicable to this analogy. You are in fact the one arguing that the structure is like a solid wall from side to side, a completely solid object, while at the same time citing that it is indeed a building with a tubular facade, that even Demartini envisioned would be capable of ‘absorbing’ the impact of a plane like mesquito netting absorbing a poking pencil.
“I find it painful to read such rubbish,” you say – while it is obvious that the pain is the result of any critique that indicates you dissembling.
ww
onesliceshort says:
April 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm
“Jim, if you remember our conversation over at Pilotsfor911Truth, I’m in no way in the NPT camp.
My observations listed in the earlier post were to show that the aircraft itself may have been modified to aid penetration, possibly within the nose of the aircraft or in the appendage seen on the underbelly. Although this appendage may also have been for the purposes of radar/remote control:
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1561881_f520.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radome
“There are many visual anomalies regarding the impacts (including the flashes – especially Tower 1) but I believe that they are due to physical manipulation of the aircrafts rather than a manipulation of video and camera footage.”
“All of these visual and tangible evidence would have to be discarded if one were to accept NPT.”
BUT which of the following claims–which define “No Plane Theory”–do you not accept:
(1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
You seem to believe (mistakenly) that NPT requires that there be NO PLANES, when all it entails is that NONE OF THE OFFICIAL FLIGHTS CRASHED AT ANY OF THE ALLEGED CRASH SITES.
How many times do I have to explain this? Since Pilots has established that Flights 93 and 175 were both in the air but over Urbana, IL, and Pittsburgh, PA, how can you possibly deny (1) or (4)?
Either you reject Pilots own research, which establishes their locations, or you accept that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville and that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower. So which is your view?
And I suppose you are enlightened enough that you do not deny (2). So, unless you deny (3)–which I doubt if you have read “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”–you actually endorse NPT.
You just don’t know it. And when it comes to video fakery as any use of videos to convey a false or misleading impression, how can video fakery not have occurred if Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh?
If it wasn’t Flight 175, when these videos have been used to support the government’s position, then video fakery took place in New York. The videos weren’t altered. The planes were faked!
(1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
I think we are all in agreement with Fetzer on these points. And there has never been an indication from anyone here that we disagree to this basic set.
It is rather the false conclusions apparent in this:
“And when it comes to video fakery as any use of videos to convey a false or misleading impression, how can video fakery not have occurred if Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh?
If it wasn’t Flight 175, when these videos have been used to support the government’s position, then video fakery took place in New York. The videos weren’t altered. The planes were faked!”
“The videos weren’t altered. The planes were faked!” – Verses – “how can video fakery not have occurred if Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh?”
You have two competing conclusions mixed into your construction here Jim, do you wish to chose one over another?
ww
Well, this is some kind of progress. Now even hybridrogue1 acknowledges that NPT is correct:
(1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Those are the claims that DEFINE “no plane theory”. Sensational! But if Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower, as (3) and (4) maintain, then HOW COULD VIDEO FAKERY NOT HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE IN NEW YORK?
Those videos have been presented as proof that Flight 11 hit the North Tower and Flight 175 hit56 the South, in case you haven’t noticed. But even if you were right in your account, the videos would still be being used to convey a false and misleading account of these events.
Since “video fakery” encompasses any use of videos to convey a false or misleading account of the events in New York, unless Flight 11 hit the North Tower and Flight 175 the South, video fakery WAS taking place in New York. Now, is that too difficult for you to finally understand?
Jim,
Wouldn’t most people define “video fakery” as meaning the alteration of the sound or images? If the contents of the image are merely mislabeled (intentionally) then that’s certainly a deception, but should we call it fakery?
I think you have again fallen back on rhetorical games here Fetzer.
NPT means No-Planes Theory, it does not mean ‘switched planes theory’…you seem to be switching definitions mid stream – changing the rules of the game while the ball is in play.
This is the type of false argumentation you are caught in over and again.
I think we would all appreciate less rhetorical dodge and weave and a bit more straight forward constructions as to what your points actually are.
ww
Either we know what we are talking about or we do not. I explained these terms in my articles and studies, including “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. That you and Rob have been careless in your reasoning and use of language is unfortunately, but that you continue to abuse language and logic after I have explicitly explained the difference is deplorable.
I have done my best to be charitable to you and to Rob, but you have both done nothing but heap scorn and ridicule upon me. Even in this post, you are dismissing clarity of expression and precise reasoning as “rhetoric”. Well, it isn’t “rhetoric”, but being exact about meanings and being rigorous in reasoning. How else can we expect to sort things out if we don’t know what we’re talking about?
You and Rob have been sterling examples of sloppy reasoning and irresponsible argument. His and your views are not even logically consistent, since you want to maintain BOTH that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh AND that videos purporting to show Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are not fake. And as I recall you even claim that I am a “disinfo agent” for having made this point again and again.
Well, you guys are no doubt better pilots, but your incapacity to reason is seriously disturbing. You do not have to have taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years to figure out that your arguments are indefensible. But I have done that and you have not. And for you to regard me as an enemy because my ability to marshal arguments is superior to yours is one more blunder.
Craig McKee says:
April 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm
“Jim,
Wouldn’t most people define “video fakery” as meaning the alteration of the sound or images? If the contents of the image are merely mislabeled (intentionally) then that’s certainly a deception, but should we call it fakery?”
Which is why I have taken pains to define it in my articles and studies. The notion is broader than the alteration of the film itself, because it properly encompasses any use of video to convey a false or misleading impression about 9/11.
“Fakery”, in turn, can be defined as deliberately conveying a false or misleading impression. So the term fits. Even magic is fakery, except that it does not have sinister intent. In this case, videos were used to perform feats of fakery about that day.
If someone wants to concede they were only rejecting “video fakery” because they did not think the videos themselves were altered, that’s fine. But we should also acknowledge that these videos have been used to convey false impressions of the events of 9/11.
Haven’t I explained that there are four possible combinations of (genuine or altered) videos and (real or faked) planes. Unless they are genuine videos of Flight 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South, we are dealing with “video fakery” as that phrase should be understood.
Jim,
Based on your definition, I would say without reservation that fakery occurred. I feel more comfortable calling it just “fakery” because I think a lot of people would assume video fakery to mean what I suggested (rightly or wrongly). Having said that, I’m not saying the entire video record of that day is authentic. I have questions about this.
Well, it was fakery done using videos! So why not call it what it is–“video fakery”? Not all of the videos that day were faked, but those of Flight 11 and Flight 175 involved faked planes (planes that were not Flight 11 or Flight 175). I don’t know how much more explicit I can be about all of this. But some here are more concerned about saving face than getting things right, which is also deplorable.
I’m sorry Jim,
It has been a distinction for much to long that ‘video fakery’ describes the school promoted by Shack and his ilk. And the ‘no-planes’ theory has stood for too long as meaning precisely what the initials stand for NPT = no planes.
To move in with your own person lexicon in this instance is the largest part of your being misunderstood.
“Video fakery” defined as the public relations of spin is a matter of your own spin itself. Using a false narrative is not and cannot be called “video fakery”, it is a form of propaganda not a technical manipulation of video imagery.
It would be to your benefit to adjust your lexicon, and not demand that the general lexicon as has developed around these issues be changed to please you.
ww
A what, prey tell, would be a better name for fakery using videos than “video fakery”? Each of us has an obligation to make clear what we are talking about. I have done that, you and Rob have not. If you go back and review the exchanges on the Pilots’ forum, you will see what I mean. I was taking pains to be clear and precise, but Rob simply ignored what I was saying. He, like you, does not appear to have even bothered to read the articles he was attacking.
So what should we call it? “No OCT Planes Theory”? This is getting rather ridiculous. I cannot recall even citing “September Clues” or Simon Shack. There are many different positions out there. If you are going to attack me, you incur an obligation to get my position right. How many times have I said, “If you think I have something wrong, then explain what I have said and why I said it (to be sure you have it right) and then tell me what I have wrong and how you know
That it has taken this long to reach some common understanding is not because I have not been making myself clear and explicit. I am sorry, but you seem to be searching for an excuse to have paid no attention to my actual arguments as I presented them, again and again. I pointed this out to Rob, again and again, to no effect. But I do appreciate that your attitude appears to have improved considerably and we may even be arriving at some common understanding.
The fact is that I am no more wrong about the physical impossibility of a real plane having entered completely into the South Tower than I am about NPT (as I have defined it), to which you now agree. Since a switched plane is no more Flight 175 than a simulated plane, I infer that we are now also in agreement with video fakery having to have occurred on that occasion, even if you don’t like the phrase. But it is a case of fakery done using videos, is it not? The phrase fits.
hybridroque wrote:
[quote]
“I’m sorry Jim,
It has been a distinction for much to long that ‘video fakery’ describes the school promoted by Shack and his ilk. And the ‘no-planes’ theory has stood for too long as meaning precisely what the initials stand for NPT = no planes.”
[/quote]
“Meaning precisely what….” – to whom!! The j-ref crowd and their ilk?
CIT do not claim no-plane at the pentagon.
Dom DiMaggio do not claim no-plane at Shankville.
No sane rational person claim no-plane at WCT.
Here, some people maintain that a plane impacted, while some people
maintain that no-plane impacted the tower.
We all agree that no-plane crashed into the pentagon, and no-plane
crashed in Shankville.
Therefore, some of us are 100% NPT, while some of us are 50% NPT.
As times go by, and more information is revealed, the 50% will slowly
change their minds and one by one join us 100%’ers.
One day, NPT will simply become a symbol of pride, honour and
distinction …… only ethereally and euphemistically speaking of course! ;o)
You too, ww, will one day join us as well. but because you have revealed
yourself to be a definite and unmistakable “snowcrash” kind of guy, you
undoubtedly will come in as the utterly last of ‘the recalcitrants’ – lacking
far behind all others by quite a distance.
Cheers
It is a key point when one reads Orwell, that is the corruption of language that is the goal of the Big Brother society.
The term ‘No Planes’, is naturally assumed to mean, ‘no planes’
The term ‘video fakery’ is naturally assumed to be faked videos.
Any clickish lexicon is a confusion to outsiders. I don’t cherish clicks, I don’t like psychobabble nor the rhetorical defense of psychobabble.
Those who want a secret language to communicate among themselves in a cult manner have no place in my world of simple rationality. Do you guys have a secret handshake as well?
ww
Again addressing Mr. Fetzer,
You have postulated a series of propositions – each of which you maintain as rock solid and anchored by facts.
Yet these are inconsistent with one another, ie:
– The hologram assertion
– The video manipulation
– Plane switching
Rather than enforce these ‘maybes’ as certainties, why not admit they are all theoretical, and dismount your high horse?
ww
This is completely unreal. I am not a “plane switcher”, that would be you. And I am not a “video manipulation” guy, that would be others. My name is “Jim Fetzer”. I have views that are mine, which you have not bothered to understand. Foisting off on someone positions that he does not hold is irresponsible. It is sloppy research. There are all kinds of views out there that are not mine. That you and Balsamo are so careless in your attacks on me is reprehensible. And now you want to continue with your buffoonery by attributing to me positions you hold and I do not? I am sorry, hybridrogue1, but your intellectual limitations are glaring. I have long since explained why “plane switching” is indefensible, in case you don’t recall. (It has something to do with that guy Newton, with velocities dropping to zero, and the impossibility of penetration without jet fuel explosions.) And I have also explained (in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, but also no doubt here) that the greater the weight we give to the witnesses, the more reason we have to accept a hologram instead of GSIs or video compositing, because GSIs and video compositing would not lead to the image of a plane being seen by witnesses at the time of the occurrence of these events but only after the fact. I have explained why neither “plane switching” or “video manipulation” are supported by logic and the available evidence. I cannot believe that you are engaging in this kind of sophistry when I have been so forthcoming. If you have an argument to show that I am wrong, then present it. This post is nothing but rhetoric.
“..that the greater the weight we give to the witnesses, the more reason we have to accept a hologram instead of GSIs or video compositing, because GSIs and video compositing would not lead to the image of a plane being seen by witnesses at the time of the occurrence of these events but only after the fact.”~Jim ‘by gawd’ Fetzer
No, the more weight we give to the witnesses the more reason we have to accept that real planes were involved.
ww
You continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of serious thought. Consider the evidence:
(1) the plane is flying at an aerodynamically impossible speed for a standard Boeing 767;
(2) it therefore is not a standard Boeing 767;
(3) it has no strobe lights;
(4) it casts no shadows;
(5) it has a wing that disappears before it enters the building;
(6) probably, it is not a real plane [by (1) through (5)];
(7) it enters the building effortlessly with no indications of any collision effects;
(8) it is intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete;
(9) the horizontal resistance of that building would have been massive;
(10) a real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, bodies and seats fallen;
(11) this plane does not crumple, its wings and tail do not break off, bodies and seats do not fall;
(12) its velocity should have fallen to zero, not some subtle and imperceptible percent but 100%;
(13) it passes though its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air;
(14) but that would be possible only if a massive building poses no more resistance than air;
(15) it is not the case that a massive building poses no more resistance than air;
(16) therefore, it cannot possibly be a real plane [by (7) through (15)];
(17) the smoke that rapidly appears is not disrupted by wind vortex;
(18) but if it were a real plane, the smoke that rapidly appears would have been disrupted;
(19) there was no wind vortex (as onesliceshort has observed);
(20) therefore, it was not a real plane [by (17) through (19)].
Newton’s laws cannot be violated and cannot be changed, which means that this hybridrogue1 is postulating a physical impossibility. Moreover, Dennis Cimino already refuted the conjecture of a “switched plane” in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, which could not have strengthened wings and nose without redesigning the entire aircraft. We are not dealing with tinker-toys, where you can make different arrangements to suit yourself. But the fact is that not even a “switched plane” could perform the feats shown in these videos. And the engine component found at Church & Murray was an obvious plant that did not even come from a Boeing 767, as I explained in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video faker'”. So we have more and more proof that hybridrogue1, like Rob Basalmo, continues to attack my work without bothering to read it.
“You continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of serious thought.”~Jim {quite certain} Fetzer
I think this is a really great opening as an invitation to read your outline here…really gives one the incentive to deal with and take you seriously.
So I read your points one through nineteen, and find it rather a jumble spanning a breadth of disputes in a rather shotgun manner. I am hardly impressed with either your manner of presentation nor the logic displayed.
Your argument for momentum is still misplaced. As I have said, it is not suggested that the plane knocked a tower over, and that would be the only argument that the momentum physics would matter in.
The mass ratio at the point of impact between the plane and the floors actually hit would be the two mass ratios to account for.
And these masses are in fact fairly even in tonnage. It is AGAIN, misplaced to apply the mass of the entire building to this point of the argument.
No one disputes that the mass of the plane was only three one-hundredths of 1 percent of the mass of the building. what is in dispute is that this has relevance to the impact point logistics.
I flat out reject your application – which is NOT a rejection of any accepted physics but a rejection of your misapplication of those physics.
Grasp that, deal with it. You have not yet up to this point.
ww
Since it cannt be a real plane (for reasons I have laboriously explained in excruciating detail), we are confronted with three alternatives: CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a hologram. Since there are witnesses who report seeing what they took to be a plane (but which cannnot be a real plane), where CGIs or video compositing would be inconsistent with seeing images of a plane other than on television, by elimination it cannot be CGIs and it also cannot be video compositing. Those of us who understand the nature of reasoning therefore soundly conclude that it was a hologram.
“Those of us who understand the nature of reasoning therefore soundly conclude that it was a hologram.”~Jim {tho one and only} Fetzer
Oh the exclusivity of that rare group, “who understand the nature of reasoning”
What a pile of bald stinking hubris, while asserting the existence of a technology that to this date, ten frigging years later, has not been proven to exist.
For a hologram to be seen it needs a medium to be projected onto. On stage this is usually a fog provided by a dry ice fog machine. And in these displays it must be dark overall to give the effect of solidity.
The problems with projecting a hologram in broad daylight sans special medium is a deep problem to overcome.
To assert as a ‘given’ that such technology exists – that it is certain, is not to “understand the nature of reasoning” – it is to understand the nature of speculation.
If you are to claim that such holograms indeed exist and that the ones of planes used on 9/11 is the verifiable proof of such, you are then practicing circular reasoning.
If you have proof that holographic projection systems of this sophistication existed back in 2001, I would be most interested in your sharing this with us.
ww
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Because I admit to blatant tendency to being duped by whatever crosses my plate, I am willing to consider the usage of holograms on 9/11. But what will push the plunger down on duping me is evidence and properly applied science. For all of the talk of holograms, I have to date not see evidence to suggest their operational ability, let alone applicability to 9/11.
Kindly provide links to your research. [This forum supports most HTML mark-up. You should be linking to your articles elsewhere, not just blabbing their titles and expecting people to google them.]
Dr. Fetzer wrote:
There are more than three alternatives, although the fourth one is sort of composite. Namely, the money quote from the following video at 0:48 “Some people said ‘they thought they saw a missile.'”
A missile with wings and paint to look like an aircraft certainly could fool people at a distance to really being an aircraft. Video compositing could then be used to mask out the missile and insert pixels of an airplane.
On this front, Ace Baker [also sometimes pegged as a disinfo source] claims that masking over a portion of a real image (depicting a missile) with CGI pixels of a plane is too difficult. Maybe imagery manipulation experts Mr. HybridRogue1, Mr. Shack, and Mr. OneBornFree should weigh in.
I have to say that a missile with wings comes damn close to being a “hardened plane.” However, I think enough distinctions between the two exist that I’m willing to keep missiles-in-make-up on the table for hitting the towers, but not commercial aircraft or “hardened planes.” It is a minor hair-split, but such hair-splitting language is important to understanding. I admit, also, that “missiles at the WTC” technically doesn’t invalidate “no planes (at the WTC)” that I would have to eat my words on (but would gladly do so with an apology will more research and understanding.)
I thank Mr. OneSliceShort for the links and videos he present on the subject of missiles.
Senor, you can find an article by entering its name just as reliably as using a link. Have you done a search on “holograms”? I mentioned that I interviewed Stephen Brown, who had just completed a course on holography at Cambridge. That can be found in the archives of “The Real Deal”, which in this case http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20dealstephen%20brown.mp3 For more, http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=holograms&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Jim Fetzer says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm
I am NOT “maintaining that the speed shows there was no plane”, ONLY that it shows that, if there was a real plane, it cannot have been a standard Boeing 767.
Jim Fetzer says:
April 22, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Since it cannt be a real plane (for reasons I have laboriously explained in excruciating detail)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t think any commentary is necessary Jim’s own words speak against themselves.
ww
“GSIs or video compositing”~Jim {for certain} Fetzer
The term is CGI, for ‘Computer Generated Imagery’.
ww
Yes, of course. But in your next-to-last post, you make some bizarre claim about the “mass ratios” of the plane vs. the building, by which you seem to mean the part of the building that it hit. That suggests you have a model of the building in mind that could be represented by a stack of coins, with the dimes on top, then the pennies, then the nickles, the quarters, the fifty cent pieces, and such. So if you hit one of them just right, you might be able to dislodge it from the stack, right?
But the South Tower was a massive lattice structure where its parts were bolted and welded into a single 500,000-ton whole, which was rooted to the bedrock at its foundation. Your model would be tenable only that stack of coins was welded into a single whole, where the absurdity of your comparison becomes apparent. I am sorry, hybridrogue1, but you are not cut out for reasoning.
Plus, as I have previously observed, you have given a calculation for the force imparted by a plane on the building but not of the resistance of the building to the plane. That is such a blatant form of fakery that I am drawing very unflattering inferences about your role here. A plane could no more have effortlessly entered the building than a car, by driving really, really fast, could pass through an enormous tree. I am sorry to say it, but the quality of your arguments is pathetic.
“A plane could no more have effortlessly entered the building than a car, by driving really, really fast, could pass through an enormous tree. I am sorry to say it, but the quality of your arguments is pathetic.”~Fetzer
I am sorry to say…yes as well, but you again misplace analogies. The bullet through a steel street sign is the more applicable. Even the car hitting the tree as it shatters the car, will still leave a substantial gouge in the trunk of said tree.
But the same token the tower is not analogous to the tree – the specifics of the tube design structure is well enough understood by {I would think} most all of us here. It is your using the facade as a hardened bunker style front that is the glaring error here. As the bullet through the sign is deformed by impact with the sign but it still passes through it. That the plane would be shattered as it passes through the facade is a given.
I think the strongest evidence of the WTC case is the visual evidence, which you seem so desperate to discard.
And it is this desperation to discard the strongest evidence in this case that raises my personal suspicions as per your actual agenda here.
ww
Jim Fetzer said: “the greater the weight we give to the witnesses, the more reason we have to accept a hologram instead of GSIs or video compositing, because GSIs and video compositing would not lead to the image of a plane being seen by witnesses at the time of the occurrence of these events but only after the fact.”
I’m sorry Mr Fetzer, but I can see neither the logic, nor the scientific procedural necessity for giving more weight to alleged “eye-witness testimony” [ i.e. unsubstantiated, non-cross-examined 3rd parties].
It seems to me that the strongest [for want of a better word] evidence would be the network video records themselves [102 minutes worth] and the alleged “amateur” videos [Naudet, Herzkhani, Fairbanks etc.] .
Surely, for a scientist, alleged eye-witness testimony should be given less, or no, “weight” , not more, ?
I am neither a trained scientist nor logician, but it seems to me that cherry-picking certain “eye-witness” accounts [unless I am misunderstanding you] is treading on some very thin ice, procedurally. Regards, onebornfree.
Well, what did I not explain? If the fakery was done exclusively by altering the video tape, then there would have been no “planes” for witnesses to observe other than on television, when they were broadcast (as they were repeatedly during the day). If any of those witnesses–and there are many, where The New York Times collated 500 of their reports–are speaking the truth, then there is evidence that something that looked like a plane was observed prior to the purported impact.
In addition to interviewing 15 students of 9/11, who had taken an interest in video fakery, I have also interviewed many others (about the Pentagon witnesses, about the use of a hologram, and other related issues). One was Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower for three years prior to 9/11. He explained to me how he had watched as the plane was “swallowed up” by the building and how it had not collapsed but turned to sand. See http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.
So if we are confronted by three alternatives–CGIs, video compositing or the use of a hologram — where two of the three are inconsistent with witnesses sincere reports of seeing what looked like a plane to them, by elimination, we are reduced to exactly one of the three, namely, the use of a hologram, which is the only explanation consistent with the witness reports of seeing “a plane”. I have been convinced by Scott Forbes’ testimony that he saw what he took to be a plane. Q.E.D.
So Jim Fetzer, what is your current opinion on Morgan Reynolds?
ww
By the way Jim Festzer, you addressed Hybridrogue1 as he or she in a comment earlier…
You must have missed it before, I am ‘he’, my name is Willy Whitten, Special Effects Artist {Retired}
OK. That I did not know. But you know how to spell my name, yet you misspell it. Very poor form.
Actually that was an innocent typo this time Jim…and I apologize – but I have used variations on purpose before I admit.
NPT debunks:
Jason Bermas Debunks September Clues http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJcwoiR24sM
Nose out hoax http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1V7TovxzBc
More to come later as I have time.
Adam,
I really don’t find this debunks anything. I’m not saying that what he’s saying is wrong, I just don’t there anything that would convince someone against the fakery theory. I don’t like truthers mocking the idea that “ooh the government is all powerful…” That should be left to anti-truthers. And the fact that the crazy person he’s talking about was touting video fakery while accompanied by someone in a Puff the Magic Dragon outfit doesn’t mean anything. In fact, some might wonder whether this was done deliberately to discredit the issue. Don’t we have examples of this kind of thing being done? (Nico Haupt, for example) I’m not saying anything about September Clues one way or the other, I’m just saying this clip ain’t enough.
I really want to see a serious, evidence-based debunk of video fakery. I haven’t seen one yet. I just can’t base a rejection of this on people saying how crazy it is and how it’s disinfo. It may well be, but I want to see an analysis that shows me why it is. Looking forward to any other links you have.
Hey Craig,
I wasn’t interested in seeing the clip offered by Adam. But I think that i personally put a pretty big dent in this video fakery concept on ’36 Leaders’.
I don’t know if you were able to go through as assess my entire argument as unfolded there, but I feel I put the 8 Ball in the pocket on that one.
If you disagree that is fine, but you might review the whole argument, as complex as it turned out to be.
ww
WW,
I’ll certainly go back and read that again. Thanks.
OK Craig fair enough here goes:
The sheer difficulty in faking so many seperate videos from so many angles in so short a time frame cannot be underestimated. The short time frame available to achieve the fakery is really the killer for the whole NPT if you think about it. All the perspectives would have to match up perfectly in the fakes. In other words when the “fake” plane passed a certain landmark it would have to be faked in the exact right spot and angle adjusted by the perspective of each individual camera. For that many fakes to all match up if you were to triangulate the actual position of the “fake” seperately for each view is in my opinion totally impossible. Some views would get the position wrong or the angle wrong or the size wrong or the speed wrong and they wouldn’t match up. It is incredibly complex to fake video from multiple angles and in my view (as a long time videographer and editor) it would be impossible to have everything match up correctly on multiple videos let alone over 20. The fakes would have to stand up to video analysis and not be shown to be fake. MUFON does this kind of analysis on alleged UFO videos all the time and fakes are exposed. Another issue is that this “fakery” involves having access to all the videos which means the people who shot them would have to have been involved at least to the point where they surrendered their original footage to the faker(s) and then kept their mouths shut after the fakes were released. Highly unlikely. Next issue is that, in the Naudet video of the first strike for example, the firefighters and other people on the street turn and watch the plane approach and strike the tower and react to it on video. They would have to be faking their reactions and that scene would have to be staged and those people in on it. Highly unlikely especially when you factor in all the reactions in all the videos. An additional issue is that the damage to the towers clearly shows the steal and walls blown/torn inwards from the outside. The steel is bent inwards. How can that be faked? Think about it logically. On and on the complcations pile up to the point where it becomes statistically impossible to pull off. The NPT is a bunch of BS. Real planes struck the towers.
Hollograms are out of the question for a number of other reasons as well. Number one the hollogram must be projected onto something such as smoke or water spray etc for it to be substantial. It was a crystal clear day on Sept 11th and there was no such smoke/cloud cover/water vapor in the air to project a hollogram onto. Second HUGE technical problem with a hollogram is that it has to be projected from somewhere. The projector has to be able to project the fake image all the way from the point where it is first seen to impact. Where could a projector be possitioned to be able to do that? Remember the planes came in from opposite directions and hit opposite sides of the towers. Therefore at lease two projectors would be required to pull this off. It is obviously BS if you apply logic to the issue.
Adam,
I thank you for taking the time to give me your overview on this question. I watched the Lawson video months ago, but I’m going to do so again. Just to be clear, I am not saying there were no planes, and I never have. I am saying I have questions.
Craig,
Anthony Lawson made a video critique of September Clues, called September Clues – Busted! which was much more professional and detailed. He gave specific examples where the makers of September Clues took video clips and manipulatively edited them for the purposes of deceiving the viewer. Check it out here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550
@Keenan
Thanks for the video link Keenan (I’m no grest fan of Lawson but he has the basic fallacies of September Clues nailed IMO).
Towards the end of the video he made a very relevant statement to what’s currently happening with the attempted melding of NPT with solid evidence uncovered by Pilotsfor911Truth and CIT. He claimed that the “impossible speed” of the alleged Flight 175 as outlined by Rob Balsamo here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdjgtBj_HwM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
….was false or “busted”
The exchange between Anthony Lawson and Rob Balsamo
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21550
To cut a long story short, Lawson went on the attack regarding the above video, calculations, precedent and endorsement by experienced pilots. He went on the attack (and exposed himself in the end) because the NPT camp used the illogical claim that because the speed of the aircraft used in the attack on tower 2 flew well above (150 knots) the VMO for a standard 767, that there was no plane.
Towards the end of a protracted exchange it was found that Lawson and Rob were actually in agreement (or Lawson was forced to backstep), in that the aircraft had to have been modified to achieve the speed recorded.
Another manufactured “quagmire”.
The towers absorbed the impact of the planes, this is the only aspect when the mass ratios of the two objects come into play. The only other physics involved are therefore the mass and strength of the actual impact point of the building verses the mass and strength of the craft coupled with it’s kinetic energy.
A lead bullet fired from a rifle will puncture a 1/8th-inch-thick steel sign despite the fact that lead is much weaker than steel.
As to the plane itself: I’ve read enough about the speed limit of this machine, and the structural problems for a short interval flight at this speed at this altitude is considered such that the aircraft would need to be refitted for various parts, but wouldn’t necessarily break up in flight.
At the point of final line up and power plunge, the maneuverability is more one of NOT over correcting impulsively as a human pilot might – I think an auto pilot would be successful in bringing that craft in on target in the manner I describe.
Again this is not an argument for a normal commercial airliner – which is a stipulation I am sick of being forced to remind of.
ww
You have so many ridiculous arguments that I have refuted repeatedly that your role here as a scam artist can no longer be denied. You even allowed Adam Ruff to argue against a position that is not mine and did not even explain to him that my contention is that THE VIDEOS ARE GENUINE VIDEOS OF PLANES THAT ARE NOT. You could have done that, but you did not. I can only infer that you are completely dishonest and have no intellectual integrity whatsoever, which no doubt explains why you repeat, again and again, worthless arguments I have refuted.
“You even allowed Adam Ruff to argue against a position that is not mine and did not even explain to him that my contention is that THE VIDEOS ARE GENUINE VIDEOS OF PLANES THAT ARE NOT. You could have done that, but you did not.”~Jim Fetzer
You lambaste me for leading Adam astray on your position, and yet here are your very own words in reference to the Naudet video:
April 21 at 9:47am
“A 767 has a wingspan of 150′ which should cover 3/4 of the 208′ width of the side of the North Tower. I looks nothing like a Boeing 767 and creates four hit-points when it comes into contact with the building, a “Z” configuration that turns into an elongated “V” after the smoke clears. Anyone who tells you this is a 767 is contradicted by readily-available evidence.”
Now slip out of this one, and attempt to say that you were suggesting anything other than the imagery was not a plane with the appearance of a 767. You did not suggest this was a hologram. You suggested that the image in the video isn’t real, as you go on to criticize the impact damage as fake as well.
When I argued against your lack of technical abilities as far as photo analysis, you did not attempt to adjust your argument in such a way as to correct me by pointing out that ‘no no you meant it was a hologram’…
So I consider this after the fact back-peddling to be just one more indicator that to some great extent you make things up on the fly, and can’t keep up with your own bullshit for even the length of this one discussion.
ww
It is reasonable to assume that a rifle bullet fired at a street lamp would shatter the light. It is unreasonable to assume that that bullet would knock the lamp and lamppost down.
Now…let’s dismiss all of this allegorical banter and simply admit that all of the photo-visual evidence shows an aircraft in reasonable resemblance to a 767 crashing into the second tower to be struck.
Fetzer himself admits to eye witnesses claiming the same.
So he is left with his argument of impossibility of the planes speed – which is only a theoretical, and one disputed by a fair amount of other scientists. This is coupled with what I, and others see as a false argument, that the plane could not have penetrated the facade of the building.
On these three disputed theories he has now based an argument for hologram projections to explain the video and eyewitness accounts. To characterize this as more than speculation, is to my mind not the most reasonable of arguments.
Again, I am not rejecting any physics with this opinion – but Fetzer’s misapplication of said physics.
His arguments have not persuaded me. Therefore he considers me a dunce. That is fine with me, I consider him an arrogant blowhard.
We can continue this tug’o’war with his claims of ‘authority’ as a ‘physicist’, and I can continue to cite other physicists who totally dismiss his arguments. But at this point the continuance is futile.
I say let it be Jim, as all that is left now is a back and forth of ad hominem, a stock and trade we are both well endowed for, but silly in reality.
ww
I am struck by the lack of participation of the usual suspects {grin} that attend this forum…[?]
I am not sure how this reflects upon the topic of the last half of the thread. Whether it is simple disinterest or lack of posting time, I suppose we shall find out in time.
ww
You’ve answered your own question..
@onebornfree
There are documented witnesses. I ommitted hearsay or any testimonies that aren’t clear, those with dubious backgrounds and media quotes. The majority are first responders and firefighters
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804309
@Craig
What do you think of my theory on penetration technology used in bunker busters (among other things)?
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4559
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4613
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4536
And do you not see how illogical it is to base a theory on one section of video footage (the impact), while rejecting the rest of the same footage (the plane)?
I’ve also shown the impact area where there are areas that couldn’t possibly have been cut out by charges. And I’ve also shown noticeable debris falling from the impact side in the second link above.
The impact damage – the left wingtip and lower vertical stabilizer
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcsouthtowerzoomhole.jpg
Peace
OSS
Yo OSS,
I see how all you have put into this post is a strong argument. And it will likely seem weird to you when you get arguments from others that this doesn’t prove anything against video fakery…
For some, NOTHING will ever convince them that they haven’t seen a ghost.
For some, NOTHING will ever convince them that they haven’t seen evidence of fakery in some 9/11 image…
“Who’s on first?”
Not the skit, but the psychological advantage of a first explanation of something.
Also read my post to Adam just below, I think it will help us all understand some aspects of the situation we deal with on this topic.
ww
Hi OSS,
– another way to look at it, exist also.
There’s pretty solid evidence floating around that many of the top floors in WT1 were empty.
(Referring to f.ex. “the Gelatin B thing”).
If that’s the case, there could also be a probability and a likelihood that some floors in WT2 could be empty as well.
Even though the corrupt MSM informed us all that Ronald Raygun, by orders from his handlers, had scrapt all further development of the so-called “star-war programs”, i think it would be a case of complete gullibility to trustingly believe these ‘assurances’ given at the time. Huge development in laser technology has taken place ever since then. And of course now we got the “new Heat machine” for crowd control; ‘just enough heat being emitted not to severely ‘burn’ the poor buggers’!
Naturally, at the moment, this is just idle speculations on my part, but i hope you’ll agree it is not beyond the possibilities that there could exist even more sophisticated technology out there, we at this point in time would be completely unaware and ignorant about!!
Just another little thing:
A few posts back i tried to embed a yt video here, same way as i have done it many times at P4T, but only the link came up. You got it down to a fine art, so could you please tell what i’m doing wrong?
Thanks, and much respect to you too! :o)
Cheers
@Tamborine Man
Hi mate,
Sorry TM, There is a major disconnect between the claims that holograms were used in Manhattan and corraborative witness testimony that contradicts not only the official story but aerodynamic impossibilities to achieve the directional damage.
Or in the case of Shankesville, witnesses who not only contradicted the OCT, but who saw drone type aircraft and what can only be described as the actual flyover/fly away plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXTAgFYyvUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UAL93.html
That Jim Fetzer wants to play with words a la Brian Good doesn’t change the fact these events are in no way connected to NTP bar through verbal foliage and wordsmithery.
An example. The Oklahoma Bombing. General Parton’s investigation of the bomb damage lead to the conclusion (coupled with the Elgin Airforce base simulation failure) that an ANFO bomb wasn’t the culprit. Based on what Jim Fetzer is saying, what witnesses described was “fakery”. The hollowed out Murrah Building is “fakery”.
It doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a truck that exploded. Just that there were additional and/or more exotic explosives.
You can stretch that logic to connect every deep state or false flag act as being “fakery”, but he’s using these 4 specific events on 9/11 and putting them all in the one pigeon hole. He has bastardized a logic/language to place all 9/11 events under the umbrella of not only NPT, but holograms and video fakery on an industrial scale.
Anybody new or naieve to this evidence will automatically see Pilotsfor911Truth and CIT, and more importantly the evidence they have accumulated as supporting NPT.
NPT = No Plane Theory. End of story.
Don’t embed. Just post the basic link.
Peace
OSS
I don’t get it. So far as I am aware, the presence of planes other than the official flights has NOTHING TO DO with NPT. Why is OSS posting such drivel? The only “bastardizing” that is going on here is the slopping thinking of some of those whom I had supposed could do better.
NPT (No Planes Theory) maintains, not that there were no planes at all anywhere in the sky on 9/11, even in the vicinity of the crash sites, but that the four planes that the official account of 9/11 asserts crashed on 9/11 DID NOT CRASH AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS TOLD US:
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Now I would like for OSS and others to kindly address the real question. Which of these four contentions do they reject? Since Pilots has shown that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, tell us what you think happened that contradicts NPT?
The quality of reasoning on this thread has become ridiculous. hybridrogue1 does not even point out that the position Adam is attacking is not mine. OSS offers nothing but confusion in response to those of us who are defining our terms. How can these people post such drivel?
@OSS
Hi mate,
You write:
“Sorry TM, There is a major disconnect between the claims that holograms were used in Manhattan and corraborative witness testimony that contradicts not only the official story but aerodynamic impossibilities to achieve the directional damage.”
I can’t find neither head nor tail in any of this, so please, you’ll have to explain to me what you mean?
(By the way, i’m of course aware that you don’t believe in the ‘hologram projection’ thing)!
I wrote:
“We all agree that no-plane crashed into the pentagon, and no-plane crashed in Shanksville”.
If i understand you right, you are objecting to me including you in the 50%, as you consider that the non-plane crashes at the pentagon and in Shanksville also should NOT go in under the term NPT!
Well, that’s fair enough, so i’ll apologize for my mistake, and hurriedly change it to:
“Therefore, some of us are 100% NPT; some of us are x% NPT; and some of us are zero% NPT.
Just out of interest. Does that mean that you consider the Shanksville crater, together with the engine part planted therein, and the’ entry’ hole at the pentagon, also should NOT go in under the term “fakery”?
Thanks for your advise re. links –
peace
Cheers
That was supposed to be a ‘smiley’!
Jim Fetzer said: “I have also interviewed many others (about the Pentagon witnesses, about the use of a hologram, and other related issues). One was Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower for three years prior to 9/11. ”
Did you thoroughly investigate the backgrounds of all of these persons pre-interview, Jim? Do you know how to spot actors/frauds? Do you posess attorney-level cross-examination skills, and have private investigators at your disposal?
How did you know for certain they were not deliberately lying, or simply just mistaken due to psychological trauma induced by the broadcast events? [which is exactly what those broadcast events were designed to do- induce psychological trauma in the viewer- most to this day appear to believe they saw the events live, when in fact they simply saw it all on TV and assume that that seeing it “live” on TV is the same thing as seeing the purported event[s] live on the street ].
Regards, onebornfree.
Listen to the interview and judge for yourself. It is at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com under the name “Scott Forbes”. He appears to me to be completely sincere and honest in telling his story, which has elements that I would not expect from a liar or a dissembler, including that, when the South Tower blew apart, it looked like it was turning to sand. Check it out. And of course you are also impugning the integrity of a whole lot of other New Yorkers who, while differing in their descriptions of the kind of plane it was, all agreed that they say a plane enter the South Tower. We know that it was performing feats that no real plane could perform, so it cannot have been a real plane. But it was something that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane. That’s what the evidence tells us. To discount all of these witness reports is completely indefensible.
onesliceshort said: “There are documented witnesses. I ommitted hearsay or any testimonies that aren’t clear, those with dubious backgrounds and media quotes. The majority are first responders and firefightersI have also interviewed many others (about the Pentagon witnesses, about the use of a hologram, and other related issues). One was Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower for three years prior to 9/11. ”
[I have the exact same questions I just previously posted for Mr Fetzer]
OSS, Did you thoroughly investigate the backgrounds of all of these persons pre-interview, ? Do you know how to spot actors/frauds? Do you possess attorney-level cross-examination skills, and have private investigators at your disposal to thoroughly investigate all of those individuals backgrounds?
How did you know for certain they were not deliberately lying, or simply just mistaken due to psychological trauma induced by the broadcast events? [which is exactly what those broadcast events were designed to do- induce psychological trauma in the viewer- most to this day appear to believe they saw the events live, when in fact they simply saw it all on TV and assume that that seeing it “live” on TV is the same thing as seeing the purported event[s] live on the street ].
Regards, onebornfree.
I’ve spent hundreds of hours researching and cross referencing all known/publicized witness testimony surrounding the Pentagon attack. I’ve learned that online testimonies need to be verified, preferably from their alleged POVs.
What I listed at that lonk were a selection of verified, documented testimonies. What should be done is that those people are contacted and interviewed. Has anybody ever done this?
Anyway, Jom Fetzer claims that the more witnesses and the stronger their testimony, the better it is for the confirmation that holograms were used…
You work that one out.
So, if the footage is fake (and according to the premise for manipulation of this footage, they are a complete invention bar the background), why isn’t the footage rejected in its entirity? And on that basis, isn’t the impact footage open to manipulation? Is the physical argument for NPT based on the impact footage shown in videos that is claimed have been under the control of and manipulated by the perps?
Sorry for the bolding but I honestly don’t know if I’m wording this question properly!
I don’t like linking to this guy but….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkbAvx5jUu0
The Bin Laden fake tapes. Which part of this tape should I reject and which part should I accept?
Well, there is a big difference between the Pentagon, where only those in the know had any reason to think that a plane was going to hit the building, and New York, where thousands upon thousands were looking at the North Tower. Surely you can appreciate the difference, OSS, which is a big one.
I spend three two-hour shows with Mike Sparks going through the Pentagon witnesses, where I agree that their reports, although numerous, appear to be worthless. I have observed that ,as a former Marine Corps officer, as a series commander, I could have had 300 recruits sign on their mother’s grave that they saw Batman drive the Batmobile into the Pentagon. But not in New York.
These were civilians and their reports were all over the plane in describing what they saw–a big plane, a small plane, a military plane, a civilian plane–but only one reported seeing a United airliner enter the building. Still, we have a lot of reports from diverse sources of seeing a plane.
I was not convinced until I found a credible witness, Scott Forbes, and interviewed him for two-hours on “The Real Deal”. Check him out at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. You are comparing apples and oranges with military vs. civilian witnesses. Give this more thought.
onesliceshort said : “And do you not see how illogical it is to base a theory on one section of video footage (the impact), while rejecting the rest of the same footage (the plane)?
OSS, If the plane impact is in the same section of film footage , and that image is fraudulent, why assume that the rest of the footage is trustworthy? If you know for sure one part is fake, isn’t it more logical [or at least procedurally safer] to assume that the rest of the footage is fake, until definitively proven otherwise?
onesliceshort said : “I’ve also shown the impact area where there are areas that couldn’t possibly have been cut out by charges. And I’ve also shown noticeable debris falling from the impact side in the second link above.”
OSS, All of your observations are based on the pre-assumption that whichever piece of footage or which ever still photo you happen to be viewing , that it is genuine.
But why do you assume that the footage or photo [whichever ones you are referring to] is in fact genuine? Are you familiar with any of the basic signs of video fakery and know what to look for? regards, onebornfree.
“All the perspectives would have to match up perfectly in the fakes. In other words when the “fake” plane passed a certain landmark it would have to be faked in the exact right spot and angle adjusted by the perspective of each individual camera. For that many fakes to all match up if you were to triangulate the actual position of the “fake” seperately for each view is in my opinion totally impossible. ”
And yet strangely, they don’t all “match up”. Not even close.
For one small example, “September Clues” reveals the fact that the network “live feed” archives show at least 3 [possibly more when “amateur” footage is added to the mix] , completely contradictory flight paths for Fl 175, dependent on which network the planes approach happens to be viewed on. 🙂
regards, onebornfree.
If Fetzer ain’t cops he’s fruitloop.
ww
Jim Fetzer says: “Well, what did I not explain? If the fakery was done exclusively by altering the video tape, then there would have been no “planes” for witnesses to observe other than on television, when they were broadcast (as they were repeatedly during the day). If any of those witnesses–and there are many, where The New York Times collated 500 of their reports–are speaking the truth, then there is evidence that something that looked like a plane was observed prior to the purported impact..”
I do not see what the problem is. The absence of real plane images on videos simply mean that those videos are deliberate fakes.
It does not necesarily exclude the presence of real-life planes somewhere in the vicinity that day, which would account for some of the alleged “eye-witness testimony” .
Maybe some of those witnesses were/are telling the truth- my only point is that it is impossible to know for sure without a lot more thorough investigtion of each of those witnesses backgrounds/history.
But why even bother with that? Why choose to then believe certain, unprovable at this point, witness testimony in order to make speculations about what exactly[ if anything] hit the towers?
Why is that important? We all know it was not aircraft that destroyed the towers, why speculate about what hit them? With all due respect, this seems pointless to me.
The bald fact of the matter is that the media have intentionally broadcast fake imagery of planes hitting buildings [ for example, the Fox 5 sequence, the Naudet sequence, the Fairbanks sequence etc.etc.] .
Surely the next logical thought which should arise [assuming one believes the “plane into/through building” videos are all fakes] is : “well now, if they broadcast fake “plane into building” videos, how do we actually know for certain that the rest of that 102 minute minute “live feed” from the various mainstream networks is not just as fake as those “plane into/through building” videos all are “? Or similar.
regards, onebornfree.
“Somewhere in the vicinity that day”? Surely you jest. These are witnesses who claim to have seen the plane hit the South Tower. What kind of nonsense are you peddling? This is absurd. I not only interviewed a fellow who had studied the 500 New York Times reports but I tracked down Scott Forbes, who had worked in the building for three years. He told me that he had seen the plane entering the building and was astonished that it “swallowed the plane”. You can find the interview at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com under “Scott Forbes”. He is intelligent and, as I judge him to be, sincere and truthful. I have mentioned this before, if you go back to check.
ruffadam,
Responding to your comment of, April 22, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Let me say that your pointing out the logistical improbabilities of the video fakery hypothesis, is the same as my first impulse for a response to this stuff. It is a good argument, but obviously fails to impress those who have bought into this thing for whatever first impression reasons.
As a video professional yourself, it is pretty easy to see through the technical claims made by the fruity charlatans such as Simon Shack, however laymen aren’t going to see as readily how absurd some of these claims are just on the surface, let alone the more subtle aspects.
One also has to account for individual aptitude for visual acuity as well. Regardless of how reasonable one may argue the technicalities, if the reader can’t ‘see it’ with their own eyes, it’s is going to be an uphill battle with them.
If you go through the arguments I made to Fetzer, you will see it is explained in very clear language why the Naudet video proves nothing of the sort of things he claims it does. Yet he can’t seem to grasp the simple facts about resolution/pixelation and focus. I mean it is such a straightforward and simple thing that you would think anyone who has used a camera of any kind, digital or analog, would instantly grasp these things.
I came to the conclusion while making the arguments against SeptClues on the ’36 Leaders’ thread on this blog, that it has something to do with the psychology of growing up thinking that pictures of things are the things themselves. They tend to forget that a picture is just light and dark on a flat surface, that depth is an illusion. I tried to sort this out with the Taoist saying, “Like is not,” ie; a picture of a horse is not a horse – it is a picture. You may try a little experiment with friends some time and show them a picture of something; say, a car, and simply ask, “what is this?” – I think you will discover most people will automatically say, “it’s a car”. If you then point out that no, it is a ‘picture’ of a car, most will say, “yea well sure, that’s obvious” – and yet when asked what the picture was, they responded to what it was a picture of, and not that it was first and foremost, a picture.
And all of this long drawn out dialog, is meant simply to point out that there are ingrained psychological issues involved with this issue, deeper ones than simply the dispute around the 9/11 images.
ww
Hi ruffadam,
referring to your last post, and just to forestall any misunderstandings, let me assure you that neither i or Jim Fetzer believe that the videos in general have been faked. Some might have been, for various reasons, but if that’s the case they are not that important, at least not to me personally.
On the contrary, we both think that it’s the planes which have been faked, in the sense that they are not real, but simply ‘projections’ of a plane caught by videos and cameras.
From DARPA’s budget papers 2000 – 2007 it is evident that their hologram technology was and is far more advanced than you give them credit for in your post.
Here is a page from their papers that i managed to save back in 2007. Shortly thereafter they removed the papers from the net, so unfortunately missed out on few other pages that was also worth reading:
From page 123:
“…..
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century.”
Another ‘long’ paper from 1998 exist on the net with the title:
3-D Holographic display using Stronium Barium Niobate.
and with the following introduction:
“An innovative technique for generating a three dimensional holographic display using strontium barium niobate (SBN) is discussed.
The resultant image is a hologram that can be viewed in real time over a wide perspective or field of view (FOV). The holographic
image is free from system- induced aberrations and has a uniform, high quality over the entire FOV. The enhanced image quality
results from using a phase conjugate read beam generated from a second photorefractive crystal acting as a double pumped phase
conjugate mirror (DPPCM). Multiple three dimensional images have been stored in the crystal via wavelength multiplexing.
PDF from 1998.”
Just Google the title and take it from there!
Hope this gives you a better idea of what we are talking about –
Cheers
Great post, Tambourine man. By using sophisticated technologies that are unknown to the public to project the image of a plane and to blow the Twin Towers into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, they left fascinating puzzles to solve. Your pdf from 1998 is a valuable contribution to this discussion. I hope that ruffadam better understands what hybridrogue1 did not explain about the use of fake planes in lieu of altered videos, where I also agree that some of them do appear to have been created as well, as Simon Shack has shown. But both Flight 11 and Flight 175 were done using fake planes, where the crucial case of Flight 175 involved the projection of a hologram.
Certainty based on speculation is not “reason in argument” no matter how many times you blow your great fat nose Mister Fatzer – master of scarymonies and wizard of bla bla bla
You make a mighty oink for someone who can’t even grasp the concept of RESOLUTION and FOCUS in photography.
As I warned, you have nothing more than ad hominem coming when you offer naught but the same – the ‘substance’ in your ‘arguments’ vanish entirely when it is the same old repeato nonsense you crank out over and again, then add your, “this person continually demonstrates he is so stupid bla bla bla”.
Yes there are many sophisticated technologies projected on an unwitting public, one of them is this postmodern COINTELPRO spin-a-whopper game you are playing.
ww
So fellas, consider the huge commercial possibilities of such a magnifico technology as thus discribed…aye?
If perfected as described, and the description is after all, merely the promo of the inventors – but IF perfected as described, would be of such a revolution in entertainment, that no one would be satisfied with mere projections on a flat screen ever again once witnessing such new age magic as this.
Supposing this existed in 2001 as a perfected technology a mere three years after concept is a stretch. But even then the thought that the military complex could hold back the financial class in taking advantage of such a huge money maker these ten years hence is beyond rational consideration.
Again – this ‘hologram airplane’ postulate is nothing but speculation. To cling to it as a certainty is Barnum and Bailey elephant dung sold as chocolate ice cream.
ww
Another massively misleading post from this guy, who apparently had not even looked at what we find when we take a look at the Naudet footage. Go to “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and tell me that you think that is a Boeing 767. Really! I can’t believe he keeps pushing such rubbish.
Ruffadam has the wrong theory in mind, as I have explained many times. My position is that the “planes” that were filmed hitting the North Tower and effortlessly entering the South were not only not Flights 11 and 175 but were simulations of planes, not real planes, so the argument you present–which is itself inconsistent with footage that shows planes approaching on different and inconsistent trajectories, as Simon Shack already pointed out but as others have as well–is not the basis for my reasoning but that, in the case of the Naudet footage, what we have does not even remotely resemble a Boeing 767; that its creates four points of impact that make a “Z” configuration, yet when the smoke clears, it has turned into an elongated “V”; that it looks more like an arrangement of four UAVs flying in close formation; and that, as Ace Baker pointed out long ago, the smoke cloud that arises is not affected by the wind vortex that would accompany the passage of a large plane, like a Boeing 767. It therefore does not appear to have been one.
Moreover, your remarks about holograms appear to be outdated. Not only have I interviewed a number of those who have, like myself, become convinced that it has to have been a hologram since, given we know it cannot have been a real plane because–even though hybridrogue1 is offering faulty analogies and misrepresenting the design of the building and seems to believe that Newton’s laws were suspended on 9/11–it was performing feats that no real plane could perform. That leaves us with three alternatives: CGIs, video compositing, and a hologram. But if it were CGIs or video compositing, there would have been no witnesses who reported seeing a plane (better, what they took to be a plane) entering the South Tower, when there are a large number of those witnesses, including Scott Forbes. I also interviewed Stephen Brown, who had just taken a course in holography at Cambridge, who assured me that the technology to pull this of existed at the time. So you do not understand my position and your knowledge is out of date.
“Another massively misleading post from this guy, who apparently had not even looked at what we find when we take a look at the Naudet footage. Go to “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery’” and tell me that you think that is a Boeing 767.”
In what am I misleading dear sir? Are you insinuating that I have not seen and analysed the Naudet footage with my own keen and professional eyes?
How is it that I should be compelled to accept what you and your ‘we’ have found, when you have already proven in this very forum that you do not even understand simple matters such as resolution/piexelation and focus in the realm of photography?
Your claim that there is anything in this footage that proves the object is not an airplane is rubbish. Perhaps in your ignorance of such things you do not believe the algorithms of smoothing software that take the light info and extrapolating give a clearer representation of the image lacking resolution? But as has been shown such smoothing does present an image of an airplane – a great lack of detail indeed, but clearly a jet aircraft with swept back wings and large engines at the point they would be on our ‘Boeing’.
ww
That hybridrogue1 is not an honest broker is also confirmed by his attempt to slight the use of the word “soundly” when I explain that, given three alternatives, CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a hologram, since the witness reports establish not-CGIs and not-video compositing (or there would have been no images of planes for those witnesses to report having seen), a argument by elimination–if p or q or r, but not-p and not-q, therefore r–yields the conclusion that it must have been a hologram. If the premises are true and the reasoning is valid, then an argument is sound, which is the correct term for an argument whose conclusion cannot be false. So hybridrogue1 now demonstrates not only that he is not an honest broker (by leaving Ruffadam with a false impression of my position) and that he does not understand physics (where his comparisons to bullets and his ignorance of classic physics are appalling) but that he does not even understand elementary proofs in deductive logic. Given these considerations, it should come as no surprise that his posts are completely indefensible and that he has been reduced to childish name calling. What drivel!
Yadahoody we are back in the saddle again…moley hackerhoons dude…I tell ya uncle Festzer, “the childish name calling” seems to have a place when dealing with such insistent agenteur as your smoojesty – your high ho linguistic loopograms such as ” such and such now demonstrates” and projecting that Ruffadam hasn’t the sense to read your own twirly twatspittle and judge for himself, what your position is, but is going to be unduly influenced by yours most and completely truly makes the dingleberries on your fat ass chime as the hairs stand on end.
Why yo why yo even fookin try yo to make sensible arguments with such an obvious scripto PR wrangler as you??? No reason at all.
You dangle spoofs and call it ‘deductive logic’ clogging the channels with your sputtery fluttery fecal fling…unholy bastard thou.
A New Stage Poem
by Willy Whitten
Another proof that this guy is a phony and a fraud. He not only denies Newton’s laws and tries to explain away the absence of collision effects at the South Tower but, because he is unable to refute my arguments, he does what he does best, which is espouse more nonsense, rubbish, and drivel.
Fetzer,
You continue to assert that I deny Newton’s laws. this is utter garbage, I refute your misapplication of Newton’s laws, as I have explained in great detail.
Your claim that I haven’t refuted your arguments is premature at best mr. el supremo science man. I don’t think I alone have refuted them, you are soundly defeated by several posters on this blog. Your refusal to admit such and claim victory is all in your own imagination.
ww
@ Jim Fetzer :
Would it fair to say that in your opinion the Naudet video is a completely authentic representation of real-time events , because the “plane-like” object seen in it is is borne out by “eye-witness testimony”? That there is nothing fraudulent about the Naudet footage? Or am I misunderstanding your position?
Regards, onebornfree
The situations at the Pentagon (where there are a large number of witnesses who are not telling the truth), at the South Tower (where there were many independent witnesses who appear to be sincere), and at the North Tower (where there were very few witnesses with the film crew) appear to be completely different cases. So I agree that numbers alone are not the crucial consideration.
Leslie Raphael has written several studies that establish that, for this crew to have been in just the right position to film the hit on the North Tower, a hundred or more improbable circumstances had to be satisfied. This cannot have happened by chance. And for the cameraman to have been able to effortlessly capture the hit when the sound trailed behind it is beyond improbable.
Tamourine man and I may differ about Flight 11, which appears to be a close formation of UAVs, by my best guess. It is most certainly not a Boeing 767, which has a wingspan of 150′ that would have been 3/4 the width of the North Tower at 208′. There were four impact points which made the image of a “Z”, but when the smoke cleared, had strangely turned into an elongated “V”.
In both cases, there were clouds of smoke that should have been affected by the passage of a large commercial carrier, but were not. So while he and I agree about the use of a hologram in the case of Flight 175, I believe it was done by a different technique in the case of Flight 11. That, I believe, was part of the plan: to perform the faking of each crash site in rather different ways.
Remarkably, George W. Bush reported (twice, in public) that, when he saw the impact of the first plane on the North Tower, he said to himself, “What a terrible pilot!” But since it was only about 30 minutes later that the second impact occurred, where the first was not shown on public TV until the following day, he must have seen it on a closed Secret Service television network.
After all, no one (except the perps) were anticipating anything like this. And we all saw Andy Card lean over and whisper than another plane had hit another tower and that America was under attack, which evoked no discerable response from Bush at all. His later statements about the first hit, therefore, indicate that he had access to TV coverage that the public did not have.
@ Jim Fetzer: So bottom line,Jim, in your opinion the Naudet video is authentic because alleged “eye-witnesses” who you have interviewed confirmed the presence of a plane [or plane-like object] doing what it does in the video? Would my summary of your position be correct here ?
Regards, onebornfree.
No. As in the case of the footage of “Flight 175” effortlessly entering the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws, what we have is the simulation of a plane, not a real plane–and most certainly not a Boeing 767. That the video is authentic only means that the video itself was not altered to introduce the image, but that the image was in the air and captured by the camera. Since I have explained all of this many times, including in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, let me ask a very simple question: Have you read either of these studies? Or try “More Questions about 9/11”, on Veterans Today.
Have you missed my point that each of the crash scenes was created in different ways: that no plane crashed in Shanksville; that a plane flew toward and the swooped over the Pentagon at the same time explosives were set off in the building; that the North Tower hit was faked using what appears to be a close formation of four UAVs, from my assessment of the evidence, which I present in those articles; and that the South Tower hit was faked using a hologram, which is an inference that follows from the recognition that the feats it performs could not have been done by a real plane and that, given the witness reports, it is the only hypothesis that explains them?
Jim Fetzer says : “the video is authentic only means that the video itself was not altered to introduce the image, but that the image was in the air and captured by the camera. ”
So, to be clear, you are saying that you believe that the Naudet video _is_ 100% authentic, , and the plane image [or plane-like image] contained within it is also therefor authentic [because some witness confirm something similar] ?
Or, are you saying that because witnesses confirm that there was a plane [or plane like object] in the vicinity at that time ,and because such an object is seen in the Naudet video, that the presence of that object in that video makes the video genuine in your opinion?
Would that be a fair summary of your position ? Regards, onebornfree.
Jim Fetzer said: “Somewhere in the vicinity that day”? Surely you jest. These are witnesses who claim to have seen the plane hit the South Tower. What kind of nonsense are you peddling? This is absurd. I not only interviewed a fellow who had studied the 500 New York Times reports but I tracked down Scott Forbes, who had worked in the building for three years. He told me that he had seen the plane entering the building and was astonished that it “swallowed the plane”. You can find the interview at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com under “Scott Forbes”. He is intelligent and, as I judge him to be, sincere and truthful. I have mentioned this before, if you go back to check.”
“What kind of nonsense are you peddling? This is absurd. ”
Why the harsh tone all of sudden? [I can understand it with certain others here.]
“I tracked down Scott Forbes, who had worked in the building for three years. He told me that he had seen the plane entering the building and was astonished that it “swallowed the plane”.
” He is intelligent and, as I judge him to be, sincere and truthful. ”
But many others have claimed that the towers were completely unoccupied. Many others never saw a plane being swallowed by a building. But regardless of whether or not that is true or not [the buildings being completely unoccupied], I feel compelled to ask you the same question posted previously [also posted to onesliceshort]: Did you thoroughly investigate the backgrounds of all of these persons pre-interview, ? Do you know how to spot actors/frauds? Do you possess attorney-level cross-examination skills, and have private investigators at your disposal to thoroughly investigate all of those individuals backgrounds?
Realistically, why should I trust your judgement of an alleged “eyewitness” being “sincere and truthful. ” [ No disrespect intended] . Do you not see a problem with that?
Regards, onebornfree.
What in the world causes you to doubt the integrity and truthfulness of hundreds of citizens who reported seeing a plane hit the South Tower? The situation at the Pentagon is completely different, since they were mostly military personnel, who could be directed to sign statements.
Haven’t I already explained this? Not only is there no basis for this kind of blanket dismissal of hundreds who were already watching the North Tower and therefore were being attentive to what was going on in the vicinity but I located a witness who had worked in the South Tower for 3 years.
You are imposing a rather ridiculous demand in relation to the New York witnesses. I don’t care if you don’t trust my judgment. Just listen to the interview for yourself. His name is Scott Forbes and the interview is archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. Then let me have your opinion.
“But many others have claimed that the towers were completely unoccupied.”~onebornfree
Wait a minute – What? Where did you hear this tale that the towers were completely unoccupied?
That is one of the most outlandish things I have heard out of you Oneborner, and you have come up with some doozies.
Let us have some back-up on this, anything…
ww
I am just the messenger and not its champion. Don’t be arguing with me about it.
Hollow towers is a theme pushed by Phil Jayhan and his Let’s Roll Forums. It boils down to a thirty year ruse going back to the Rockefellers and them not having enough money to complete and flesh out one tower, let alone two. This was known in the design stage, but they really wanted the bragging rights of two buildings being the tallest in the world to demonstrate the might of capitalism. Playing into this was the fact the sudden availability of massive square footage of office space would have played major havoc on New York’s real estate market.
So allegedly they purposely did not build out the infrastructure of many internal floors; whether they intended to one day flesh out and finish those floors is a different question. Consolidating the tenants to a select number of floors that were finished would save lots of money on heating and A/C, etc.
Yes, there might be an elevator lobby at each level, but between the core area and the outer walls wasn’t much. Jayhan argues in cases there weren’t even floors. Think of a Seattle spire with fancy things on top, but not much in the middle. Express elevators were set up to take people to the top or to two transition levels (~30 and ~60) where then local elevators would service the remaining, and even those were grouped to service something like 10 floor ranges. Those who claimed to have worked in the towers had their access to a limited set of floors, and it would take some purposely efforts to “error” and get to floors that all. Exits to stairwells are typically one-way out unless you have a key.
Also as part of this unoccupied argument is that fact that many tenants were front companies of various govt agencies. This all plays well into the simVictim theory. What floors had been occupied changed after the 1993 bombing. As tenants moved out, they pre-demolished those floors removing.
Of course, much of Jayhan’s argumentation is aimed at knocking out themes from Dr. Wood with regards to the pulverization of content and the missing content. The piece of evidence he touts the most is a beautiful sunrise image of the towers in the late 1970’s that shows sun streaming through the towers and not much of anything except the core. He calls this proof that they were empty and never finished. [I say bullocks; this is a trick of light refraction. Specifically, when he says you can’t see anything horizontal on the floors, like built out cubicles and walls, the things you also can’t at all due to the light refracting around the objects are any 36 cm steel columns (on 100 cm centers) of the outer wall. So his conclusions based on this image alone are daft.]
It is argued that after this artful pictures, they installed special lighted shutter systems that would prevent such photographs in the future, but also could be remote controlled to give the appearance of occupancy and to use as special effects in movies or commercials.
I’m undecided on whether or not this has merit and if so, the extent of such. Jayhan pushes this hollow towers themes to the extreme, just like his “nemesis” Mr. Shack (and OneBornFree) push their fakery topics to the extreme. In other words, he does so in a very disinfo-agent-y sort of away, and can’t stand dissent. Even if the towers were mostly hollow, he doesn’t argue very well using a sound understanding of science how they and the rest of the WTC were demolished. He’s quick to ban people, ala Mr. Shack. [In establishing their truther legends, Mr. Jayhan creates faux flame wars with others, most notably Mr. Shack himself. simVictims is a topic they share.]
For OSS, onebornfree, and others who appear to be sincere (not hybridrogue1, who is not):
There are at least four principal reasons that the perps could not have used a “special plane”:
(1) As Dennis Cimino explains in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, it would have been impossible to strengthen the wings or increase the thrust and keep the fuselage of a Boeing 767 intact, where redesign requirements make that a fantasy scenario;
(2) No real plane, modified or not, could have entered the South Tower with no collision effects in violation of Newton’s laws: the plane should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground, none which took place; this, too, is a fantasy scenario;
(3) Even more importantly, the jet fuel stored in its wings would have exploded on impact; but they needed to get the plane completely inside the building BEFORE it exploded to create a pseudo-explanation for the later “collapse” of the building, which was itself an engineering impossibility;
(4) They had to time it to coincide with explosions in the subbasements, which drained the water from the sprinkler systems, which otherwise would have extinguished the very modest fires that remained after the (previously positioned) jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs.
Given the requirements of the mission, a “special plane” could not have accomplished these goals.
Ah woops…it’s good I didn’t read this one {grin} because it’s 1,2,3,4…what are we waitin for…
1. Simple horseshit, no one can determine how airplane engineers and mechanics can come up with when tasked with a special project.
2. As explained before the WERE collision effects {see OSS videos on this point]
3. At the speed of the event, the fuel did explode on impact…you can see the engines flame one instant and the fireball igniting into the building the next.
4. uhhh…you figure out how much bearing this has…as the fuel did ignite on impact and the momentum did carry that explosion through the building for the spectacular fireballs.
The assertion that ” a “special plane” could not have accomplished these goals” is somehow lacking even if 1,2,3,4 were properly expressed in your smudge above…a strange summation..[?]
ww
keenanroberts says:April 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm
A post that should be read and grasped by all on this forum, re-read as necessary…
And to which Fetzer replies:
“Where are the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed to the entry of a Boeing 767?”
That is Fetzer’s job, to not only provide such calculations but to also prove their relevance – as it has been countered time and again that the only way such calculations would have bearing is that if the planes impacts would have unseated and knocked the buildings over.
It is pointed out by those who DO have the capacity for reason, that the entry of the plane is a separate issue to the overall mass of the building.
Having found no other PhD’s who concur with Mr. Fetzer on this point, perhaps he can bring one forward that can also provide these magic numbers of calculations and prove their relevance to the point of entry. Let’s have no parading of Reynolds or his woowoo puppet Ms. Wood.
ww
The evidence I have enumerated about the massive resistance posed by the building, which Senor El Once has reinforced, establish a prima facie case that no real plane could have entered this 500,000 ton building without crumpling, its wings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. No competent physicist, who understands both the structure of the South Tower and the properties of the purported airliner, would faulty my reasoning.
But this guy does not even understand the relativity of motion or frames of reference, which by themselves demonstrate that he is completely and hopelessly incompetent to address theses issues. His role here, therefore, has to be other than the sincere search for truth. And that he is raising more irrelevant issues he does not understand substantiates his role is deceitful. For more, I recommend Senor El Once’s latest discussion of the absence of collision effects.
As to my post above [April 23, 2012 at 3:46 pm] –
It should be held in mind that the momentum of any object that is at rest is 0.
Objects at rest do not have momentum – they do not have any “mass in motion.”
Both variables – mass and velocity – are important in comparing the momentum of two objects.
ww
No one I have ever known has combined such massive arrogance with such vast ignorance. By citing a calculation of the force imparted by the plane without a calculation of the resistance that was posed by the building is a blatant case of special pleading by citing only the evidence that is favorable to your side. That he doesn’t even make the attempt reveals that he is a total fraud.
In fact, the basic elements are so blatant that a calculation would make sense only if there were any doubt about it. Only someone who does not grasp elementary physics would have the least doubt about it. Consider the following four relatively simple points about which there is no doubt:
(1) In collisions, the denser objects prevail over the less dense; but a massive steel and concrete building is overwhemingly more dense than an aluminum aircraft: the building wins, hands down.
(2) A 767, fully loaded as this plane was not, weights about 200 tons, while the building weights about 500,000 tons. So the building outweighs the plane by a factor of 5,000 to 2 or 2,500 to 1.
(3) By Newton’s 3rd law, the effects of a plane flying 500 mph (an aerodynamically impossible speed at this altitude) hitting the stationary building are precisely the same as the building flying at 500 mph hitting a stationary plane, which this man appears to be incapable of understanding; but this is a basic principle of physics and subsumed by what is known as the relativity of motion.
(4) The tower was an integrated steel-and-concrete structure, where the plane was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete (or an acre of concrete apiece), which would have posed enormous horizontal resistance. The parts of this
intricate lattice structure were welded and bolted together to make it a single robust structure.
We know what happens when a commercial carrier encounters a tiny bird in flight. Imagine what would happen were it to encounter a single floor composed of a steel truss filled with an acre of concrete. It would be smashed to pieces. In the case of the South Tower, it was encountering eight (8) of these floors. Who could possibly not appreciate that that the plane would lose in any such contest, where it would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground? Only someone with an abysmal lack of understanding of physics.
Endlessly repeating falsehoods does not make them true, no matter how many times they are repeated.
“(1) In collisions, the denser objects prevail over the less dense”
This false statement is indicative of someone with a very poor understanding of physics. A person making such a statement would appear to be completely ignorant of the physics of collisions of various objects that are determined not just by density, but also by Force, Impulse, and sectional density. As the relative velocity of the objects increase, the relative sectional density begins to have more of an effect on the penetration ability than the other factors, including the material density.
At high speeds, objects with a smaller surface area per unit of mass, or the object with a smaller cross section in relation to its mass will give it an advantage in penetration ability over the object with a larger cross section in relation to its mass. That is why missiles are shaped the way they are. Missiles are designed to maximize this advantage (at high speeds) of having the smallest possible ratio of cross section per unit of mass.
The planes are essentially shaped like missiles, with maximized ratio of cross section per unit of mass, and when a plane hits a tall building at perpendicular to its tall side (which is the most vulnerable configuration of the building presented during a collision), in which the building presents a very large cross section in relation to its mass, the penetration ability of the plane into the building increases substantially as the speed of impact increases.
The SECTIONAL DENSITY of an object of round (cross sectional) profile is defined as the mass of the object divided by the square of its diameter. The heavier the object is in relation to its cross sectional area, the higher its sectional density. The higher the sectional density, the less the amount of frontal surface area (per unit of its mass) that is presented to the target, and the less of the target’s ‘matter’ (relative to the penetrating object’s mass) that will be displaced by the passage of the object through the target. This translates into a lower level of resistance on the frontal area of the projectile as it displaces (crumbles, bends, distorts, smashes, etc) a part of the mass of the target.
So, Mr. Fetzer, prove that the charge you just made of hybridrogue, that “No one I have ever known has combined such massive arrogance with such vast ignorance” should not more accurately be applied to yourself, by showing us that you can understand and acknowledge the physics I just explained to you above that invalidates your statement that “In collisions, the denser objects prevail over the less dense”.
There is no point in bothering to discuss your other 3 statements until you are willing to grasp and acknowledge the physics of collisions I explained to you above and then retract your false statement number 1.
Sure, if you want to refine my statement by adding “especially as a function of sectional density”, that’s fine. But why did you not even quote the entire first statement? Instead of trying to find trivial grounds to fault me, why don’t you make an effort to support my significant truths about this event?
It cannot have escaped the notice of other members of this thread that you and hybridrogue1 show no interest in the truth of the matter but only in trying to obfuscate what we know based upon laws of aerodynamics, of engineering, and of physics. See Senor El Once’s most recent post, for example.
The objective of disinformation, as Marty Schotz observed in HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US, is not to prove the case one way or the other but rather to create enough obfuscation and confusion that everything is believable and nothing is knowable, which appears to be what’s going on here.
Only at the moment and point of impact is there any momentum of any object but for the airplane.
At that moment and point of impact, the momentum is then transferred as kinetic energy to the portion of the building directly struck – plus additional energy of the pressures of the ignition of the fuel ~ all creating forward motion ~ the shattered plane and the portions of the shattered building in the effect from the transferred kinetic energy.
At no time was the mass of the building in a state of momentum prior to impact.
In fact, to be even more precise, at no time was the entire mass of the building in a state of momentum.
That would be until the actual destruction ensued, of course
ww.
Mr. Fetzer,
I’ve tried to be civil in explaining to you the fallacy of your assertion. You quite clearly stated multiple times on this thread and other places that that the only thing that determines the outcome of a collision between 2 objects is the density of the objects. That is not in any way trivial grounds to fault you. Your assertion is flat out false. Now you are trying to somehow twist your words again and sort of back peddle, trying to pretend that sectional density is the same as density. I’ve already explained to you that section density is the mass divided by the frontal area. This is not a trivial difference. It completely changes the dynamics, which you well know if you really studied physics for a year. Then you have the nerve to claim that hybridrogue and myself are dishonest. Unreal!
Then on top of that you make the accusation that I did “not even quote the entire first statement…[and didn’t] make an effort to support [your] significant truths about this event”. What truths? Your entire first statement from beginning to end is a fallacy with non-trivial falsehoods.
Ok, let’s examine the rest of your bogus statement that you claim I intentionally ignored:
“but a massive steel and concrete building is overwhemingly more dense than an aluminum aircraft: the building wins, hands down.”
First of all, you are pretending that the building is a solid structure of concrete and steel, when it is in fact mostly empty air. The density of the portion of the building colliding and interacting with the plane must include the empty space, since density is the mass divided by the cubic area, INCLUDING EMPTY SPACE. Second of all, you are again falsely assuming that the ONLY thing that matters is the overall density of the objects in determining the penetration ability of one into the other, which I’ve already explained to you is false. Force (Kinetic Energy), Momentum, and Sectional Density all determine the outcome of a collision, not just material density, and as the speed of collision increases, simple density of the objects become less and less of a factor.
Go find a physicist with a PHD who will agree with you that the only thing that determines the outcome of a collision between 2 objects is their material densities, and that you can ignore other factors, such as Force (Kinetic Energy), Momentum, and sectional density.
Either put up of shut up, Fetzer. I’ll bet you $10,000 that you cannot find a physicist who will back you up on this.
$10,000 says that you cannot find an honest knowledgeable physicist with a phd who will agree with you that
“In collisions, the denser objects prevail over the less dense”
and who won’t instead agree with me that Force, Momentum, and Section Density is what determines the outcome of a collision.
This is a revealing post from keenanroberts. I fault hybridrogue1 for special pleading by citing only the evidence that is favorable to his side, observing that he doesn’t even make the attempt, which reveals that he is a total fraud. No doubt I am right about this. But consider my post in its entirety:
“In fact, the basic elements are so blatant that a calculation would make sense only if there were any doubt about it. Only someone who does not grasp elementary physics would have the least doubt about it. Consider the following four relatively simple points about which there is no doubt:
“(1) In collisions, the denser objects prevail over the less dense; but a massive steel and concrete building is overwhemingly more dense than an aluminum aircraft: the building wins, hands down.
“(2) A 767, fully loaded as this plane was not, weights about 200 tons, while the building weights about 500,000 tons. So the building outweighs the plane by a factor of 5,000 to 2 or 2,500 to 1.
“(3) By Newton’s 3rd law, the effects of a plane flying 500 mph (an aerodynamically impossible speed at this altitude) hitting the stationary building are precisely the same as the building flying at 500 mph hitting a stationary plane, which this man appears to be incapable of understanding; but this is a basic principle of physics and subsumed by what is known as the relativity of motion.
“(4) The tower was an integrated steel-and-concrete structure, where the plane was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete (or an acre of concrete apiece), which would have posed enormous horizontal resistance. The parts of this intricate lattice structure were welded and bolted together to make it a single robust structure.
“We know what happens when a commercial carrier encounters a tiny bird in flight. Imagine what would happen were it to encounter a single floor composed of a steel truss filled with an acre of concrete. It would be smashed to pieces. In the case of the South Tower, it was encountering eight (8) of these floors. Who could possibly not appreciate that that the plane would lose in any such contest, where it would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground? Only someone with an abysmal lack of understanding of physics.”
How does keenanroberts respond? He finds something–it could have been anything–to nitpick and exaggerate as though it represented the entire content of my post, which he could not deal with in an honest fashion. My observation, “In collisions, the denser objects prevail over the less dense”, was meant as a generalization. He replied that this is a function of “sectional density”, so I said, “Fine, add it, to read ‘In collisions, the denser objects prevail over the less dense as a function of sectional density”. But that is not enough for a guy who wants to defect attention from the rest. He has not shown that any of several arguments are false, but only qualified the phrasing of point (1).
He makes sweeping generalizations that are not borne out by the thread that I have placed all of my eggs in one basket, the claim he wants to qualify. But since I make three or four arguments in this very post that go beyond point (1), his contention is absurd on its face. If this guy has $10,000 to toss around, he is obviously better off financially than am I. But the point of this grandstanding on a refinement of point (1) is to distract you from points (2), (3), and (4), where no competent physicist, who reviewed this exchange, would agree with him about “the big picture”, which he is desperately attempting to obfuscate by the method of distraction, which is a common practice of disinformation.
Fetzer, this last response of yours is the epitome of your intellectual dishonesty. Distraction, diversion, straw man arguments, avoidance of the issues, circular logic is your stock in trade, Fetzer. You call your refusal to acknowledge the factor of sectional density in collisions a “trivial nitpicking”, when it makes all the difference in the world. No wonder you won’t put up or shut up. It is obvious to most people reading this thread who is blowing smoke out of their ass.
Fine, then forget about the $10,000 bet. I challenge you to find me an honest knowledgeable physicist who will back you up that only density matters in collision, and not force, momentum, and sectional density, and who will agree with you that the difference between density and sectional density is a trivial matter.
I expect that your response to this will again be anything but straightforward and honest, and you will again utilize diversion, straw man arguments, avoidance, and circular logic, because as is quite clear to most people familiar with your schtick, that is your MO.
@ww, who wrote:
“It should be held in mind that the momentum of any object that is at rest is 0.
Objects at rest do not have momentum – they do not have any “mass in motion.”
Both variables – mass and velocity – are important in comparing the momentum of two objects.”
As ‘a Napoleon’ in the asylum, ww obviously thinks that apart from himself, all members in this thread must be nothing but dithering idiots!
Somebody should let him know that in fact all physical matter, whether in solid, gaseous or fluid form, all consist of “mass in motion”.
Cheers
To put this simply Tamborino, You have ZERO comprehension of what you are speaking to.
Framing your answer as per molecular physics is too silly to contemplate.
ww
Let me say Mr. Fetzer, that your argumentation might be more effective if they weren’t marred by preambles full of explosive ululations of frustration, feinted shock, and flabbergastations.
You seem to me you have the habit of sandwiching what you deem your salient points between such preambles and summations full of :therefor this person is an idiot..bla..bla..bla..”
At time I have responded in kind as a mirror of such – which you rather do not recognize as your reflection, and then your bat your beak like a cardinal male bird does in a parked cars rearview mirror – a behavior I observed often whild living in the woods of Georgia. One would often find such a mirror streaked with the waxy marks from the beak with streaks of the birds own blood.
Yes, I have become adept at adopting another’s persona…
How do you like yours Mr. Fetzer?
Your incredibly puerile behavior never ceases to amaze me. But then, that is your true persona!
let me remind the candid world of the fact as to who began this puerile behavior.
In the very first posts on this threat that Fetzer addressed me we find:
“obviously unqualified–does not understand–massively ignorant–complete incompetence–I recommend him for “Dunce of the Year” award ”
Voila.
ww
@ww,
“Yes, I have become adept at adopting another’s persona…”
Absolutely true! In fact it seems that you have actually made yourself a ‘clone’ of this person.
he’s very familiar to all of us. He goes by the name of “snowcrash”.
Cheers
I cannot imagine why hybridrogue1 should fault me for my perceptivity about him from scratch, which has been confirmed IN SPADES by the development of this thread. The man pretends to understand physics when he does not even grasp the relativity of motion or frames of reference.
Hi Craig,
all my posts are accompanied with this appendage:
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
It makes me feel like a criminal, as no one else is ‘burdened’ with this!
Did i make a mistake when i signed in the first time??
Is there anything that can be done, to make me feel like just another member of the ‘crowd’?
Thanks, and
Cheers
Tambourine man, we all receive the same notification, so Craig can review them before posting.
Ahh – so i’m not alone after all …..What a relief!
Thanks Jim Fetzer
Cheers
Jim Fetzer says : “No. As in the case of the footage of “Flight 175″ effortlessly entering the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws, what we have is the simulation of a plane, not a real plane–and most certainly not a Boeing 767. That the video is authentic only means that the video itself was not altered to introduce the image, but that the image was in the air and captured by the camera. ”
So again, [sorry, I am just trying to get straight in my mind what you actually believe here ], your position is that both the Naudet video and the “amateur” videos supposedly depicting Fl. 175’s entry into the S. tower [by Fairbanks, Herzekhani etc.] are 100% authentic, but that the moving/flying objects captured within them all were/are not planes but UAV’s ,holograms, or similar, correct?
In other words, that very pixel within every one of them is part of a true representation of an actual event, right? Would this be an accurate representation of your opinion?
regards, onebornfree.
Well, why don’t you spell out what you believe, OSS? This coyness is quite ridiculous. Some of the videos we have represent the alteration of the videos combined with images of fake planes. I spelled out the four possible combinations: (1) real planes and real videos; (2) real planes and fake videos; (3) fake planes and real videos; and (4) fake planes and fake videos. My point is that the weight of the evidence as I assess it suggests that the Naudet footage and Hezarkhani / Fairbanks videos are combination (3), which is why so many different videos taken from different perspectives display the same image performing the same impossible feats. There are others that appear to be examples of (4), as Simon Shack has shown. But I am focusing on the most widely viewed videos and offering my assessment based upon the evidence I have presented.
{Mr. McKee: please remove my April 24, 2012 at 8:22 am submission. WordPress does not like the iframe method of inserting videos and subsequently munged my posting. This fixes that problem.}
Dear Participants of this Truth & Shadows Thread,
I apologize for the delay in researching and writing this response, for its length, and for not following the on-going discussion. I’ll catch up later, but it appeared to me to be going in circles and into flame wars.
As a starting point for this posting, I had prepared a point-by-point rebuttal to Mr. KeenanRoberts April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm posting. The deeper I got into it, though, the more I realized what games he was playing to keep real airplanes and real videos in consideration at the WTC.
Brief summary: Mr. KeenanRoberts dismisses measuring the physics from the imagery of the plane impacts because they aren’t high-speed enough to measure small changes in, say, the tail section’s velocity. He argues the tail section could continue with its momentum unaffected by the front of the fuselage smacking into the box columns of the outer structure because of fuselage crumpling. Yet where is that evidence of crumpling happening? It certainly didn’t happen where the box columns of the wall started, because that would have been captured on even a slow-speed video. Did a rigid fuselage penetrate the box columns only to then succumb to crumpling when it hit the even bigger box columns of the central core? Highly unlikely, because if the bigger steel box columns of the inner-core were to induce crumpling, then so would the outer box columns.
I don’t need to belabor this point, because the other data points of this posting will match with the trend line of physics defying video footage.
The following video [Constallation plane crash] at about the 1:00 mark shows wooden poles slicing through the aircraft wings before themselves getting cut down.
The video is not 100% applicable, but it does reveal some interesting characteristics of wings and poles. The differences between the constallation crash and the Pentagon poles:
[A] Constallation plane crashed into wooden poles that had bases sunk into the ground [inelastic collision]. Pentagon had aluminum breakaway light poles [elastic collision].
[B] When the Constallation plane hit those wooden poles, it was flying slower than either the alleged Pentagon plane or the alleged WTC planes.
[C] Catastrophic damage happened to the both the wings and the poles. The wings had major slices most of the way through their width (ex. 0:27).
Please bear with the brief diversion at the 0:16 mark in the following video into flesh-bone-and-feather deep penetration into a wing on an aircraft, that by all appearances to me is propellor driven (probably turbo-prop) and thus with velocities less than the alleged commercial aircraft of 9/11 in their final moments.
Here’s how two videos above are related.
Aluminum light poles of the break-away variety do not apply the same levels of resistive force that the buried wooden poles exhibited, so probably by design would not cause the same level of wing slicing observed in the Constellation video. On the other hand, aluminum light poles are structurally stronger than flesh-bone-and-feather birds. One would expect such aluminum poles to damage an aircraft’s wings to the same or greater level as the bird, recalling also that each wing hit at least two light poles.
And as Mr. KeenanRoberts mentions repeatedly, the kinetic energy is (1/2)*m*^2. The velocity of the alleged Pentagon aircraft was greater than both the Constellation plane crashing into the ground and the propellor driven plane smacking into some fowl.
My hypothesis is that such breakaway aluminum poles hit with the alleged velocity of the Pentagon plane would have crippled the aircraft to such an extent that the fireball and breakup would have happened over the Pentagon lawn.
Consider this one point of many in the cummulative argument, and proving this hypothesis wrong doesn’t destroy the next points.
Now let’s bring the WTC planes into the discussion. The WTC had 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers. In other words, for every 36 cm of metal face of the square steel box section was 64 cm of window. Steel is stronger than the wooden poles of the Constellation crash.
My hypothesis from physics (and observations) suggests that the alleged WTC aircraft’s wings, would have ~64 cm slices entering the towers while ~36 cm slices potentially bounced off. The aircraft’s fuselage would have faired no better.
The following video from MythBusters came from an episode about a mythical car being sliced in two by a snowplow. The side-by-side images at the 0:14 mark of interest. They show a car getting creamed by a rocket and another car getting creamed at 60 mph (?) by a snowplow. View this just for reference purposes.
510 knots is about ~590 mph, while 410 knots is about 495 mph. Speeds that comparable to a related MythBuster video that uses a “wedge” on a rocket sled sent 500 mph into a car to split it in half.
The things to note from the video:
[A] The steel wedge did not disintegrate from slicing through the car and its engine.
[B] The steel wedge didn’t disintegrate until it hit the concrete barrier designed to stop it.
[C] The steel wedge slowed down (consumed kinetic energy) when slicing the car. This is exhibited by the fact that the rocket sled pivots by the time the end of the car is sliced such that the sled hits the barrier before the wedge does.
Although the video has a steel wedge going 500 mph into a car, one could analyze this as a vehicle going 500 mph into a steel wedge. And thus, we see it has some applicability to vehicles and speeds of the 9/11 aircraft.
I’m going to make some simplifications here, but rest assured that when the details and complexities are inserted later, their contributions will not detract from the hypothesis.
Let’s simplify that:
[A] Both WTC aircraft were 767 with a 47.6 m wingspan and 5.03 m fuselage width for both WTC-1 and WTC-2.
[B] Both aircraft hit their respective WTC towers with level wings.
[C] Both aircraft were flying at 500 mph.
[D] The impacts did not happen at or span floors; or rather, we’re going to ignore the mass and strength of the concrete and steel that made up a floor.
[E] The box columns didn’t have a flat face but were wedges for slicing like the MythBuster’s rocket-wedge.
When the 767 traveling at 500 mph impacts the towers, it isn’t one “wedge” that tries to slice the fuselage; it is at least 5 “wedges”. And unlike the Constallation’s wings being mostly sliced by two wooden poles, the 767’s wings would be hitting 42 additional “wedges”.
According to the video evidence (that I hypothesis was faked), the 767 disappeared into the towers. Rather than being sliced by the “wedges” of the exterior box columns, the lighter materials of the aircraft seemingly did the slicing of the steel box columns. Yet a wood post is demonstrated to slice a wing at even slower velocities? This seemed rather strange.
To this end, Mr. KeenanRoberts wrote April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm:
So I looked up some details to this end.
The speed of a typical .22 LR bullet is 320 (m/s) or 720 mph.
The typical cruising speed of a modern jet airliner, e.g. an Airbus A380. is 250 (m/s) or 560 mph [and references high altitude.]
Your typical 9mm projectile moves near 1400 feet per second, which is 965.54 mph.
Video: 1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made by Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit
Of note in the video above is something contratrary to Mr. KeenanRoberts statement: “soft lead bullets are able to go through steel plates.” In many cases what is observed is that the soft lead bullet splatters against the steel plate into nothingness. The hole is created by the energy transfer of the splattering bullet into the steel plate.
Remember the simple physics experiment of several steel balls hanging from strings? When the first ball is lifted and let to fall into the next one, the energy transfers through each ball until it reaches the last one that then swings away.
The bullet in many instances is like the first ball and doesn’t leave the forward side of the plate; the bullet causes layer after layer of steel to break and what shoots out the backside of the hole isn’t lead, but steel fragments dislodged by the energy of the bullet.
Mr. KeenanRoberts brings up the concept of a “soft” object slicing a “hard” object to imply that aluminum and sheet metal aircraft wings can slice a steel box column. The important destinctions are:
[A] Bullets have velocities (700-900 mph) much greater than the alleged 9/11 aircraft (500 mph).
[B] The surface area of the bullet is rather small and that is where the energy is consolidated to do its damage.
[C] The aircraft wing is going slower and has a larger surface area even when connecting with a single wooden pool or a single wedge or a single light pole.
Now let us return to WTC aircraft. Even if we tally up the kinetic energy of the aircraft KE = (1/2)*m*v^2 using its maximum takeoff weight m=395,000 lbs and alleged velocity of 500 mph, that energy is first applied to the slicing of not 1 but 5 (or more) 14 inch box columns when the fuselage hits. Much energy gets dissipated in the slicing of both the fuselage and the box columns before the wings begin slicing the 42 additional box columns that they touch.
Do you see where this is going?
A wooden pole can slice airplane wings at slower speeds. A single steel column (or wedge) can slice a vehicle going 500 mph in half. (See videos above.) When more wedges are added, the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle must be distributed among the wedges. The energy at each wedge gets reduced, whereby slicing effects are reduced.
At this point, let’s remove many of my simplifications. In particular:
[B} Both aircraft did not hit their respective WTC towers with level wings.
[D] The impacts happen at floor levels and spanned floors, so that the mass and strength of the concrete and steel that made up a floor comes into play along with the exterior box columns.
[E] The box columns hat flat faces and were not wedges ideal for slicing like the MythBuster’s rocket-wedge.
According to the pictures below, the 47.6 m wingspan of a 767 airplane wings sliced perfectly through 37 or so steel columns.
WTC-1 damage
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer/figure2-15.jpg
WTC-1 exterior schematic http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer/fig-2-16.jpg
WTC-2 damage http://911review.com/spencer/markup/spencer06_files/wtc2scar.jpg
WTC-2 exterior schematic http://911review.com/spencer/markup/spencer06_files/fig-2-27.jpg
Where is the plane? Where is the tail section? Where was the video evidence of the plane fuselages and wings being sliced by the floors and exterior box columns? How come the floors in the middle of these images didn’t kick-back to the outside more pieces of the plane?
You can see the damaged floors in the middle of these alleged aircraft holes, but you cannot see any evidence of a plane.
The videos provided above of wooden poles slicing wings and rocket wedges slicing cars suggest that the towers’ exterior steel box columns and floors would have been very formidable against the aircraft. And unlike the kinetic energy being applied against one or two entities to slice, it would have been distributed to 37 or so box colums and one or more floor slabs.
My hypothesis is that if actual planes were used on 9/11, the video evidence would have showed:
[A] The fuselage of the airplane being sliced and crumbled as it tried to enter the towers through floor slabs and box columns.
[B] The wings smacking against dozens of exterior box columns, but owing to kinetic energy consumed by the fuselage’s deformation and deceleration, would have been broken off at some point and been bounced into the street.
[C] The tail section even on low-speed video should have had noticable deceleration. Given that it extends above the fuselage and would have impacted parts of the structure still in tact. But it is a weak part of the plane and would have the least amount of kinetic energy available to slice anything. If it didn’t bounce, it would have been lodged there.
The video evidence would have showed the above, but it didn’t. It didn’t show any evidence. Why? Because no actual planes hit the towers, be they the alleged commercial aircraft or be they swapped super-duper planes.
I found these interesting conversations regarding the capabilities of aircraft jet engines.
Here’s my layman’s rewording. The engines are designed to push through (or burn) air molecules at a given rate, say x per unit measure of length. At cruising altitude, those x air molecules are further apart, so the unit measure of length is longer and thus translates into high speeds, like 500 mph. At sea level, the air is three times thicker and the molecules closer together. Therefore, those x molecules per unit measure of length is achieved in a much shorter distance and thus translates into a much slower speed at the same throttle position. If that wasn’t bad enough, denser air at lower altitudes provides more drag that the engine has to push the aircraft through. To overcome the aerodynamic drag of the denser air, the engines need like 6 times more thrust.
The alleged 500 mph speeds of the alleged commercial aircraft at the WTC were impossible. If actual planes were used, they weren’t what the govt said they were. (No duh!)
Inspection of the still images of the damage shows no evidence of planes. Inspection of the video image shows absolutely no crash physics that would have been expected. Even “hardened” specialized military aircraft would not have been so special to be able to slice into the towers in a physics-defying manner (no deformation, no deceleration, no visible bouncing of weaker parts).
Although I now label September Clues disinformation, it does have many nuggets of truth worth preserving. Two in particular. (1) At least three different flight paths are depicted from the various 44 views of the 2nd plane: dive bomber, level flight, and swoop up. (2) One helicopter shot has four different versions: one with no plane or anything just an explosion; one with an orb flying into the towers; one with the background masked out and a plane coming from a completely different direction; and one with the pixels of a plane replacing the orb.
Video fakery happened with what was presented on 9/11 and what made it through the military-corporate media filters to the public.
Thus, it should be no surprise that alleged aircraft flew impossible speeds at sea level, that they exhibited no crash physics, that their kinetic energy had weaker aircraft parts slicing through tower box columns and floors, that no aircraft parts were visible…
++++++
When I started earlier versions of this posting, here were some rough stats on this thread 2012-04-22 8:45 AM when there were only 338 postings:
HybridRogue1 84 (25%)
Jim Fetzer 44 (13%)
Brian Good 43 (13%)
OneSliceShort 40 (12%)
keenanroberts 18
Señor El Once 14
Now at 2012-04-24 5:53 AM we see 441 postings:
HybridRogue1 119 (27%)
Jim Fetzer 80 (18%)
Brian Good 43 (10%)
OneSliceShort 49 (11%)
keenanroberts 20
Señor El Once 15
At the time I did the stats in another thread, I [Señor El Once] had 50 postings and Mr. HybridRogue1 over 150. The only reason I bring this up, is the the discussion then and now is about the 9/11 ruse, its extent, and half of that dealt with imagery manipulation, pixels on the telly, no planes, September Clues, energy requirements, anomalous after-effects (hot-spots, vehicle damage, radiation)… This forum was tolerant to intelligent discussions into matters that “mainstream” 9/11 Truth forums side-lined. Thanks to Mr. Mckee’s well-written articles, Truth & Shadows was being noticed.
The timing of Mr. HybridRogue1 entrance to Truth & Shadows, his posting frequency, the topics he tries to slam, some of the dubious resources he uses to bolster his claims…
Nothing but the best for Mr. McKee: the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group.
@Señor El Once,
Based on your drivel you just posted above, I take back what I said earlier that you are a reasonable and intelligent fellow and that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not like all the other NPT/Video Fakery folks I’ve encountered. You now appear to me to be of the same trolling and spamming breed as all the others, who pretend to be video fakery experts and physics experts, but who in fact prove over and over again that they don’t know shit from shinola.
Yes, whenever Senor El Once, Tambourine man, or others including me offer systematic, point by point arguments, you respond with vicious ad hominen attacks, like this one, which is a nice example of the conduct that you and hybridrogue1 have displayed time after time. He has done a nice job of reiterating arguments that I have already defeated, again and again, and now YOU are appealing to CRAIG to toss ME, when those who are so richly deserving are YOU AND HE. When you have serious rebuttals to arguments we have posed, you will present them. But you don’t, so we are left with nasty remarks about “spamming and trolling”, which are your tactics.
Jim Fetzer said : “You are imposing a rather ridiculous demand in relation to the New York witnesses. I don’t care if you don’t trust my judgment. Just listen to the interview for yourself. His name is Scott Forbes and the interview is archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. ”
I have not listened to the interview. My opinion of whether or not he seemed credible would seem to be irrelevant, in any case.
Have you thoroughly investigated the background of this person,[or any of the others you interviewed] Jim?
Call me paranoid but do you know with absolute certainty that he even is who he claims to be? Are you claiming that I should believe him or any of the others because you do ?
I thought you were all about investigation via a consistent science-based methodology, not an investigation partly based on your own subjective feelings about certain witness testimony. Regards, onebornfree.
Scott Forbes was well-known to the 9/11 community before I interviewed him. Are you incapable of doing some research of your own? Search for “Scott Forbes, 9/11” and you will see that he has been widely interviewed and that no one has found any good reasons to question his identity.
I reiterate a question I put to you that you do not appear to have answered. Have you read either “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'” or “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”? Do you think that you can simply intuit what is true and what is false about 9/11?
Senor, after an invitation to contact Jim Fetzer by email is off for this long period preparing this long thread – an amalgamation of everything but the kitchen sink which is suddenly posted at a key moment in the discussion of momentum. In fact a veritable surge in commentary seems to have happened at this key moment. – Analyse THAT Once.
But it is his summing points that put the cherry on top:
“The timing of Mr. HybridRogue1 entrance to Truth & Shadows, his posting frequency, the topics he tries to slam, some of the dubious resources he uses to bolster his claims…Nothing but the best for Mr. McKee: the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group.”
How cute Once, in that “dubious resources” is a vague and subjective matter in itself. You also take “the timing” of my appearance on this blog as suspicious, while at the same time noting it was at a time when the blog was getting more notice and becoming more popular – and insinuate that the fact that I just noticed it too was in some way a sinister sign. That your logic in this instance is either laughable or paranoid, will of course be interpreted by the ‘clicks’ here in various ways.
The truth of the matter is I am retired. As such I can do anything I want any time I want. I have no obligations but to a couple of parrots.
I have been intensely interested in getting to the bottom of 9/11 from the day it happened. Perhaps you are merely jealous that I can concentrate all of my time and energy on this topic while you must leave it for your spare time [or perhaps you ARE the pro on this site?]
At any rate I thing your Q-group deal is obviously silly – but who knows what people will believe, I have seen a lot of whacky ideas floated from certain characters here already.
ww
Between hybridrogue1 and keenanroberts, the NSA/CIA/DIA whatever must be troubled that it is getting its tail kicked and its hat handed to it on a platter on this thread. Since these guys have demonstrated, again and again, that they are here to obfuscate truths about 9/11, not to reveal them, where they might want to consider introducing a higher class of ops to purvey false info. A guy who does not understand the relativity of motion or the role of frames of reference, which we know is the case for hybridrogue1, or who is so obvious in his attempts to distract attention from arguments with which he cannot cope, as in the case of keenanroberts, does the disinformation movement no good, because it enables us to display the techniques that are being used here to mislead and deceive the American people, which is very sad. Don’t be taken in by them, because they are betraying truth and promoting falsehoods about the pivotal event of the 21st Century.
“Don’t be taken in by them, because they are betraying truth and promoting falsehoods about the pivotal event of the 21st Century.”
Oh this is rich Fetzer, when it is a fact that a great many folks in the real 9/11 community see YOU as the dissembler in this game. And most of these are the real scientists and engineers, rather than your loopy crowd of charlatans and nimrods.
It is clear to those with real expertise that you are the hoaxer, the Joker in the deck.
ww
Oh that’s rich, Fetzer. Do you really think that resorting to snitch-jacketing will distract people from noticing the fact that you are refusing to have an honest debate while using avoidance, distraction, and other types of disinformation tactics?
Seriously, Craig, how much blatant dishonesty and consistent refusal to have an honest debate will you tolerate from people on this forum?
That is an excellent question, Craig. There are some here who have certainly earned the boot.
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
My comment about timing of your entrance was more of an ego-reference to myself. Over many months, Mr. McKee and I battled and “vanquished” several disinfo agents including Albury Smith and earlier instances of Brian Good. We were sincere in our replies and their thoroughness in at least the first spin of the merry-go-round. It took us a couple or more spins sometimes to recognize the insincerity in our debate partners and their agenda.
Because I came to Truth & Shadows a “no planer” and “milli-nuclear” promoter, I regularly brought them up and defended them with science and logic (and respect). Over that same time period, my research brought me to other beliefs such as those inspired by Dr. Wood. At any rate, [*patting myself on the back*] Truth & Shadows became a relatively friendly place for “batshit crazy” theories that had evidence (needing to be addressed by whatever was the conspiracy-theory-du-jour) and rational scientific analysis. The constrast became great between my respectful postings and those of the agents who really didn’t have their “shit” together or a decent grasp of science and had ad hominem as their fallback argument.
Truth & Shadows was becoming more popular. The Cass Sunstein style blog infiltration had to take on a new tactic to shoot out from underneath me the 9/11 trick ponies that I ride.
Enter into the fray you, Mr. HybridRogue1.
You write very well. You have lots of time on your hands. Your background makes you ideal to address September Clues style issues of video fakery. [Your science is a bit weak, as proven by hot-spot duration with nano-thermite and nukes.] Even with Mr. Shack shooting at my ponies’ hooves — one that he allegedly trained –, man, I’m still riding around the arena like the duped useful idiot clown. (Not my desire.)
I mentioned that you used dubious sources, and you complain about its vagueness and being subjective. The dubious sources that I was referring to vaguely were: Eric Salter, Anthony Lawson, Frank Legge, John Bursill, etc. It isn’t that none of them make valid points. You brought them into the debate as if you believe them 100% and as if they had final authority.
All of those sources had issues, not always major ones but ones that when put into play and extrapolated to conclusions reeked of “steering.” “False in one, false in all”, eh? Where have I heard that before? You know me better than that to bang you with that one. I’m all about … *drum roll* … mining the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.
It has been a challenge, Mr. HybridRogue1, to get you to go into rabbit holes to recover nuggets of truth and likewise, to acknowledge nuggets of disinformation… And as for acknowledgement of nuggets of disinformation in in your (dubious) sources? Bwhahaha!
These are signs.
Your posting frequency? It only bothers me when you’ve got two or more in response to the same posting. Says that your thinking wasn’t clear on the matter that you would come up with another thought a half-hour later. (You should write offline and then post.)
Also, you shouldn’t always be so quick to post “top-level” responses when they would be easier to read and follow closer to “the action.” (Yes, sometimes a top-level response is appropriate.) Too many times, I’ve seen how your preference for top-level postings messes with the flow of the discussion for those reading it, sometimes in a purposely disingenuous way. In fact, the very posting that I am responding to belonged under my April 24, 2012 at 8:30 am posting.
Yeah, and mirroring your opponent? Can be fun, I admit. Save that for other forums though. If you really want to annoy your opponents and more importantly make the discussion in Truth & Shadows worthy of reading, take the high road. Takes more effort, I admit, and even I slip. But for the most part, Mr. HybridRogue1, it pays dividends.
[Dr. Fetzer. Let this be a lesson to you, as well. Too many of your postings are unbecoming to that of a university professor. They shoot your arguments in the foot and sully this forum. It is okay to write offline all the clever ad hominem witicisms against an opponent that you want and to save that to a file. But before posting, remove those sentences and save to another file.]
I appreciate your posts and your advice, Senor. But I am also a former Marine Corps officer, and I do not suffer fools gladly. Your patience is admirable, but styles differ. You pursue yours, I mine.
Thanks for you thoughtful reply Senor Once.
I do not agree with any of the sources I cite 100%. It seems we have gone over this before…[?]
I must disclose that I have been having frustrating technical difficulties with with the web and my browser, I have a mobile web connection that will fade in and out and even drop off in the middle of something. So I post at the bottom of the page to expedite the trickiness of the time factor and uncertainties as to what is going to happen next.
I have decided to drop my mirror after the last exchange where I made note of it, I had made my point {to those with eyes to see}
I hope this clears up a few of my traits…I can’t explain them all to your satisfaction to be sure.
It is really frustrating to be honestly concerned and seeking truth in the 9/11 topic, and be challenged as some sort of ‘disruptor’ or ‘agent’…in view of our knowledge that there are indeed such out on the web, well we all become a bit twitchy on that head.
I’m just doing my best to get through these issues. I have been as honest as I can be. Mistakes, I am sure I have made some, but nothing intentional on my part.
ww
hybridrogue1 says:
April 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm
“Don’t be taken in by them, because they are betraying truth and promoting falsehoods about the pivotal event of the 21st Century.”
Oh this is rich Fetzer, when it is a fact that a great many folks in the real 9/11 community see YOU as the dissembler in this game. And most of these are the real scientists and engineers, rather than your loopy crowd of charlatans and nimrods.
It is clear to those with real expertise that you are the hoaxer, the Joker in the deck.
ww
OK. I’ll bite. What am I supposed to have wrong? about nanothermite? about the Pentagon? about video fakery? about what, precisely? Explain what I have said and why I have said it and then show what I have wrong. I am confident you know no more about my positions than Kevin Ryan, who made an ass of himself by attacking me when had done no research on my positions:
“The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/the-debate-over-911-truth-kevin-ryan-vs-jim-fetzer/
Mr. Fetzer,
Both Keenan Roberts and myself have requested on numerous occasions that you cite just one PhD in physics, that is a ‘REAL Physicist’ that agrees with your BS physics assertions.
Obviously none are available. So you plead to Senor to come up with your argument. Senor is neither a PhD nor a physicist. You may rely on his calculations and framing if you wish. However, I asked for a real physicist and you cannot provide one.
Momentum and inertia are two concepts which are confusing. Momentum is applied to moving objects; inertia to stationary ones. I have already pointed out the equivalence of a stationary plane being hit by a moving building.
In a collision, momentum and energy are conserved. Momentum is mv and energy is mv^2, (m times v squared) where m is mass and v velocity.
Perhaps you should go back and study some elementary physics yourself Fetzer. Maybe look into the physics of car crashes, to glean the basics. Once you have that under your belt you can get into the more complex issues to do with the specific plane crashes into the towers.
ww
This is silly beyond belief. Do you believe that a car–even one driving really, really fast!–is going to effortlessly pass through an enormous tree? I have made the argument and supported it with excellent reasons. Senor El Once has further substantiated my position. This shifting the burden of proof when a prima facie case has already been made is another revealing technique of those who want to obfuscate the truth, not reveal it. If you believe what you are writing, then your posts display incredible naivete and gullibility. But the reality appears to be far less charitable to you.
You are still using this silly analogy of the car hitting a tree. That was not my point at all.
I am talking about the physics of “car crashes” crashes between cars with cars. The issue is momentum and it’s transfer at impact.
Seriously, physics Mr. Fetzer, not more of your allegorical bullshit.
ww
Let us take this one step at a time – “baby steps” as it were:
1. Only at the moment and point of impact is there any momentum of any object but for the airplane.
2. At that moment and point of impact, the momentum is then transferred as kinetic energy to the portion of the building directly struck – plus additional energy of the pressures of the ignition of the fuel ~ all creating forward motion ~ the shattered plane and the portions of the shattered building in the effect from the transferred kinetic energy.
3. At no time was the entire mass of the building in a state of momentum.
Momentum has three components: Mass | Velocity | Specific Direction
For the building you have only one component – Mass [enormous]
as per Velocity=0 | as per Specific Direction=0
And this remains constant until the secondary of event of global collapse.
At impact as is stated above, only a minute portion of the building incurs velocity and specific direction.
There is however an effect to the rest of the structure – vibration. On impact the building shuttered, shook, vibrated – oscillation like a tuning fork.
This is indeed movement, but vibration is omnidirectional movement, it is represented as a wave-form. As this movement is system internal, there is no specific direction, as per necessary observation – for the three NECESSARY components of Momentum.
ww
You continue to display your ignorance of physics. The effects of a plane flying at 500 mph hitting a stationary building would be the same as the effects of a building moving at 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. That you are completely unaware of basic elements of physics–in this case, of Newton’s third law, the relativity of motion, and the role of fames of reference–does not give you a license to turn falsehoods into truths. I cannot believe the depths of your misconceptions. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this thread–and replicating it over and over and over again!
Mister Jim Fetzer,
Again, you merely blast a load of ridicule and bla bla bla.
So you deny these facts as per the physics of momentum:
Momentum has three components: Mass | Velocity | Specific Direction
For the building you have only one component – Mass [enormous]
as per Velocity=0 | as per Specific Direction=0
THIS is the frame, the state of the building before impact.
At this point, when when the plane does impact, describe to us how it alters this frame.
ww
Since I have not offered links many of my references but only cited their titles, let me make amends:
ON PLANES OR NO PLANES:
Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11” http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html
David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924
Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True”
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesNelson26Apr2006.html
Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm
“New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery–by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html
“9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed”
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
“Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity/
“9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about ‘Absurdities'”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/03/911-an-open-letter-to-anthony-lawson-about-absurdities
Killtown on Shanksville,
http://www.nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-killtown%202010%20Oct.mp3
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, “ACARS CONFIRMED – 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Long After Crash” (Flight 175),
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, “United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According to ATC/Radar”
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html
“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/
“9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-is-a-fantasy/
“The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?” (with Dean Hartwell)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/
“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/
And not a single physicist in the lot.
We were discussing MOMENTUM Fetzer, now again you are all over the room waving your arms and bellowing.
Enough of the BS, where are your scientists? If not that then – where is YOUR science? I have seen nothing but vague assertions thus far.
ww
Craig, do you think Mr. Fetzer has demonstrated a willingness to debate honestly on this thread?
Keenan,
I’m rushing out the door to an appointment right now, but I will respond to your question. It’s not an easy one as I’m sure you can appreciate. I appreciate your patience.
Craig, the evasions are all on the other side. I have refuted their arguments time after time, if you check it. There are very few professional scholars in 9/11 research, but I happen to be one of them. Check me out at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ This has nothing to do with patience but with being responsive to logic and evidence, which I am and they are not. And I say this on the basis of having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years. How can anyone conclude in their favor, when they are the ones who have not been debating honestly?
Just to be clear: when I said To Keenan, “Thank you for your patience,” I didn’t mean with you or others in the thread, I meant with me not having time to respond.
I agree with you Keenan, Fetzer is not willing to debate honestly. But as far as banning him, I think that would simply deprive us of the evidence as to what master shill he is. Even though he continues to deny, he has been shown a carny hawker and a joker countless times. Let him secure this MO here. A candid world can decide.
I think that he has proven well enough his deficits in physics. He has certainly proven he is utterly clueless as far a forensic photo analysis. More than anything he proves he is a supreme bullshitter.
He says: “But I am also a former Marine Corps officer, and I do not suffer fools gladly.”
“Military men are dumb stupid animals to be used for foreign policy”~Henry Kissinger
As much as I despise Kissinger, this is one point that he got absolutely right.
ww
This is ridiculous. I do not fall short in the “honesty” category. I am too honest and call ’em as I see ’em. There is a confusion in their minds between “diplomacy” and “honesty”. I take them on “head on” and they can’t handle it. Trying to evade exchanges in this way is simply despicable.
If anyone ought to be banned for offensive conduct here, I offer hybridrogue1 as “Exhibit 1”.
“The higher the monkey climbs the more of his ass you see.”
An old Haitian saying…which I would apply to our Mister Jim Fetzer.
ww
I was going to reply post by post but seeing as how there’s a lot of hop, skip and jump going on here I’ll just leave you guys with this response to Craig from way up…
It is a circular argument Craig.
Thing is, I don’t believe that video manipulation has been proven. Or that the witnesses I’ve linked to, were fooled by a hologram. Or that the impact hole could have been “carved” to such detail that includes indentations without actual penetration and “slice marks” on the facade.
As Adam rightly says, the Manhattan op would require scores of willing participants who have publically claimed to be authors of these videos and images.
From Simon Shack’s FAQ section:
That’s 55 people who allegedly, knowingly allowed their names to be used, or altered the footage themselves. 55 people, alleged “sleepers” who “know” what happened on 9/11. That the towers were blown up by internal explosives and that a hologram was used to fool on the ground witnesses.
That’s a lot of loose ends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uCdeRGw4PQ
By the way, in that last video of stills, look out for debris falling from the impact side.
I agree that certain footage has been edited, withheld, censored or have had their resolution purposely lessened. The Naudet second tower impact has clearly been edited, one Citgo camera was physically removed, the “gatecam” footage which was capable of reading registrations on vehicles has been purposely reuploaded (at least twice) to make the footage useless etc.
But to insinuate that an actual army of ops actually added an aircraft to footage caught? And adding them perfectly to match the flightpath?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K-WjsHa_2k
Achimspok is another guy who is meticulous in his research. Apart from when discussing the Pentagon..
It’s perfectly reasonable to question everything. If people are convinced that the videos or images are completely compromised to the point of invention, let them fight their corner. But to reach conclusions on why they were doctored based on the very same footage is self contradictory.
Did you see my analogy of the Osama Bin Laden fake video?
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4635
We know why that video was faked, so we can disregard it as proof of anything bar government disinformation.
Can anything else captured in the same footage be used as proof of anything?
No. Because it’s corrupted.
The video Jim Fetzer links to, “Theory of ghostplane”, shows how an aircraft can be inserted into the videoframes. But it also shows how the impact can also be inserted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc
So how can people who allege that all footage is a complete fabrication and that it’s been in the perps’ hands literally from day one, base any scientific claims on observations made in them??
Even the claim that no aircraft debris was seen falling from the impact side doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Pause and play the impact seen in the following video. Slowmo if you can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU
Then there’s this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-lc34jqDS0
I don’t know if there is any footage of the base of that area, but the collapse of the tower also leaves the debris claim open to obfuscation.
We have to remember that this aircraft was allegedly travelling at over 700 feet per second. Over 4 times its own length travelled in one second as it impacted the facade.
The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft’s recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second.
I don’t think “crumpling” in the normal sense of the word applies at that speed.
When the 60ft of fuselage appears to penetrate the facade, this could be down to optical illusion. The event was over in one tenth of a second.
Here’s a video that’s as close as I could find to the collision of a hard steel object (steel sled) against a bulky object such as the fuselage. A car.
Now, I’m not claiming that this has anything to do with the physics of an actual aircraft against a non solid facade, but the visual effects are similar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eA6cEql6uE
See how the car appears to “melt” or “disappear”? The actual interaction was over in a fraction of a second. Is there even time for the aircraft to make a visual, physical reaction before, like the bug on the windscreen, its ass is in its head? Please don’t say that there was no debris falling from that area. Is it identifiable as aircraft debris? No. But is it identifiable as not being aircraft debris? No.
As for Dennis Cimino’s claims on the impossibility of modifying “a 767”, which nobody here uttered, I find it very rich that this possibility is seen as outlandish given the hologram and mass fakery mafiosa he’s now pinning his colours to.
I don’t get it. Any video that shows impossible events–violations of Newton’s laws, for example–cannot possibly be authentic. That is sufficient to show that it is not BOTH a genuine plane AND a genuine video, but by itself does not establish which occurred, when, in fact, BOTH may have. To sort it out requires additional arguments, such as the reports of the witnesses who claimed to have seen a plane. That would not have occurred in real time if CGIs or video compositing had occurred. Hence, the weight of the witness reports favor having seem something that looked like a real plane but was performing feats no real plane could perform, such as a hologram.
Fetzer “doesn’t get it”….{really?? grin}
“Hence, the weight of the witness reports favor having seem something that looked like a real plane but was performing feats no real plane could perform, such as a hologram.”
This conclusion hinges on the assertion, unproven, that these were, “feats no real plane could perform.”
That it takes extraordinary arguments to make the claims that real planes could not perform the simple task of flying into a building – [all the qualifiers aside for the moment] – it is the onus of those who make the arguments that what seems to be a straight forward proposition backed by eyewitnesses and a myriad of photo and video evidence, that all of these ‘qualifiers’ – arguments against common sense, must be PROVEN, not merely asserted.
Those who claim that these arguments have been proven, still face a battery of opposition form other “scholars” with strong counter arguments.
For myself, anyone who takes the arrogant, high horse attitude that their ‘scholarly’ authority should suffice as per such extraordinary claims, is automatically setting themselves up for some heavy ridicule. And any surprise at such a reaction just compounds this to the point of tragicomedy.
Another display of huffing and puffing ululations in reply to these comments will not make a difference. Silence is preferable to proof of lunacy, as the old saw goes.
ww
OSS, I have been trying for more than a half hour to you…I keep getting sent to this page as basic HTML…the comment box is not more than a one inch slice…gawd…
At any rate I want to compliment you on this presentation.
Nice job, ww
Hi OSS, a.o.t. you write:
“As Adam rightly says, the Manhattan op would require scores of willing participants who have publically claimed to be authors of these videos and images.”
“That’s 55 people who allegedly, knowingly allowed their names to be used, or altered the footage themselves. 55 people, alleged “sleepers” who “know” what happened on 9/11. That the towers were blown up by internal explosives and that a hologram was used to fool on the ground witnesses.”
“But to insinuate that an actual army of ops actually added an aircraft to footage caught? And adding them perfectly to match the flightpath?”
As you mention ‘holograms’ in your post, and as it’s only me and Jim Fetzer who in this thread are the proponents of this method, please allow me to yet again clearly state that none of what you are saying above relates in any way to anything i or Jim Fetzer has ever said or talked about.
On the contrary, i have in fact said, and think Jim Fetzer has too, that most of witnesses on the ground and most of the videographers would have been innocent bystanders or helicopter crew members, totally unsuspecting that ‘the plane’ they witnessed with their own eyes or captured with their video cameras, could be anything other than a real plane.
In other words, we think that these people were deceived just like the rest of the world was it on that day.
(The ‘Harley guy’, the Naudet brothers, and quite a few others not so ‘innocent’, would be the exceptions, but that’s about all)!
Peace
Cheers
One more time:
Momentum has three components: Mass | Velocity | Specific Direction
Momentum is a vector quantity. A vector quantity is a quantity that is fully described by both magnitude and direction. To fully describe the momentum of a 5-kg bowling ball moving westward at 2 m/s, you must include information about both the magnitude and the direction of the bowling ball. It is not enough to say that the ball has 10 kg•m/s of momentum; the momentum of the ball is not fully described until information about its direction is given. The direction of the momentum vector is the same as the direction of the velocity of the ball. The direction of the velocity vector is the same as the direction that an object is moving. If the bowling ball is moving westward, then its momentum can be fully described by saying that it is 10 kg•m/s, westward. As a vector quantity, the momentum of an object is fully described by both magnitude and direction.
ww
I have repeatedly explained why this is one-sided and sloppy. You have to calculate the resistance posed by the building, which would have been overwhelmingly greater than the force imparted by the plane. I have spelled it out but you have–dishonestly, I must say–evaded it.
“I have spelled it out but you have–dishonestly, I must say–evaded it.”~Fetzer
Here again, all you offer is the assertion that you have already “spelled it out”. Which is in fact the very tactic of evasion you just accused me of.
I set the frame. I merely ask you, “Now what happens next?”
You refused to answer this, too many times now.
The only thing in our equation bearing momentum thus far is the plane. The building is status quo, it is at rest…the plane’s momentum meets that building, its momentum is transferred to a specific point on that resting mass, it is transformed into kinetic energy.
Describe specifically the dynamics at this point. Please avoid this twattle that you have explained this over and over. Explain it here and now.
ww
This is what Fetzer claims is a ‘scientific explanation’,
“The effects of a plane flying at 500 mph into a stationary 500,000-ton building would be the same as a 500,000-ton building flying into a stationary plane.
Anyone familiar with the effects of a tiny bird on a commercial carrier must appreciate the complete absurdity of his position.”
This is exactly the same argument NIST makes as an excuse for failing to explain the total destruction of the towers, only modeling their cartoons to, “the point of initiation”, or “poised for collapse” and even said in a letter to Jones et al, that they stopped at that point “because it is obvious that the towers did collapse”
Yes, it is obvious the the plane flying into a stationary 500,000-ton building would be obliterated.
[Avians aside]
Fetzer goes on to exclaim:
“And he claims that I do not understand Newton!”
Well the fact is, one needn’t be studied in physics to presume an airplane crashing into a building at 500 mph would be obliterated. That isn’t “Newtonian Physics” it is simple common sense.
The question is, “what are the specific dynamics of the crash scenario?”
This is where your Newtonian Physics comes into play – and here is where Fetzer has remained vague and rhetorical, stubborn and combative, unreasonable and hysterical.
The invitation stands Mr. Fetzer, the frame has been set for you, the question is, ‘what happens next?’
ww
This is pretty bizarre. Instead of insisting I am wrong, now he agrees that I am right! So if a plane impacting with a 500,000 ton building would have been obliterated “as a matter of common sense”, then I take it he also agrees (a) that the plane seen in these videos has to be a simulation or else the videos have to have been faked (fake plane or fake videos) or both, and (b) therefore video fakery did take place in New York on 9/11. Someone must have pointed out to him the absurdity of his position, which is fascinating all by itself. This is a case of pivoting on a dime. Quite stunning.
“This is pretty bizarre. Instead of insisting I am wrong, now he agrees that I am right!”
~Fetzer
What is bizarre is how you continue to misframe the questions and points put to you. In what am I in agreement with you?
All accounts agree that the plane was destroyed at impact – the point of dispute is and has been whether the plane entered the building in the process of being obliterated and obliterating the sections it hit.
This twirlybird squatdiddle leaves you, Mr. Fetzer in the starting blocks some full week or more after the starting gun went off.
Your claims to reason and logic seem quite dubious at this point. You said earlier on another subject, “I don’t get it”. It is obvious now there is quite a bit that you don’t get Mr. Fetzer, yes quite a bit, perhaps just about everything.
ww
Senor,
I appreciate your efforts in constructing your argument. It would take as long to critique the entire thing. Forgive me but I will not {at least not at this moment} but I do see holes in your argument, some of which compile with others to defeat your position.
I will only address a couple of them, misconceptions in my view:
” Did a rigid fuselage penetrate the box columns only to then succumb to crumpling when it hit the even bigger box columns of the central core? Highly unlikely, because if the bigger steel box columns of the inner-core were to induce crumpling, then so would the outer box columns.”
Misdiagnosis — No “crumpling” shredding is the applicable term, which is exactly what happened to the plane going through facade.
The video of the Constellation crash. As I pointed out before, the moment of impact on the ground coincides with the impact of the poles. The ground impact has compromised the structural integrity of the plane – in such ways that to determine anything certain about the damage of the wings is impossible – again left to speculation.
The bullet through the steel sign. As you point out the bullet disintegrates, but nevertheless blows a hole through the sign. Well in the plane crash the plane disintegrates as well. Admittedly this is not the simple vaporization as with the bullet, but the plane does fragment. And the assertion that this is not seen in the video of the crash has been disproved several times over {OSS videos + countless still photographs]. The outer edges of the plane are fragmented – the idea that the stabilizer, wingtips, and other thin parts would break off as whole pieces and fall to the ground is absurd on its face.
Your ball bearings on strings analogy is perfect for a multi-car pile-up, but very little to do with the plane impact. Too many specific variables defeat this analogy.
We have been through the planes speed on too many occasions to go around on it yet one more time – I disagree with this on the counts I have already spoke to.
Your assessments are many, some maybe more correct than others. We could take an entire thread to bounce back and forth on these…
ww
hybridrogue 1 responds:
“To put this simply Tamborino, You have ZERO comprehension of what you are speaking to.
Framing your answer as per molecular physics is too silly to contemplate.”
No, that was not an answer. That was just a simple and true remark.
Here is what you wrote – and my answer to that, following here again:
“It should be held in mind that the momentum of any object that is at rest is 0.
Objects at rest do not have momentum – …..”
As ‘a Napoleon’ in the asylum, ww obviously thinks that apart from himself, all members in this thread must be nothing but dithering idiots!
Cheers
Macro – Micro….two different physics Tamborino. We are speaking to classical Newtonian Physics here, not the relative world of Einstein.
Momentum is explained here countless times now, it is the Newtonian brand that your hero Fetzer is attempting to address.
Momentum has three components: Mass | Velocity | Specific Direction
Mass at rest has no velocity, and thus no specific direction. It is simple. Do yourself a favor and look up momentum on the web. You might learn something. Then again maybe not {grin}
ww
I am afraid you conveniently left a portion of your remarks out here Tamberino,
Whether it is split between two posts or is in the one we speak of now, you made the remark about the molecular activity in the mass, asserting that it therefore is not at rest.
Any further comments by you carries this baggage with it.
So don’t play dodge and weave with me, I get enough of that with your guru.
ww
Now you’re fricking hilarious hybridrogue!
My answer to you above “seems” to go totally over your head.
You are ‘teaching’ everybody in this thread that, if something stands still then it has no momentum.
Next, i suppose you’re going to ‘teach’ us that water is weet, and snow is cold???
Cheers
Jim Fetzer said: “….(3) fake planes and real videos; and (4) fake planes and fake videos. My point is that the weight of the evidence as I assess it suggests that the Naudet footage and Hezarkhani / Fairbanks videos are combination (3),”
That seems about as clear an answer from you as I can get regarding this issue, Dr Fetzer, so I feel I can now safely move on to my conclusion about your conclusion as expressed above.
Over the last few posts of mine addressed to you, I have sadly noted that the tone of your responses towards my questions/observations seems to have shifted a little more to the negative/irritable, probably because you feel that I am making a personal attack on you, or you think I’m stupid, [I am], or whatever.
Dr Fetzer, I have enjoyed your books and radio show in the past, and I assure you that am am not asking these questions in order to make personal attacks on you, but only, as I indicated in my email, out of an interest in yours and others employment of the scientific methodology to reach your conclusions to date.
That is, I have little [or less] interest in the details of what your conclusions about the 9/11 issues we have discussed to date actually are; my interest is far greater in how you reached those conclusions to date, that is : why you think what you think, as indicated by your statement: ” My point is that the weight of the evidence as I assess it suggests that the Naudet footage and Hezarkhani / Fairbanks videos are combination (3),” .
That being said, I have no doubt that you will react even more negatively to what I say next.
Nevertheless, I feel it has to be said , despite the fact that, as I also mentioned in my email, I have no formal training in scientific methodology, nor in logic, so you may well deem my observations to be worthless- if so, so be it .
Dr. Fetzer , it appears to me that you are making 2 fundamental procedural errors [actually the same error repeated twice] to reach your conclusion that the videos in question [Naudet, Herzakhani, Fairbanks] are authentic and that they depict either/or UAVs or holograms .
That is, you have neglected to verify the authenticity of each class of evidence viewed, independently of the other, and instead have proceeded to then use each class of evidence to verify the authenticity of the other to reach your conclusion. A classic “jump” to a conclusion, in fact.
It seems to me[ as a none-scientist] that procedurally, it would be crucial to verify, entirely independently of the other , each class of evidence: [ [1] videos, and [2] eyewitness testimony] , _before_ either could be safely used to vouch for the authenticity of the other.
For example, I have already mentioned in my posts here my reservations on the eyewitness testimony that you have trusted to date, not because I distrust you, but because procedurally it seems to me [as a layman] that it was/is necessary to thoroughly check the background record of all of those claimed witnesses as part of an independent verification process.
Only by checking and cross-checking and re-checking those alleged witnesses statements , their personal history and actual whereabouts, against the statements of others , [and similar in depth examinations], can the authenticity [or not] of witnesses statements be confidently relied on, I feel.
As you should be aware, in legal proceedings, witness testimony is consistently regarded as the most unreliable type of evidence. Surely the same should be true for scientific investigations?
So I personally feel that, from what you have told me to date, that you have not to date done enough to independently validate the reliability of the witnesses you have come to trust, before trusting their statements as reliable evidence to then validate the other class of evidence, the videos in question, for whatever _that’s_ worth to you.
But you already know all this from my previous posts.
Independent Verification of Video Evidence? :
I mentioned that I felt you had committed the same error twice. That is, to me, as well as not confirming the reliability of witness testimony independently of the other class of evidence [videos] to reach your conclusions, neither have you independently confirmed the reliability of the video footage itself, independently from other evidence [i.e.witness testimony].
Here are just a few examples of the types of issues regarding the assumed authenticity of the various videos that I feel that you have not satisfactorily addressed [from a scientific methodology POV] before reaching your conclusions to date as initially stated by you at the outset of this post:
Video Authors Backgrounds/ History?:
For example, as with the verbal “eyewitnesses” you appear not to have investigated the backgrounds of the Naudet Brothers, of Hezarkhani, nor of Fairbanks. Are they even who they say they are? [If you had bothered you would have found them all to have very mysterious/vague backgrounds, or that the “amateurs” Hezarkhani and Fairbanks both have suspiciously close ties to professional video companies , with , as far as can be ascertained, significant digital editing/compositing software capabilities/ resources.
Angle and Perspective? :
Nor have you investigated the actual technical feasibility of the claimed locations from which the videos were allegedly shot. In other words, is the angle/perspective seen in the various videos even feasible from the alleged locations? [You will find it is not]. For just one example, the Hezarkhani footage was allegedly shot from the deck of a boat with a hand held camera, and yet it exhibits little, or no noticeable water motion sway [or even motion resultant from being hand held] , and in fact over the last few frames the planes image remains completely stationary in the exact center of the frame, while the building itself actually moves towards the plane [instead of the plane moving towards the building as you would expect], as can be quite clearly seen in the short gif made from that video posted at the very bottom of the page of my blog post here: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2009/09/dr-reynolds-and-planebuilding-meld.html .
The perspective/viewing angle of the Fairbanks video is similarly physically impossible [unless Fairbanks is/was a midget, or he fortuitously happened to be standing in a 5 ft. deep hole in the ground].
Type of Equipment?:
Nor have you investigated the type of camera allegedly used by these persons [Naudet, Hezarkhani, Fairbanks]. What were the technical specs of the cameras allegedly used? What type of lens? What type of film? Was it possible to actually get the alleged results with the equipment allegedly employed? You apparently have not tried to find out.
Physical Limitations of Human Reaction Time Etc.?:
For another thing- was it/is it actually physically possible for the cameramen to instantaneously react and then accurately track and keep in frame an object almost directly overhead allegedly moving at 500mph ? [If you talk to professional race-car photographers for example, you would find that the odds of so doing are exceedingly slim to none-existent , even for race cars in front of them moving at 150 + mph]
Natural Conditions?
What about sunlight shadows shown in the videos? Are they/it consistent with known conditions that morning? Do the shadows seen in them line up with the known angle of the sun than morning? Are the shadows even internally consistent with sunlight angle/direction shown in the videos?
You would have found that they are not. For example, Simon Shack has shown that in the Naudet video, the shadow of the fireman inspecting the manhole cover is directly in front of him [indicating that the sun is directly behind him] when a wider camera pan subsequently reveals that the sun was in fact directly in front of him, so his shadow should have been _behind_ him if the video were a real-time depiction. See his “Amateur, Part 2” : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM&feature=relmfu
Edits/Missing Frames and Amazing, “Amateur”, “Pan” and “Zoom” Skills? :
Are there fortuitous “pans” and “zooms” in or out during the videos that would seem to be amazingly coincidental and perfectly timed, perhaps indicative of the video being pre-fabricated on computer? Yes, and these are numerous. Are there missing frames that have been mysteriously edited out? [ In the Naudet footage Simon Shack has shown this to be the case, although at this time I am unable to put my finger on the exact analysis in question- you’d probably need to ask him directly about this issue, or I will , if you prefer] .
Backgrounds, Building Appearance/ Coloration/ Landscape Features?:
Do the various buildings seen in the videos look like those in other, pre-9/11 stills or videos? Do they have the same physical features [ number of windows, window AC units, brick colors] What about street signs, lampposts, traffic lights or trees – do these match up with what we know from none 9/11 films/photos taken immediately prior to 9/11?
You have not bothered to check before reaching your conclusion that the videos are in fact authentic. If you had, you would know that there are many. many problems with building features, colors and with the locations of street signs,traffic lights, trees, lampposts etc. etc.
Video Soundtracks?
Have you listened closely to the soundtracks of the videos in question? Why do the original versions of some of them lack any sound? Do any of the ones with soundtracks appear to faithfully represent the deafening roar/scream of a large, low altitude jet in Manhattan?
What about the explosions captured, do they sound anything like [even] shaped charges going off, let alone what a jet plane would sound like in collision with a 500,000 ton steel and concrete tower?
I will leave off there. There are other related issues but I feel that this post is already way to long for its own good. Hopefully you get the point: that there are a lot of issues that you have not considered before coming to your [for myself, wrong-headed and presumptive ] conclusion that the videos in question are authentic representations of real events that morning, and that certain witness testimony bears out your conclusion to date.
Respectfully yours, regards, onebornfree
This is a wonderful post, onebornfree. I have been wary of you because you have been so coy in asking and reiterating the same question, over and over again. The points you are advancing are fascinating. Many have been raised by Simon Shack, Rosalee Grable, and others, but yours is a very nice compendium. They suggest we are dealing with (4) fake planes and fake videos rather than (3) fake planes and real videos. You might even be right.
The principal objection to your thesis, if I understand you correctly, is that it would be very difficult to fake the same videos in the same way across various locations and cameramen. I think it would have been simpler to introduce a simulated plane that could be filmed from many locations and be consistent–even though we know, as Simon Shack and others have shown–that not all the videos show the same approach and at least some have to be faked.
Scientific reasoning is based on probabilities and likelihoods. When Morgan finally opened my mind to the possibility of video fakery, I interviewed some 15 students who had done more on this than had I, including Rosalee, Ace Baker, Joe Keith, killtown, and many others. What convinced me that we were dealing with video fakery was Joe’s equal distance = equal times = equal speed argument, which established the absurdity of what we were being shown.
I also did an interview with Andrew Johnson, who had reviewed the 500 witness reports collated by The New York Times, where their reports were all over the place, but there were a large number who reported seeing a plane. I have also interviewed witnesses, such as Scott Forbes, whom I find to be completely credible, who confirmed their observation of watching (what they took to be) a plane being “swallowed up” by the building in violation of Newton’s laws.
So I am convinced on the basis of the statistical argument and especially Scott Forbes that at least some sincere witnesses were honestly reporting having seen the image of (what they took to be) a real plane, but which was performing feats that no real plane could perform–and which turns out to have no strobe lights, to cast no shadows, and to have a left wing that disappears before it enters the South Tower. So I am persuaded what we are seeing cannot a real plane.
Now you may be right that there are other problems with these videos, which I have not attempted to deny. But what puzzles me is that you have been so reticent about your reasons for holding the view you have now so articulately expressed that I became suspicious of you. I no longer feel that way, because the reasons you have held in abeyance until now for challenging my position on (3) when you believe in (4) are now apparent and are certainly worth considering.
Just tell me this. If there were witnesses who reported seeing (what they took to be) a plane, not simply on television after the fact but in real time, would you then concede that the hypothesis of the use of a hologram makes sense and appears to be the only alternative that can explain the data? I would be most appreciative of hearing more from you on this score, because it has been the point that has convinced me we can’t be dealing merely with CGIs or video compositing.
As I explain in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, the partial evidence and the total evidence requirements imply that it is only reasonable to hold a position as long as it has not been defeated by new hypotheses or by new evidence. It seems to me for reasons I have outlined here that the use of a simulated plane provides the best explanation of the available evidence, but I would be glad for you to show me that (4) even better than (3).
Hybridrogue,
I have not approved your comment from 9:02 a.m. today because I felt it was too reliant on name calling, and other unpleasant references. You know what I’m referring to, I assume. Please raise the level of your offerings so that the focus is squarely on facts and evidence as you have done effectively in the past. Opinions and criticisms are welcome but not if the focus is too much on personal attacks.
I’m not saying you’re the only guilty party; this goes for all the contributors to this thread and to this site. Calling each other stupid and other more colourful variations really offers readers nothing, and ultimately does harm to our pursuit of the truth.
So let’s all renew our effort to debate the evidence in good faith. If you feel someone is not doing this, then explain to the readers why you feel that way, without just slinging mud. I really do appreciate all of the passion and enthusiasm you have all shown in making this comments section as active as it has been recently.
I appreciate your co-operation.
-Craig McKee
I am fine with that Craig, I already had pointed out that Tamborine had asserted one thing and then left out the crux of his assertion, while ridiculing me for stating the obvious – which obviously only became obvious to him in hindsight.
This is a small enough matter that it can pass, I think you are making fair calls. If at some point I think I have been treated unfairly I will certainly raise a stink about it.
Thank you also for sharing this advice with others as well.
ww
If you think I am not treating you fairly at any point, I don’t doubt you’ll let me know.
Tamborine Man
Do you seriously want me to continue in this charade when every post I’ve made (particularly the last one) are ignored, cherrypicked and a pure play on words including the redefinition of what “video fakery” actually means, just to paper over the cracks?
There’s a lot more that I’ve gone into in great detail such as possible modification of the aircraft, which Dennis Cimino claims is impossible, while throwing his hat in with the hologram claim as if it would be a piece of cake. And whose opinion I now take with a pinch of salt given his flip-flopping
“”but they can’t heap me into the ‘no planer’ gang quite yet. that’s not me.
planes were used.” – Dennis Cimino”
The entire case for holograms are based on observation of the impacts. Ignoring the fact that not one of you have addressed the fallacy of using video evidence that is claimed to be fake, an invention, produced in a lab, as scientific basis for a theory!
I’ve shown how the tenth of a second interaction between the nose and the wings reaching the facade can produce an optical illusion of “melting into the building” and I’ve shown the interaction between steel and a bulky metallic object (a car), where the steel slices through it.
I’ve shown that debris can be seenfalling from the impact area.
I’ve shown the problematic impact hole where there are marks that can’t possibly have been made by “cutter charges”
I don’t want another marathon discussion on the definition of certain terms which is simply another way of continually moving the goalposts, I’d like those points addressed individually.
There’s more, but those are the thorns in the side of the NPT claims. No speeches, insults, innuendo or obfuscation please.
Peace
OSS
Well, OSS, you seem to persist in the belief that the phrase, “video fakery”, must mean that the videos were altered, not that they were used to convey a false impression by showing the use of fake (“simulated”) planes. So let’s call that, “video fakery type 1” (meaning altering the videos) vs. “video fakery type 2” (meaning the use of simulated planes or altering the videos, or both).
Then you want to affirm “video fakery type 1”, as I understand it, which is also a form of “video fakery type 2”, where we (Tambourine man and I) endorse “video fakery type 2”, especially because simulated planes appear to have been used, which is a more efficient method for the dissemination of false impressions that having to alter forty or fifty different videos and all that.
So if I understand your position, it is already in violation of Occam’s Razor, because it requires a more complicated method of producing “video fakery” than the use of simulated planes. Plus no real plane could have performed the feats we see in these videos, regardless of your efforts to deny that they are effortlessly entering the building in violation of Newton’s laws, for example.
Plus if there is any debris, it is dramatically less than would have occurred from the collision of a real plane with this massive, 500,000-ton steel and concrete structure. The plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. But not even you are going to maintain (with a straight face) that any such effects actually occurred.
For all the nonsense that you and hybridrogue1 dish out, none is more breathtaking than your complete avoidance of the frame-by-frame advance argument, namely, that the plane passes through its entire length into the building in the same number of frames it passes thorough its entire length in air–impossible unless this massive building posed no more resistance than air.
This means that, instead of its velocity dropping to zero, it shows no deceleration at all. And the claims that have been made for some modest deceleration cannot be correct, given the frame-by-frame analysis, which shows no deceleration at all: equal distances in equal times implies equal speeds. That this demolishes your whole phony position is no doubt why you avoid it.
And I have never had an answer from you, OSS: have you ever read “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'” or “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”? I ask because, if you had, then if you are rational with respect to your beliefs, you would not be doing what you are doing here, namely: attempting to obfuscate obvious truths about these videos.
A most remarkable post from Mr. Fetzer.
Hes has been countered by reasonable argument on every point he now lists as indisputable truth.
He offers this curious term, “effortlessly” to characterize the plane going into the building.
Effort can be defined as the energy required to do a task. So the term “effortlessly” is at least a misnomer, at worst obfuscation.
The “effort” entailed in this task is, again, one described by the laws of moment and kinetics. This effort is obviously quite substantial – so to characterize it as effortless is a grave error.
His assertions as per the ‘framecount-velocity’ issue has been countered by 2 physicists {Jones and Jenkins} as well as video experts.
He maintains that: “The plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off.”
At the speed the aircraft was travelling asserting that the wings and tail would have simply broken off is absurd, the wing tips and stabilizer shattered, and the evidence is clear that the wings as far out as the engines and somewhat beyond crashed through the facade.
ww
Criag, these childish and abusive posts, which even misspell my name, should not be tolerated here.
Jim,
You may have seen that I did make a plea for civil and respectful dialogue earlier. If your name was misspelled – especially if it was intentional – then I apologize for missing it. If you direct me to the offending comments I’ll review them.
Craig, yes, it was intentional. He has done it at least a half-dozen times now. This is just the latest.
I do apologize….I really did not mean to misspell your name again Jim…perhaps I had better stick to Jim, as I get that extra “s” in their and don’t look back often enough…I don’t proof carefully enough and I am trying to improve on that.
ww
Listen Jim, I did not intentionally mis-pell your name again. I know you won’t believe that, it’s up to you, I have no power to prove it to you.
But don’t let my typo stop you cold. I addressed that post to you, and regardless of typo you again will not address the substance.
It’s up to you man, I am telling you, your sources are unreliable. That you cannot determine this, I can appreciate how this would be the case in the audio visual field. As per some of these physics arguments…frankly I don’t know what to make of it.
ww
You have now misspelled “misspelled” twice.
Hi OSS,
i’m a little bit disappointed that you didn’t acknowledge my ‘objections’ to the three small excerpts of yours in the post i quoted from.
Maybe it’s because i was pretty quick myself to respond to your objections regarding the “50%”,
and ‘hurriedly’ changed it accordingly ….and, not to forget, with an apology also!
Anyway, it’s not really a big deal to me, so forget about it if you like.
There’s something more important i feel a need to mention.
It was sometimes back in 2006 i first started to toy with the idea that everything could better be explained, if a real plane was substituted with a fake one. But it was first after having read part of DARPA’s budget papers in 2007, that my ‘idea’ started slowly to transform into conviction.
In 2008 i participated in a debate at the ATS forum, in a thread dealing with ‘hologram projections’ and their possibilities with regard to WTC.
The ridicule, scorn, mock and muck from the opposition and the “usual suspects”, became almost insufferable to behold, with their insidious, banal, infantile counterarguments, so one saw no other option than to leave this dark environment alone, hoping for better times eventually to come.
Ever since then, i have been looking and looking for better explanations, better ‘theories’, better options, that with more rationality, more logic, more sense, more simplicity and ease etc., could show what really happened that day. I have probably watched the same videos, the same photos, and probably been to the same amount of other forums, read the same amount of articles, as you have, OSS! But so far, and as far as i’m concerned, all other options leave more or less open gaps that will be impossible to fill.
So for me, still, it’s only the ‘hologram projection’ technology which is able to close every gap that
i have encountered; or to me, it, being the last ‘piece’ missing to the puzzle, having now finally found some sort of ‘sanity’ in this whole sordid affair.
If this offend others, or hurt their “sensitive feelings”, then so be it!
As the saying goes: We human beings has but one obligation! Be true to ourselves first and foremost, and then be true to all others henceforth.
Nothing more is required of us, if we want a better world for ourselves, for our children, and for our childrens children!
Peace
Cheers
OSS speaks to Dennis Cimino in his most recent post. It has been some time now that his credentials have been put to question.
Who is he? Mr. Fetzer claims he can vouch for Cimino’s veracity. He offered to get in touch with Cimino by email. Has anyone here been answered who took up this offer? Is there anyone that anyone knows of anywhere that can attest to Ciminos supposedly qualifications to speak to the subjects he has?
As I said previously, I looked high and wide in web searching to find anything solid on this guy.
What I found was all roads lead to Fetzer and the ‘Veterans’ article. There was one more slice about him supposedly having the code for nuclear launch at some point in his career. This could be hearsay, but several sites mention it.
Again, all of this faith in empty assertions is misplaced.
ww
Yes, more distractions from this guy, who can’t cope with the arguments that have defeated him, so he seeks refuge in drivel about Dennis. He was a core member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth until he resigned over differences with Rob, which is easy to understand, since Rob’s positions on NPT and video fakery are simply incoherent, if you read my “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. I frankly do not understand why, when the group he heads has proven that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time “Flight 175” was effortlessly entering the South Tower, for example, he eould deny video fakery type 2 has to have occurred.
“Yes, more distractions from this guy, who can’t cope with the arguments that have defeated him”~Fetzer
This is more arrogant splidgebabble, to assert that you have defeated mine or anyone else’s arguments.
This is why it remains so tempting to use vindictive when addressing you – your hubris is without bound – your manner that of a thug on a barstool.
You point to the same jejune pap-smears in your previous drivel posted elsewhere, wherein is found the same nonsensical jabberoo you spout here.
What an insufferable bore you are.
ww
Now wait, I asked about Cimino’s credentials Jim – I didn’t ask what you thought of me.
It seems that every reply to me now is centered around the same concept, that I am too stupid to address you and your ideas. You seem to consider this insubordination.
Fact is you have no rank on me.
This is becoming surreal, you use the argument that your critic/opponent is attempting to distract as an excuse not to address questions yourself.
I want to know if Cimino is anywhere near the claims he makes as far as expertise. I asked a simple question.
Is there some deep dark secret we don’t want to disturb buried here somewhere.
ww
SEVEN
At the bottom of this posts are seven dates and times I requested Mr. Fetzer to address this question, put in several different word constructions.
Mr. Fetzer claims he has addressed this sufficiently {“time and again”}, however I am yet to see any proofs. All I find are assertions presented as if they are self-evident. Fetzer claims to loyally represent Newtonian Physics – but Newton’s physics are not assertions that it is self evident, therefore no proofs are needed for such assertions.
Whether Mr. Fetzers reasoning in terms of self-evidence is valid is what is at question here.
_________________________
My points I wish addressed are these:
Only at the moment and point of impact is there any momentum of any object but for the airplane.
At that moment and point of impact, the momentum is then transferred as kinetic energy to the portion of the building directly struck – plus additional energy of the pressures of the ignition of the fuel ~ all creating forward motion ~ the shattered plane and the portions of the shattered building in the effect from the transferred kinetic energy.
At no time was the entire mass of the building in a state of momentum.
Momentum has three components: Mass | Velocity | Specific Direction
For the building you have only one component – MASS [500,000 T] as per VELOCITY=0 | SPECIFIC DIRECTION=0
And this remains constant until the secondary of event of global collapse.
At impact as is stated above, only a minute portion of the building incurs velocity and specific direction.
There is however an effect to the rest of the structure – vibration. On impact the building shuttered, shook, vibrated like a tuning fork. This is indeed movement, but vibration is omnidirectional movement, it is represented as a wave-form. As this movement is system internal, there is no specific direction, as per necessary observation.
Seven Unanswered Appeals:
April 23, 2012 at 3:46 pm
April 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm
April 24, 2012 at 4:45 pm
April 24, 2012 at 7:18 pm
April 24, 2012 at 11:27 pm
April 25, 2012 at 9:37 am
April 25, 2012 at 12:15 pm
This is my final appeal for proof of Mr. Fetzers assertions. If none are forthcoming it must be assumed that he has none.
ww
As Mr. Fetzer has failed to respond, I will assume he has no response.
So to continue:
A brief summation:
There are two effects in the transfer of momentum when the jet hits the building, only the impact point incurs velocity and specific direction. The energy left is diffused as oscillation throughout the structure. This oscillation certainly has a proximate jolt at the moment of impact, but obviously it did not unseat the structure.
The specifics of competing material strengths, with keeping in mind the kinetic energies is the last stage of analysis. Keenan Roberts has spoken to these points at some length. Those arguments are sound and have held up here despite the rhetorical spinning used here to defeat them.
ww
Mr. Fetzer’s failure to respond to specific scientific arguments or questions is par for the course. This thread, as well as many others before it on other forums and other debate venues over the last several years is testament to that. His MO is to continue to make a series of false scientific-based claims ad infinitum no matter the fact that they have been debunked and disproved over and over again, while defiantly (and ludicrously) asserting that his arguments stand undefeated (usually accompanied by ad hominem attacks and smears against his detractors).
I have identified 2 major errors in his physics-related claims: 1) that the entire 500,000 tons of the tower was resisting the impact of the planes (false), and 2) that the only factor determining the outcome of a collision between 2 objects is material density, when in fact Force (Kinetic Energy), Momentum, and sectional density are important factors determining the outcome of a collision, particularly at high speeds. These are not in any way esoteric or unlikely aspects of the physics of collisions. They can be found in standard physics books discussing these subjects, and a physicist with a phd would certainly be familiar with these phenomena and factor involved in collisions.
Every time on this thread that I tried to get Mr. Fetzer to prove his claims with specific calculations or numbers or to acknowledge my points regarding his errors and omission of important factors, he either completely ignored them, or dismissed them as “trivial nitpicking” and continued right along making his false claims, usually while accusing me of being dishonest or worse for bringing up these points. This is not the behavior expected of an honest debater or a “scholar” or a scientist trying to convince people of their scientific claims. Rather, this is the stock in trade of a disinformationist, or someone playing games.
I specifically challenged Mr. Fetzer to find another Phd Physicist who would back up his analysis and disprove mine, which has up to now gone unanswered.
I offered to bet Mr. Fetzer $10,000 if he could find a Phd Physicist to back him up. Surely, if his scientific claims were as rock solid and undefeated as he claims, then this should have been an opportunity for Mr. Fetzer to make an easy $10,000. His response was ver telling. He gave a long winded post where he asserted that “If this guy has $10,000 to toss around, he is obviously better off financially than am I” and did not take me up on the offer. Then he tried to backtrack and falsely claimed that he had already agreed to incorporate sectional density into his “generalization” about denser objects prevailing in a collisions while at the same time asserting that sectional density is a “trivial” difference in comparison to object density. Then he dishonestly claimed that because I was only referring to his first claim that I therefore found no faults on his other 3 claims, when I clearly stated that I was going through his point one at a time and that I would not discuss his other 3 claims until the first one was finished being resolved. He made the dishonest assertion “But the point of this grandstanding on a refinement of point (1) is to distract you from points (2), (3), and (4)”. This tendency of Mr. Fetzer to pepper his responses with false and straw-man type of arguments while avoiding the issues and twisting not just other people’s words, but his own words as well, is the mark of a very dishonest con-man, not of someone who is here with honest intentions.
My response to him was to drop the $10,000 wager, but still challenge Mr. Fetzer to come up with a Phd Physicist who would back him up on his claims. No response to this after a day and a half so far. At this point, I do not expect a response based on Mr. Fetzer’s track record. At this point, I will not address Mr. Fetzer directly anymore, as I am completely fed up with his games and his disrespect he has shown me and other on this forum. I am done trying to debate directly with this professional con man and game player, who simply peppers his claims with enough general physics terms to impress laymen, while those with a background in physics quite clearly see his wordsmithery as nothing but clever sounding pseudo-science babble, accompanied by ad hominem attacks on his detractors and anyone who would challenge him to prove his physics claims, as would be expected of any legitimate scientist.
As anyone who has observed Mr. Fetzer’s behavior on numerous other forums over the past few years can attest to, the typical pattern is for Mr. Fetzer to very quickly make himself unwelcome and dismissed as a charlatan or worse as someone who refuses to conduct himself honestly in debates and who never concedes anything while his false claims are debunked over and over again. Obviously, based on his conduct on this forum, Mr. Fetzer has no intention of changing his tune.
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 (and indirectly Dr. Fetzer, Mr. OneSliceShort later in this posting)
[BTW, should I be addressing you in some other fashion, like how you sign some of your posts? Because I practice “do unto others”, I tend to stick with their aliases even though another name might be known to me, unless they tell me otherwise.]
[Off topic: you mentioned the woes you had with WordPress on your mobile device. The key is to write your response in another application. An HTML editor or Notepad are my preferences. Saving a local copy is optional. When you are ready to post, you can refresh the URL on your mobile device to make sure you have connectivity and such before then quickly clicking on an appropriate “Reply” link, copying your text from the other application, pasting it into the tiny reply window, and clicking the post button.]
You write:
The misdiagnosis belongs to your little “scientific” buddy, Mr. KeenanRoberts. My remarks were aping his, where he wrote:
“Shredding” is the applicable term, you say. Based on the the constellation plane crash video and the rocket wedge video, shredding is indeed what I would have expected.
Whereas it could be argued that the UA175 video resolutions and destructive actions inside the tower prevented us from seeing shredding, the rocket wedge video demonstrates properties of physics that are missing from the 9/11 UA175 video “evidence.” Namely, shredding (or slicing) is an energy sink that over the length of a small car noticeably slowed the wedge (in a high speed video). The UA175 airplane was longer than the car; the fuselage alone was impacting 5 or more box columns instead of a single wedge; milli-seconds later the wings were impacting 30 or more; and the 36 cm faces of the box columns were not configured as neat cutting wedges. These four factors suggest a place where lots of kinetic energy was consumed and would have measureably slowed the tail section from its thin-air velocity.
You replied:
First of all, the video of bullets going through steel was steel that was thicker than the bullet-sans-casing itself. It was not a “steel sign” with its hints of being thin sheet metal.
Secondly, when the videos of (1) the car flattened by rockets, (2) the Sandia F4 jet crash [“the plane atomized with the impact”], and (3) the Rocket sleds at Sandia are viewed and applied to UA175, one could argue as you seem to that the 36 cm wide box columns on 100 cm centers would have “atomized” the lighter mostly aluminum aircraft. Only it didn’t, at least not according to the video “evidence.” The splattering debris from the comparative examples in those videos was not evident to a significant degree for either alleged WTC aircraft.
[Mr. OneSliceShort does point out that debris can be seen failing. I speculate that most of it comes from the building, like the aluminum cladding that covered the steel box columns. My present opinion is that none of the 9/11 impact videos seem to have the energetic, atomized, “splattering debris” similar to the Sandia F4 or Mythbuster rockets-against-vehicles.
Mr. OneSliceShort’s excellent postings gave examples of bunker busting missiles that penetrate and then explode, which more accurately describes both alleged WTC aircraft.
You make the comment:
You missed the point. The steel balls on strings analogy referred to what was happening with the bullet and how a hole in steel gets created: not necessarily by the bullet physically piercing the steel but by the bullet transferring its energy into the steel.
In another posting you write:
Go back and re-read both my posting and many from Mr. OneSliceShort, and in particular follow links and watch videos. The conversations about jet engine thrust at high versus low altitude and about the controlability of aircraft at the alleged speed. I think these qualify as “extraordinary arguments” regarding the alleged planes with their alleged pilots not being able to fly into buildings to the precision observed.
At this point, I have to admit that Mr. OneSliceShort has me scratching my head with his posting of this video, Last 12 seconds of the alleged flight UA175. [Kudos and great work, Mr. OneSliceShort!]
On the one hand, this video invalidates my NPT claim that various videos of UA175 seemed to have different flight paths. [In reality, I got that claim from September Clues for which this deals a serious blow.]
On the other hand, I still have some wild-ass NPT speculation to lamely explain away this crippling analysis. Only one shot of the UA175 alleged impact was quasi-live: 17 seconds delayed, according to Mr. Shack. The rest of the 45 or so videos of UA175 were released throughout the course of the day, week, and month (and some even later than that). Maybe the very 3D modeling tool (or similar) that shows how the various videos really did have consistent flight paths was used during the process of inserting plane pixels in various collected 9/11 footage to assure that at least this part of the ruse remained consistent. Modeling consistent flight paths would certainly be easier to do than modeling crash physics.
On the third hand, Dr. Fetzer has been pretty insistent about holograms. I’ve looked (briefly) into what is commercially available and into some videos of research success. Granted, when the military wants to keep big technology for itself, sometimes offshoot small technology is slow in making it into public university research and commercial products. What I have run across so far still has presented holograms in their infancy incapable of pulling off 9/11.
Here’s what I understand about holograms based on what is published about today’s technolgy [which were things I pretty much knew before]:
1) Most holograms require a flat piece of holographic film. The Touchable Hologram uses a concave mirror. The virtual ticket agent is rear-projected onto a human shaped silhouette made of plexiglass.
2) “Most holograms also act like color filters, so you see the object as the same color as the laser used in its creation rather than its natural color.”
3) “You need the right light source to see a hologram because it records the light’s phase and amplitude like a code. Rather than recording a simple pattern of reflected light from a scene, it records the interference between the reference beam and the object beam. It does this as a pattern of tiny interference fringes. Each fringe can be smaller than one wavelength of the light used to create them. Decoding these interference fringes requires a key — that key is the right kind of light.”
Dr. Fetzer sent me the links that I could bore into to find the above. Now if Dr. Fetzer can link me to where these above limitations have been overcome, maybe I could be endorsing 9/11 airplane holograms in my regular batshit crazy fashion.
As near as I can wild-ass speculate, maybe a configuration similar to a long-range radio telescope: a large parabolic mirror with holographic film on its surface that different color lasers shine into and get reflected out to the parabolic mirror’s fulcrum point that is designed to be several miles away. Due to the limitations on the fulcrum length, a land-based parabolic hologram projector would have the hologram only going in circles.
*Assuming* my wild-ass speculation about parabolic holograph mirrors being able to project from lasers a hologram some distance has any scientific merit, then a parabolic hologram projector on a (WACS?) aircraft flying a parallel course but much higher altitude (where those pesky 500 mph speeds are possible) might just fool people and cameras on the ground. Lasers can be used to trigger nano-thermite… Presto!!! The cartoon outline of a plane that the WTC resident artists made with nano-thermite gets blasted into the tower’s face.
Holograms would explain the need for HAARP control of Hurricane Erin: hurricanes suck clouds, as opined by Mr. Shack. Hurricane gives predictable wind directions for smoke. If smoke or clouds were to get in the way of the projected hologram, it might result in the wings of an aircraft disappearing and being caught on film.
The only conclusion that readers should make of this wild-ass speculation into holograms is: “There goes Sr. El Once again!!! Trying to become duped useful idiot on the latest conspiracy technology to cross his plate that!”
Sorry about that, chief!
I’m not duped yet. There is still room for rational discussion to dupe me for or against this.
What can I tell you? The public sources you are relying upon are grossly outdated in relation to what technology is available. Did you listen to my two-hour interview with Stephen Brown on “The Real Deal”? I think I even gave you a link. He had just taken a course on holography at Cambridge, (Perhaps you have heard of it?) He assured me that the technology that would have been required to project the image of a Boeing 767 such as what we see in the South Tower hit videos was available in 2001. The plane also has no strobe lights, casts no shadows, and loses its left wing in some of the videos, including the last one in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”.
The argument for a hologram is by elimination. The plane is performing feats no real plane could perform (illustrated most strikingly and simply by the equal-distance-in-equal-frames argument, as I have repeatedly explained. (hybridrogue1 wants to use complex calculations when the situation requires no more than applications of d = r x t. The preference for more complex calculations to simpler ones derives from the impossibility of coping with the simpler and more decisive version.) Since there is no deceleration at all–the plane continues at constant velocity passing its whole length into the building–this massive 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance than air.
This is the decisive consideration. I have not watched OSS latest version of the video, but if his version does not show the same equal distance in equal frames phenomenon, then it has to be a new revised version, because we found the same outcome with the Fairbanks video as well as the Hezarkhani video. Both showed the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, which is impossible, unless a massive 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air.
As many times as I have made this point, it simply dumbfounds me when hybridrogue1 wants to insist I have no response to his momentum observations. That is my response, combined with the reflections that he obviously does not understand Newton’s laws, the relativity of motion or the role of frames of reference. The point is that this cannot be a real plane, since it is performing feats that no real plane could perform. The question then becomes whether this was done using video fakery type 1 (by means of CGIs or video compositing) or video fakery type 1 (by using a sophisticated hologram). And here the role of the witness reports becomes the crucial factor.
We already know what we see in these videos has no strobe lights, casts no shadows, and has a left wing that disappears before it enters the building (in some of the videos, including one that I presented in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”). But if it was done using CGIs or by video compositing, the only images of planes anyone would have seen would have been IN THESE VIDEOS AFTER THEY WERE BROADCAST. Obviously, witnesses would not have reported having seen non-existent planes (unless they were suffering from false memory syndrome or for other unknown reasons reporting having seen “planes” as having been present before broadcast.
Given p or q or r (CGIs or video compositing or a hologram), we know from the witness reports that it cannot be CGIs and it cannot be video compositing, as long as we believe the testimony of any of those rather numerous witnesses, where I have interviewed on at length, Scott Forbes. If any of them is telling the truth–and I certainly believe that some of them, including Scott Forbes, were telling the truth–then the first two alternatives can be eliminated and we are left with the last alternative, a sophisticated hologram. Others can believe what they will, but as long as Stephen Brown and Scott Forbes are telling the truth, we have the only rational explanation for the data. I will take a look at OSS video clip, but I can’t imagine how it could defeat this line of argument.
Indeed, I have watched these videos, which only reinforce the points I have been making. Such “debris” as OSS remarks upon is not remotely like the massive debris, including the wings and the tail, that should have fallen to the ground, including the bodies, seats, and luggage. Those windows were small and narrow, which covered less than 50% of the facade of the building. As a consequence, less than 50% of the parts of the plane could possibly have entered via those windows under the most charitable construction. As I explained in “The Case of Rob Balsamo”, the kind of thinking that went into the Purdue animation was equally hopelessly inadequate.
I think OSS misses the point about scientific reasoning in proofs of fakery. Nothing can violate laws of physics, of engineering and of aerodynamics. When we discover that events are being portrayed in a video that violates laws of physics, of engineering and of aerodynamics, then we have as powerful proof as we could possibly have that the video is not authentic in representing the behavior of real objects in real time. Reasoning based upon laws of nature is scientific and,
in this case, demonstrates conclusively we are not dealing with authentic footage of real planes.
Ace Baker’s “ghost plane” studies are quite brilliant and might very well explain the data but for the witness reports. Although hybridrogue1 STILL does not understand it, that is why I continue to insist that, the greater the weight we give to the witness reports, the greater the weight of the evidence supporting the hologram hypothesis BECAUSE we know it cannot be a real plane and the only question that remains is how the fake plane was introduced into the footage. If it was using CGIs or video compositing, then it would not have been visible to the witnesses in real time but only after the fact when those images, which had not been present, were broadcast on TV.
I think the footage of the rocket sled smashing into the car against a concrete bunker was quite revealing. Notice that massive parts of the car are thrown up into the air, more or less intact. As I have repeatedly observed, similar larges parts–including the wings and the tail–should likewise have been part of the debris. OSS suggests there was “no time for crumpling”, but that is one of his weakest claims. Just because crumpling was occurring at a rapid rate, it was still crumpling. I must report, therefore, that, as I suspected, I found nothing here that undermines the argument I have been making, which establishes that only the use of a hologram can explain the evidence.
“Ace Baker’s “ghost plane” studies are quite brilliant and might very well explain the data but for the witness reports. Although hybridrogue1 STILL does not understand it..”~Fetzer
The fact of the matter is YOU don’t understand it Fetzer. As I noted before Baker is capable in CAD, constructing models. His other skills are fair to middling, and his forensic skill lacking.
For you, someone who has proven your absolute ignorance on the subject – not even capable of understanding resolution/Pixeliztion and focus, you are out of line boasting as to this issue.
ww
“(hybridrogue1 wants to use complex calculations when the situation requires no more than applications of d = r x t. The preference for more complex calculations to simpler ones derives from the impossibility of coping with the simpler and more decisive version.) Since there is no deceleration at all–the plane continues at constant velocity passing its whole length into the building–this massive 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance than air.”~Fetzer
Again you are mistaken and do not grasp the argument. The ‘d = r x t c’ calculation is the same one used in our analysis. It is the ‘results’ that are proven different on proper analysis.
It is simply proven fact that the tail end of the aircraft retains its speed until it catches up with the center of gravity of the mass of the plane. Both this and the slight imperceptible slowing once the tail end reaches mass center is illustrated in the Sandia crash.
Incidents at speeds faster than human perception may seem counter-intuitive, but this does not alter the physics.
ww
“The UA175 airplane was longer than the car; the fuselage alone was impacting 5 or more box columns instead of a single wedge; milli-seconds later the wings were impacting 30 or more; and the 36 cm faces of the box columns were not configured as neat cutting wedges. These four factors suggest a place where lots of kinetic energy was consumed and would have measureably slowed the tail section from its thin-air velocity.”~Senor
Not so, as the Sandia crash illustrates nothing slows down until the center of gravity of the overall mass is reached, and the speed of the tail slows down only imperceptibly from that point on – by imperceptibly, this means as per human perception. Only by slowing down a video of such a crash is the slowing measurable.
Now whether we use the term “crumpling” or “shredding” the craft is shattering in an explosive manner as it passes through the facade.
The point that remains to be proved is that it could not have broken the steel lattice of the facade.
~~~~~~~~~
In my opinion it would be beneficial for those who wish to reply to your posts to break them up into sections that can be addressed more conveniently. Other readers may appreciate this as well.
ww
Newton’s third law asserts that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What that means here is that the force of the plane flying 500 mph on a stationary 500,000 ton tower would be the same as a 500,000 ton tower hitting a stationary plane at 500 mph. This is quite elementary, yet you do not understand it–nor do you the relativity of motion (which means we can take either object as stationary and calculate the motion of the rest of the world in relation to that stationary frame of reference). Why don’t you do some research on these simple points?
The claim that your systematic misspellings of my name are “accidental” puts you in a league with Pinocchio. Your nose must be a foot long by now. That you would lie about something that is so trivial reveals that there is no telling the whoppers you would be willing to peddle in matters more serious. And the events of 9/11 ARE more serious. That you continue to push momentum when it makes no difference to the outcome is astounding. What would happen if a plane in flight encountered just one of those steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete? This is a pop quiz.
“Newton’s third law asserts that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What that means here is that the force of the plane flying 500 mph on a stationary 500,000 ton tower would be the same as a 500,000 ton tower hitting a stationary plane at 500 mph. This is quite elementary, yet you do not understand it–nor do you the relativity of motion (which means we can take either object as stationary and calculate the motion of the rest of the world in relation to that stationary frame of reference).”~Fetzer
Look Jim, the equal and opposite reaction still must adhere to the added components of momentum.
If it is argued that the mass of the building is stationary, at rest when there is no other quantity in the equation, then arguing that this changes because of impact becomes absurd until you change the reference points conceptually and assume the jet somehow remains stationary while the earth speeds up to the point where the building zooms into the plane, that is the only scenario possible – because in the same laws of momentum the mass must have a specific velocity moving at some vector, E, W. N, S. the building cannot do this. It must remain stationary within the system’s frame.
Thus postulating it hitting the plane must be described as I just have.
At this point of impact you now have all the integers as I have set forth previously. The building is at rest in this frame, the effects of the impact remain as I have stated them before. As I said the entire mass of the building is still involved in this impact. What you are missing are the elements of specifics; the location of impact, the release of energy of both the plane and the reaction of the building at that specific point. Most of the energy from both the action and the reaction is consumed in that moment. The residual energy is then dispersed throughout the entire mass as a diffused oscillation. This has been explained before.
As I and others here have noted before, you have picked only a portion of the physics and not addressed other aspects.
ww
Sorry this wasn’t up sooner. Nothing to do with the content.
Well, let’s see. An aluminum plane flying at 500 mph and hitting a stationary 500,000 ton building
— where the mass ratio is on the order of 1: 2,500 — would have the same effects as a 500,000 ton building flying at 500 mph and hitting a stationary aluminum airplane. What would happen?
An aluminum plane flying at 400 mph and hitting a stationary 500,000 ton building would have the same effects as a 500,000 ton building flying at 400 mph and hitting a stationary aluminum airplane. What would happen?
An aluminum plane flying at 300 mph and hitting a stationary 500,000 ton building would have the same effects as a 500,000 ton building flying at 300 mph and hitting a stationary aluminum airplane. What would happen?
This obviously applied regardless of the speed. Given the third law, which I have exemplified here, it does not matter what speed the plane is traveling. What matters is the ratio of their masses, which is on the order of 1:2,500.
You continued insistance that I am wrong and have been misapplying Newton’s laws is refuted by the evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about and make the practice of endlessly repeating arguments that have no merit.
“What would happen if a plane in flight encountered just one of those steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete? This is a pop quiz.”~Jim Fetzer
The plane would have been badly damaged Jim. Nobody has said the plane was not badly damaged. As it is the plane was obliterated.
I don’t think, that you have pulled a rabbit out of your hat here.
ww
Jim Fetzer says: April 26, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Jim, this is merely – yet again – a repeat of an argument you have made countless times.
By gawd man, we KNOW what would happen, just exactly what DID happen: whether the plane crashes into the building, or the building crashes into the plane, the plane smashed through the facade.
Your repeating this nonsense over and again does NOT prove the plane cannot smash through the facade, forward or reversed situation.
Again – you present one aspect, the mass differential, and ignore all other specifics. You are the one that refuses to address the remaining physics of the crash, relying simply on this general principle, which does not incorporate the other physics needed to define the actual event.
How many more times?
ww
Well, Señor El Once, since you mentioned me in your above post (and in a derogatory tone) I might as well respond. You said:
Señor El Once, enclosing ‘scientific’ in quotes when describing me as if to imply that I’m anything but scientific, when coming from someone (yourself) who has shown virtually no scientific aptitude at all (and even you yourself practically admitted as much in various postings), while continuing to make claims of a “scientific” nature in attempting to support your silly speculative NPT and video fakery theories, is too hilarious to even comment on.
What I will comment on is your use of a straw man argument, claiming that my use of the descriptive “crumpling” while discussing a separate issue (deceleration on impact), means that I excluded the possibility of “shredding” as one of the effects of the impact, and therefore I “misdiagnosed” the effect. This false dilemma is of your own creation, not mine. That you would assume that I would not have possibly included both crumpling and shredding (along with other effects) as likely in the collision, is strange to me, but is an absolutely false assumption on your part.
I would also like to address my loss of patience with you I expressed in my comment of April 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm where I basically dismissed your very long winded comment that just preceded mine as being drivel and accused you of behaving just like all the other NPT type folks who troll and spam. What set me off was some derogatory remarks and baseless accusations and assumptions, along with some faulty scientific and technical arguments you made, such as in the following examples (bolding mine):
OSS has already addressed your claim of no evidence of collision effects on the videos with the discussion of the fact that “The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft’s recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second” and that therefore the videos naturally were not able to capture much of what was going on in such a short interval, which made it look like the plane just melted into the building.
Another example:
First of all, you are setting up another straw man argument and putting words in my mouth. I never said that the planes penetrated the towers and then came out the other side intact. Nor did I say that a bullet going through a steel plate made it out the other side intact when making a hole through it. So let me spell it out to you. In high speed collisions, even when one object is able to penetrate into another object, does not in any way exclude the possibility that the penetrating object is destroyed in the process. And there are in fact examples of where a softer object penetrates all the way through a harder target at high enough velocities and high enough Kinetic Energy, specifically under the condition that the sectional density (the mass divided by the frontal area) of the penetrating object is higher than the sectional density of the target.
If you are going to set up straw man arguments and put words in my mouth in an attempt to make me look like I am “playing games” and such, the more likely outcome is that you are showing people that you can’t debate honestly.
A final example:
Absolutely uncalled for assertions that HybridRogue’s timing of entering discussions here are suspicious, and what appeared to me to be an incredibly outrageous accusation that the people arguing against your NPT/Video Fakery crap on this thread (including myself) are “the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group”
One final point, Señor El Once,
You belittle my claim that “The tail of the aircraft could still be traveling close to its original (thin air) forward momentum even while the front of the aircraft was already crumpling and stopped in its forward momentum” as if it is ridiculous (and without giving any scientific reason why I am wrong, you just seem to ridicule).
Notice that I did not say that the forward momentum of the tail was “unaffected”, as you misquoted me before on this, but what I mean was that the deceleration could be imperceptible to the human eye.
Well, there a perfect test of the claim with the Sandia F4 crash test, which HybridRogue mentioned above. The reason it is a perfect test of this principal (of imperceptible deceleration) is because the target that the F4 crashed into was a very thick solid reinforced concrete wall that the F4 was not able to penetrate at all, unlike the WTC crash. Also, the velocity of the F4 before impact was 480 MPH, similar to the alleged speeds of the planes crashing into the WTC. So, if there is any significant deceleration expected from a high speed plane crash, we should at least have seen it in the Sandia F4 test to disprove my statement above. If the Sandia test shows no perceptible deceleration, then that should be proof enough that my statement above regarding the WTC crash stands, and you should concede that point.
The results of the test were mentioned in the paper published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration
During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion,
and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity
By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf
Gregory Jenkins concludes:
So, Señor El Once, after following the link and examining the evidence for yourself, I would like you to concede this argument.
“imperceptible deceleration”? Is that what happens when a car hits a tree? or an F-14 hits a massive concrete barrier? or a Boeing 767 hits a 500,000 ton steel and concrete structure?
In all of these cases, the velocity of the car, the F-14 and the Boeing 767 SHOULD fall to zero. All this business re “imperceptible deceleration” is malarky, rubbish, nonsense pure and simple.
“In all of these cases, the velocity of the car, the F-14 and the Boeing 767 SHOULD fall to zero. All this business re “imperceptible deceleration” is malarky, rubbish, nonsense pure and simple.”
This is bloody nonsense again Jim.
Of course the velocity falls to zero – but in the process described.
The nose of the plane doesn’t hit the barrier and stop at that instant. You try to deny the time it takes to complete process. At these speeds the time is obviously very short. This doesn’t make it nonexistent.
And that is what your postulate boils down here, that the plane stops in a single instant.
Yes, that is, “malarky, rubbish, nonsense pure and simple.”
ww
Don’t play dumb, Fetzer. You know exactly what this “imperceptible deceleration” is referring to, your bullshit analogies and straw man arguments aside. Are you even capable of even ONE honest response?
If you are having trouble with Gregory Jenkins conclusion that:
then try reading the paper to understand the context and look over the evidence for yourself. It is all there for you to read if you are willing. Here, I’ll give you the link again –>http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf
The statement above appears on page 2 of the document. Go to page 3 for the Appendix: Analysis of F-4 Phantom Jet Impact Velocity where you can examine the evidence for yourself.
Now, Fetzer, what part of this F4 impact velocity study, specifically measured at the tail in which no appreciable deceleration of the tail was observed for the first 80% of the plane’s impact (up to the point in time when the tail was obscured by debris), do you not understand?
Any response of yours that attempts to evade and shift the subject and does not specifically address the above point will be ignored and recorded as further evidence of your lack of willingness to debate honestly (and believe me, I’m not holding my breath for an honest response from you).
Dear Mr. Roberts wrote:
Yet you made a comment anyway. Too hilarious.
My apologies, Mr. Roberts, because the “scientific” word in my “your little ‘scientific’ buddy” phrase was really a dig at Mr. HybridRogue, whose (his term) “boojie woojie science” is rusty. It is as if he had to ask his superiors for re-enforcements, and presto! Mr. Roberts as Mr. HybridRogue’s Gilligan enters the fray in this thread.
Jumping to the end of your posting, you write:
Point #1. My significantly longer tenure in this forum gives me a different perspective on the actions of others with regards to the timing of their arrival… including yours.
Point #2. Glad that you recognize yourself as belonging to the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group so I don’t have to accuse you of such.
The rest of this posting will not be going over new scientific evidence or revealing anything new in the discovery of 9/11 Truth. It will just be a highlighting of game playing. It will be of little interest to anyone except Mr. Roberts whose own words shoots himself in the foot several times. Let’s start with this quote:
Oh, how limited your ability to follow discussions and how weak your ability to Ctrl+F and locate your own words:
As to who should be blamed for creating a false dilemma of misdiagnosis, please don’t foist it on me. Look no further than yourself (above) and Mr. HybridRogue on April 24, 2012 at 9:43 pm
In my brief summary (which never claims to be an exact quotation), I wrote:
Mr. Roberts takes issue: False statement. I never said that the tail section’s momentum would be “unaffected”.
Please point out where I got the wrong impression from your own words:
This next passage is absolutely awesome. Not only does it attempt to pin a strawman on me, but deftly introduces two strawmen (I’ve labeled [A] and [B}) of his own:
Let’s dispense with [B] first. Here are Mr. Roberts own words (emphasis mine) regarding bullets going intact through steel plates:
Let’s return to [A]. He claims he never said that “planes penetrated the towers and then came out the other side intact.” I neither wrote that nor wrote that Mr. Roberts wrote that. This diddy of a strawman is made all the more humorous when we think about the meaning of what he is saying with planes coming out the other side of the building in tact. [Before Mr. Roberts comes back with “I never said ‘other side of the building'”, let’s point out he never said “other side of exterior wall or other side of box columns” either.]
Mr. Roberts’ strawman is all about losing context [that my posting here puts the icing on]. The context that I was trying to establish started with bullets that Mr. Roberts brought up. Bullets apply their energy to one side of steel plate, often get splattered, and many times never really progress beyond that side of the plate. Their energy, on the other hand, transfers into the plate, breaks steel bonds, and sends a fragments of steel out the other side. The analogy I used involved the physics experiment with suspended steel balls and how energy of the first ball transfers through the other balls and sends the last ball flying.
Mr. Roberts chose not to see what I was driving at: A fuselage and (milliseconds later) wings splatter (like a bullet) against one side of steel box beams, transfer their energy into the beams, and presto! outline of fuselage and wings gets cut into those steel beams on the building face. [Only problem was: we don’t see sufficient Sandia F4 (bullet) splatter; we don’t see shredding either; we don’t see the plane in the hole; nothing of the plane was found in the decimated towers’ debris piles.]
Mr. Roberts writes:
The above proves you are playing games.
Speaking of which, you should be careful about what you wish for:
On into Mr. Roberts’ April 25, 2012 at 9:11 pm “final point” continuation:
Point #1: I didn’t misquote you, because you weren’t being quoted. I was summarizing your blathering argument at the time to the best of my understanding as already explained above.
Point #2: “Deceleration could be imperceptible to the human eye?” What a weasel-worded hair split! Nothing about alleged 500 mph speeds are perceptible to the human eyes. It is all about the medium that captured it. Your original posting was making half-way decent arguments regarding the lack of high speed videos. You can almost (but not quite) make the case that the frame rate of the videos we do have was insufficient to detect the deceleration.
You write:
You obviously missed it in your haste to build your strawmen, but I linked that Sandia F4 crash already at least twice in my postings.
Touche, though. That video and other high velocity crash videos have me indeed reconsidering my views. Assuming the UA175 video is valid.
Yep, in case you haven’t noticed, my recent postings are reflecting renewed confusion in my beliefs about 9/11 events.
Few of us can agree on NPT (the no planes theory). But where we should be finding agreement is on NCPT (the no commerical planes theory), that has these supporting pillars:
(1) The alleged commercial planes could not have flown the velocities attributed to them by video evidence and by radar data that exceed both the structural and engine thrust capacities.
(2) The alleged hijacker pilots could not have manually steered the planes so precisely into their targets. Remote control by computer is about it.
(3) The alleged FDR surviving the horrific impacts and scredding as well as the decimation of the towers by excessively energic means are questionable. (Which FDR don’t show the cockpit door ever being breeched?)
(4) Lots of data points [neatly outlined by Dr. Fetzer on April 25, 2012 at 11:32 pm] regarding flights not being scheduled, flights being elsewhere at impact times, and aircraft not being de-registered.
Señor El Once,
All this blathering on and on, continuing to split hairs with my words, continuing to create straw man arguments, continuing to deny your troublesome tactics I identified, continuing to misinterpret and misstate my arguments (“close to” is not the same as “unaffected”, I call BS on your attempt to claim that summarizing my argument as if I was claiming the tail end velocity was “unaffected” by the impact of the front of the plane was an accurate summary, etc.). I don’t have time to address all of the rest of your blather. I don’t have anymore time for your game playing. I’m quite done with this pointless exercise.
And it was all for what? After all of that waste of space and energy and mental exercising, you finally come around and essentially (but refuse to say it explicitly) conceded the argument like I asked you to and accepted my position that, as Gregory Jenkins stated it best:
Really, Señor El Once, was all of your pointless posturing and blathering and grandstanding really necessary? Couldn’t you have stated your concession of the argument and left out all of the other nonsense? You are really becoming quite a bore. Don’t expect me to spend the time to respond to your lengthy billowing blasts of hot air point by point from this point forward. I have much more important (and interesting) things to do with my time.
Except, of course, the F-14 is blown into millions of pieces and comes to a screeching halt. I can’t believe you would accuse Senor El Once of not appreciating “dishonesty” when you are one of the leading practitioners here. Do you agree that the F-14 blows apart into millions of tiny pieces but the 767 does not? and that the F-14 comes to a screeching halt, but the 767 does not? Tell me.
Dear Mr. Roberts,
Let’s play some more of that game. All quotes below are from you unless otherwise identified:
Agreed, blathering on and on it was. Thank you for reading it.
Serves you right if you aren’t going to write precisely. What’s the matter? Don’t you stand by your own words? Don’t like how I torched all of your strawmen arguments?
Completely and entirely unsubstantiation right from the word “continuing”. I proved that nothing I wrote previously was a strawman (while proving that antics were exactly that in which you decry.) And you offer no proof that anything in the last post was a strawman either.
A trait of a disinformationalist is to caste their own weaknesses and issues onto their opponents.
Just about every time you call out “Strawman!”, you’re worse than the boy crying “Wolf!” when there was no wolf. In fact, you reek of being “the wolf in sheep’s clothing” who cries “Wolf!” “Wolf!” “Wolf!” against others, so that eventually the lurker readers will go away, and your agenda of “devouring truth” (e.g., preventing it from being aired and discussed rationally) will be fulfilled.
Pot calling the kettle black, eh?
It turns out, the “troublesome tactics” were misidentified as belonging to me. I validated where your very own words gave me justification. That troublesome shoe fits you, hombre.
Who’s hair splitting now?
Can’t you even quote yourself accurately? What happened to the word “crumpling”, which was the hair-split that caused your little nitpicking flame-bait posting?
I’m going to hold you to this. A promise is a promise, eh? If you deviate from doing that which you repeatedly state you are going to do, I will rub your nose in it ruthlessly.
wow. just wow, Señor El Once. You must have way too much time on your hands. Such great effort expended to catch me on and catalogue such insignificant alleged faults (that are of importance only to yourself) among my words. You are seeming more and more like a 15 year old brat living in your parent’s basement with nothing much to do other than spend your days tolling blog discussions.
In response to me saying I’m no longer interested in responding to your lengthy billowing blasts of hot air point by point from this point forward, you say:
Ok, dude. Knock yourself out. So flattering how you take such interest in my every word and action here (not). Perhaps you take yourself just a little too seriously?
Mr. Roberts lamented to me:
Perhaps Mr. Roberts doesn’t take himself seriously enough. Below are quotations data-mined from Mr. Keenan Roberts’ postings just to me. Were I to venture beyond that into the 40 or so other postings in this thread, the picture of honesty and moral rectitude created by Mr. Roberts does not change significantly.
Mr. Roberts already says: “So flattering how you take such interest in my every word and action here (not).”
More flattery, I suppose.
April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm
April 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm:
April 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm
April 26, 2012 at 4:35 pm:
April 26, 2012 at 7:38 pm:
With Mr. Roberts own permission.
Referring to the two April 26 postings from 4:35 pm and 7:38: What do you call a person who gives their word on a matter and then a skant three hours and three minutes later demonstrates that he doesn’t have the ability to stand by it?
What do you call a participant who deliberately and repeatedly engages those he deems a troll in direct opposition to the cardinal rule of how best to handle trolls (e.g., ignore)?
Were we to look more closely at the body of Mr. Roberts work in this forum in light of the trend line connecting the answers to those two questions, they cluster around that trend line. Just in responding to my postings alone, Mr. Roberts wrote things like:
“Not True.”
“This has not been proven.”
“False.”
“False.”
“I will comment on is your use of a straw man argument.”
“This false dilemma is of your own creation, not mine.”
“[Y]ou … set up straw man arguments and put words in my mouth in an attempt to make me look like I am ‘playing games'”
My rebuttals turned these around. When the focus is broadened to Mr. Roberts’ exchanges with others (particularly his calls for banishment of others and quarantining topics of discussion), data points are easily collected that cluster around the trend line already established with me.
Houston, we have a problem.
The A-Team of the NSA Q-Group.
“And I have never had an answer from you, OSS: have you ever read “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery’” or “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”? I ask because, if you had, then if you are rational with respect to your beliefs, you would not be doing what you are doing here, namely: attempting to obfuscate obvious truths about these videos.”
I answered that already at Pilotsfor911truth. How else would I be quoting from it??
Given the standard of posts here, I refuse to read ad hom attacks on a person who has provided ammunition and solid evidence on what didn’t happen on 9/11.
I, and others here have debated NPT with valid, sourced counterarguments which no NPTer has addressed other than dodging, Brian Goodesque waffle and contradiction.
This blog should be downloaded and be a frame of reference when discussing the manufactured “quagmire”.
NPT is based on wordsmithery. It has all of the bases covered verbally. It has no parameters. It can redefine even the terminology used. Bullshit heaven.
Well, OSS, whatever your other virtues, you are ignorant of the principles of argument. No one can determine the truth or falsity of a claim without understanding its meaning. NPT stands for
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Others may mistakenly construe NPT as meaning no planes were involved anywhere at any time on 9/11, which would be silly but appears to be the position you prefer, no doubt because you are too embarrassed to admit that you actually believe in NPT, even though you denounce it.
BTS data records show that Flight 11 was not even scheduled that day;
BTS data records show that Flight 77 was not even scheduled that day;
Pilots has shown Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, when it was allegedly crashing in Shanksville
Pilots has shown Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, when it was allegedly entering the South Tower
FAA Registration records show the planes associated with Flight 93 and Flight 175 were not even de-registered until 28 September 2005. All of this evidence appears in my VT articles.
So I ask, OSS, how can planes that were not even in the air have crashed; and how can planes that crashed have still been in the air four years later? And since Pilots has shown that Flight 175 was not even in New York, how can video fakery have not occurred in New York on 9/11?
Please try to avoid the ad hominems you prefer in responding. Think of this as a 9/11 IQ test.
I know I said I wouldn’t address you directly anymore, but I just can’t resist responding to this Masterpiece of bullshit you just posted. Man, you are more slippery than a greased hog the way you try to waffle on your positions and twist your words.
NPT no longer means “no planes”? Really?
So does this mean that you are changing your position on the “silly” (your word) notion that no planes were involved, only holograms, and you now believe that there were planes involved, with plane-swapping being order of the day?
And now you want to change the definition of NPT to mean plane swapping, not ‘no planes’?
If so, you’re going to piss off a lot of your NPT disciples who were absolutely wedded to the idea that the core of NPT is the idea of sophisticated hologram technology that you so painstakingly tried to convince people of through your “logic” of the “process of elimination” that the only thing it could be is a sophisticated hologram technology that to this date, ten years later, has not still not been proven to exist.
Oh wait, your final question to OSS made the case that video fakery had to have been used: “And since Pilots has shown that Flight 175 was not even in New York, how can video fakery have not occurred in New York on 9/11?”
I’m so confused. So it is “silly” to equate NPT with ‘no planes’, but not with ‘video fakery’? But doesn’t video fakery imply the use of holograms? Or are you saying that some sort of planes were crashed into the WTC, but video fakery was used to cover-up the id’s of the planes that were used in New York because of plane-swapping being employed?
Er…wait! Since you stated that it was a physical impossibility for planes to have penetrated into the WTC towers (being that all 500,000 tons of the buildings would have easily prevented the planes from penetrating), and since there’s no evidence of planes smashing and falling outside of the towers from the impacts, then that proves that no planes crashed into the towers, which by process of elimination means that “sophisticated” holograms were used, and therefore the “silly” notion of ‘no planes’ is in fact the order of the day? So, NPT still means ‘no planes’?
Oh, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows…
Says the guy who consistently calls my posts “drivel” yet fails to respond to them.
Craig, do you believe that NPT (whatever it is this morning!) holds any weight? And do you think that the NPT argument has been honest here? I’ve found it as evasive as Brian Good.
It boils down to the impact footage IMO
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4723
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4511
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4536
It’s weak at the very best.
Cheers
OSS
OSS,
I have very mixed feelings about this thread, to tell you the truth. I don’t like the back and forth attacks, many of them personal. I don’t like having to assess who, if anyone, is being dishonest. And I don’t want others to stop contributing because they don’t like the subject matter of the thread. Obviously I do like the fact that the comments section has been very active.
One thing I will be doing is keeping this subject on this thread or creating a new thread for it. On the next post, which is coming very soon, I want comments that are on topic. There will be leeway, but not where the current “no planes” topic is concerned. I think it’s a valid topic for debate so I have no interest in censoring it. I just don’t want it dominating every new post.
What do I think? I’ll say what I’ve said before: I have questions and doubts about the authenticity of the entire video record from that day.
Craig,
Do you think there should be rules or standards for honest debate? When a person consistently misframes and misstates other’s arguments and questions, consistently evades and dodges, consistently utilizes straw man arguments and other fallacies, and consistently refuses to concede when their arguments have been disproved or shown to be without merit, should this be tolerated indefinitely?
Keenan,
I’m all for rules and standards. But what might be black and white to you might not be to others. What would you have me do, exactly? Are you suggesting that I do an analysis of each comment to ascertain whether the writer is being disingenuous? That’s easier said than done. People on opposite sides of this current debate would happily accuse their debate opponents of committing the offenses you list. How do you think I should reach a conclusion about what is genuine and what is not? Keep in mind that I have a day job and have to be as efficient with my time as possible.
What do you suggest?
Do you have any idea how much of a fool you are making of yourself with one post after another that begs the question by assuming you are right and I am wrong? You have not shown that any of my arguments are mistaken. If you could do that, you would not be the potty-mouth we have found you to be. Your appeals to the F-14 case is simply absurd, unless you believe that it continued in motion through that massive concrete barrier!
How dumb is that? The F-14 blows into millions of pieces and its velocity falls to zero. The Boeing 767 does not blow into millions of piece and its velocity does not fall to zero. How can you continue to pretend that you are right and I am wrong when I did not encounter a more faulty analogy in all of my 35 years teaching logic and critical thinking!
If you want to get serious–which I frankly believe is beyond your intellectual capabilities–then prove what you claim to be the case: identify a claim of mine that you dispute, explain why I hold such a position, and then explain what I have wrong and how you know. This endless appeal to a blatant contradiction to your contentions is simply ludicrous!
Craig,
Although I admit that I have a short fuse, I’ve been very respectful to those advocating NPT. The only post where I used any profanity was in reference to “bullshit heaven” after having had the majority of points I’ve spent hours every day validating and sourcing, be buried under a deluge of repititious, irrelevant copy and paste blurbs that don’t address the points raised.
I would like somebody who is “on the fence” over this issue, namely yourself (in that you have “questions” and that you’re the owner of this blog) to step in now as the debate is going round (intentionally) in circles, and narrow the parameters.
Jim Fetzer apparently can now change the actual definition of what NPT actually is!
Before he blurbs, I’m talking about the claim that no aircraft at all were involved in striking the towers.That holograms were used. That aircraft were inserted or “touched up” in videos and images. And that the aforementioned is based primarily on the physics of the penetration captured on these videos (nobody appears to see the flaw in using “fake video”, as in manipulated, to draw scientific conclusions from, but no matter…).
That’s the only version of Jim Fetzer’s NPT that needs to be discussed. It’s been addressed in great detail. So I’d like to know what questions you have personally. Not as a “with us or against us” demand but to bring some order to this madness. From a neutral perspective.
Cheers
OSS
Keenan, I share the frustrations you express in your post above:April 26, 2012 at 3:00 am
This special lexicon presented as one that we must now all bow to and adjust our long accepted meanings of these things is another draconian approach among many displayed here by our ‘Professor of Profundity’.
The last line of his post is what really takes the cake, it is hilarious if one just goes though this thread.
I quote:
“Please try to avoid the ad hominems you prefer in responding. Think of this as a 9/11 IQ test”
I don’t know which part is funnier, the ‘ad hominem’ part or the ‘IQ’ part.
This whole “debate” has taken on a sense of the theater of the absurd, as if the dialog were written by Samuel Becket himself…”Zero, Zero, Zero” [Endgame].
Perhaps it’s the schnapps?
ww
Craig,
One suggestion I have is to open another thread with the relevant questions, run through them one by one, and only allow relevant answers, sourced and waffle-free. I know it maybe time consuming for you, and I don’t want to put you in an awkward position, but I think it would be an interesting concept.
See if we can actually avoid the “quagmire”. I had thought of asking you (or Adam Syed who was thinking of setting up his own site?) to facilitate this with regards to the Pentagon.
Only moderation will work to resolve any issue.
OSS,
You’ve outlined some good suggestions. Although Craig McKee has graciously addressed an important gap for the 9/11 truth movement in creating a more open blog that does not censor whole areas of research and ban people for their ideas (like so many other blogs have become known for) with setting up this Truth and Shadows blog, perhaps the movement does need more than this one blog to fill this important gap.
Moderation is such a crucial but time consuming aspect in maintaining a level of discourse on a blog that keeps a good balance between being as open as possible to a diversity of opinions while at the same time avoiding the all too common problems of the way shills, trolls, and dishonest game players are able to hijack the discussions and run the level of discourse into the ground or endless circles, eventually driving away the more reasonable and intelligent members. Such a task of providing timely, fair, intelligent moderation can be more than one person can handle, particularly if that person has a day job and/or other responsibilities.
Perhaps some of us veterans of the movement who have had some experience dealing with these very issues for quite some time, and who have developed a certain level of trust with each other over the years, should form a team or committee with the task of setting up a discussion blog in which we all can come to a consensus on how it should be tightly moderated in pursuit of the above goals. Most likely it would require multiple people to be on the moderation team, as it would seem to place too large a burden on just one person to handle it all. I’ve already had similar discussions with Adam Syed in the past along these lines. I can think of at least 4 or 5 people on this forum, including yourself, who would appear to be of similar enough thinking on some general principals (among them the notion that censorship and bannings should only be used against unrepentant dishonesty and bad behavior, rather than unpopular/unorthodox ideas or opinions). As WordPress seems to impose some limitations and difficulties in the way blogs and discussion topics can be managed and organized, a more flexible and advanced platform would most likely need to be found.
This effort can be complimentary to the T&S blog, as I see no reason why the two can’t co-exist, or even possibly coordinate together at some level. So I definitely don’t mean to take away from the successful and budding lively forum that Craig McKee has generously hosted here, rather I see room for both projects to co-exist in this important space (that is not being filled by other existing blogs).
Anyway, this is basically an invitation for people to form a group to discuss some of these ideas more in depth.
@Keenan
“Anyway, this is basically an invitation for people to form a group to discuss some of these ideas more in depth.”
I’m all for it. Have been for a year or two.
1. Straightforward debate with relevant points individually thrashed out until there’s a consensus. Or at least parameters set.
2. No diverging unless it’s relevant to the point being made.
3. All points must be sourced.
4. Speculation must be treated as such, though not rejected outright if there is precedent, logic and foundations for it.
5. No insults, veiled or open.
6. Moderators preferably should be versed on the subject although if claims are sourced and the mods are intellectually honest, non technical issues shouldn’t be a stumbling block.
7 Possible invitations for experts either to moderate or to debate.
I know I’m getting carried away but this should have been done years ago.
There are easily debunked misconceptions/falsehoods that can be disproven with a simple link to the relevant information. The “stickier” issues will be more delicate but there’s always a way of whittling things down to the bone in a calm, respectful way. I know “agreeing to disagree” is so cliche but if it gets to that point, the debate can be resumed another day with what was left on the table and a couple of days breathing space can sometimes help.
Both sides to the debate can call their own “experts/researchers” and the floor will be open to just those involved or invited.
It shouldn’t be a debunker style format. Moderators should have a “blank slate” mentality.
Any posts deemed irrelevant, insults or unsourced/unfounded may be shown at the poster’s request and explained as to why it was rejected. Speculation being marked as such.
Speculation shouldn’t be devalued, simply treated as such.
It would be a work in progress and flaws, complaints, etc can be ironed out.
Keep the format simple.
I know it’s just an idea but I think it’s up to the grassroots to sort this out.
2cents
OSS
Craig
Brilliant article once again. The “Real 9/11 Truth Movement” appears to be making progress against the “Fake 9/11 Truth Movement”.
Well done in getting rid of Brian Good. Hopefully hybridrogue1 is the next to follow.
Really enjoying Jim Fetzer’s comments and subsequent discussions.
Suggestion – would it be possible to have two comments sections – one for “On Topic Comments” and one for “Off Topic Comments”?
Thank you for your excellent website.
Cheers
Naomi – Sydney, Australia
Thanks Naomi,
How nice to hear from you. You must be a physicist. Right?
I mean as you comment with such authority as though you know the issue firmly enough to pronounce who is and isn’t making sense.
Good luck with your brand of truth, and censorship. They don’t seem compatible to me, but you are certainly welcome to your own opinions.
ww
This is ridiculous, hyridrogue1. The blatant absurdity of your position is apparent to everyone but you and your buddies. Take a look at my response to your drivel about momentum. If you had a functional brain, you would admit that you were wrong and that the mass ratios are what matters here, where they favor the building over the plane by a ratio of about 2,500 to 1. Being rude to those who speak up about the absurdity of the situation reinforces their opinions. Think about it.
Jim,
I cautioned hybridrogue about using personal attacks to make a point. Your above comment, “If you had a functional brain…,” also fits into this category.
“the mass ratios are what matters here”~Jim the Professor
This is the crux of the matter Jim. The mass ratios are only ONE of the several aspects of the physics involved in the crash. Several poster have pointed this out to you in many ways.
“Being rude to those who speak up about the absurdity..” you say.
And who was I rude to dear professor? Are you referring to my comment to Naomi? If so, what is ‘rude’ about it? That I asked if she is a physicist? That I take the idea of ‘Truth’ and ‘Censorship’ as an oxymoron? That I said she was welcome to her own opinions?
It is obvious that the master of logic and temperance is framing my commentary as ‘rude’ with the slimmest of evidence, and rather is intent as painting me as a villain. This continuing badgering is getting real old.
I dispute your expertise in physics, and the hysteria you continue to display over this is becoming crystal clear. That actual physicist dispute your blatant misconceptions is of no concern to you either. All of this combines to a tell. Think about it.
ww
Craig, you failed to correct that typo on Jim’s name at: April 25, 2012 at 6:43 pm
If you have left it so that the ensuing argument about it makes sense, I understand that.
But if you could change it I would prefer it…with perhaps a note from yourself that you did so after the fact.
Okay?
Thanks, Willy
I did change a more recent one but didn’t see that one. Changed now.
My Dear Senor Once,
You ask what to call me:
You can call me, hybridrogue, You can call me, Rogue, You can call me, ww, Or you can call me, Willy…
But I’d rather you not call me. Rather, address me as one of those monikers above in writing posts here {grin}.
ww
Jim Fetzer said: ” I have been wary of you because you have been so coy in asking and reiterating the same question, over and over again. ……”…what puzzles me is that you have been so reticent about your reasons for holding the view you have now so articulately expressed that I became suspicious of you.”
I’m sorry , but I am naturally cautious, and it is easy to jump to conclusions via misunderstanding of what someone is saying, especially on the internet.
I wanted to make sure I really understood your position first before committing to any serious response regarding observed methodology.
[ My natural caution also caused me to take 3.5 years of daily study and going back and forth before I reached my present conclusions concerning video fakery, for whatever _that’s_ worth].
Jim Fetzer said: “The principal objection to your thesis, if I understand you correctly, is that it would be very difficult to fake the same videos in the same way across various locations and cameramen.”
Not at all.
The more you investigate the actual technical capabilities of computer software readily and widely available even before 2001, the more you will become aware of just how easy it was [and is] to replicate multiple versions of any city scenario, each showing a slightly different viewing angle and elevation above the ground, all from one central “matrix” reference composition , when and as required; and all created using only one computer if necessary – and all at the push of a few buttons, no less.
Google earth is a great [more advanced] example of this concept today .
Even back then, using one computer with appropriate software, it was possible to create entire, believable [at first sight, at any rate 🙂 ], entirely fake city-scapes with different ground or air approaches as required, at different heights, to one agreed on central location [for example: the WTC complex]; and to zoom in and out on various city details, make the “camera” appear to fly through the air, turn 180, or 360 degrees or whatever angle, pan left or right, zoom out, etc. etc. , from any chosen initial location, to any chosen location, either on the ground or in the air.
If all faked 9/11 variations were created from only one original “master” version, then it would have been possible to make all “different” versions [i.e. that showed different angles, different street approaches, different landmarks] to that agreed-on central location exactly consistent if needed – only the difference in approach geography would then vary, according to the street chosen by the creator[s] for their software simulated approach [N, S. E. or W].
As many versions as were needed could then be churned out literally “cookie cutter ” style, conceivably from just one suitably equipped computer [although in real life probably more than one was actually employed to do this].
However, it is theorized by many of those of us sold on the idea of the fakery of entire city-scapes in the NYC “live” 9/11 broadcast transmissions that the slightly greater variations from station to station result from there being more than one original “master” “matrix” version [maybe two or three], from which the complete series were made [and which, for ongoing propaganda purposes, continue to be re-made and re-released, with higher ,”more convincing”, resolution, to this day, and with an ever widening availability of “new” faked viewing angles/perspectives, but all manufactured originally from the original master “matrix” circa 2001 lower resolution versions- the same is true for all of the “new” still photographs that are regularly released ].
Still, at that time [2001], despite the lower resolution and quality of the originals, all of those various versions of the same 2 or 3 “master matrix” compositions were [ and still are, for most ] convincing enough to get the job done and ensure the general public’s knee-jerk response of a call to war.
Remember, it is only by close, after the fact, frame by frame study of the original network footage that the differences/inconsistencies in network to network footage come to light, as do the many internal inconsistencies/anomalies that I had partly addressed in my previous post. They were all, and all remain, largely “close enough/good enough/convincing enough for government work” for the vast majority of the US population, and maybe even for the world population in general, in fact.
Jim Fetzer said: ” I think it would have been simpler to introduce a simulated plane that could be filmed from many locations and be consistent–even though we know, as Simon Shack and others have shown–that not all the videos show the same approach and at least some have to be faked.”
If I understand your point, why do that when one can, with the right software, fake an entire cityscape with moving plane image as needed that can be reproduced in multiple, different versions, all showing a slightly different viewing angle of the central event to be depicted, and even with a different plane approach if desired, with different landmarks, buildings, people, totally at the discretion of the video’s creator[s], all at the press of a few buttons on a computer?
I believe that you lack of awareness of the level of sophistication of 2001 available “life- simulation” type computer software is a major block to your understanding of what could/can be realistically achieved to achieve life-like city-scape simulations.
A fictionalized version of how this process might have occurred in real life is depicted in the movie “Wag The Dog”[1997] [short clip]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNDmDZi05dY
[The clip is worth viewing if only as a reminder of the level of video sophistication available even in 1997- surely one can safely assume that if that level was generally available to private movie makers at that time, that the Pentagon already had access to far more sophisticated versions not yet available to non-military users? ]
Jim Fetzer said: “Just tell me this. If there were witnesses who reported seeing (what they took to be) a plane, not simply on television after the fact but in real time, would you then concede that the hypothesis of the use of a hologram makes sense and appears to be the only alternative that can explain the data? ”
Yes and no. Let me try to explain. As I said before, my personal [layman’s] belief is that methodologically speaking, each class of evidence has to be proved solid/reliable independently of all other evidence, before it can reasonably be used to validate/invalidate another class of evidence.
So to my mind, all witness testimony should, ideally be only first compared to other witness testimony in order to attempt to decide what makes the most sense [that is, assuming highly competent defense attorney level investigation of, and cross examination of _all_ claimed “eye-witnesses” regardless of what they claimed to see/not to see] .
Likewise, as I previously stated, all of the “plane into building” “amateur” video evidence should [I believe] be first closely scrutinized independently of all other classes of evidence [for example, independently from alleged eye-witness testimony] , before it could be seriously considered for use to support or disprove that alleged eye-witness testimony. Just like the eye-witness testimony, it has to stand or fall alone first, in my view.
For Arguments Sake?:
For the sake of argument only, let’s assume that after considerable time and thought [possibly even as long, or longer than the 3.5 years it took me 🙂 ], a person has concluded that all of the various “amateur” “plane into building” videos under discussion [ i.e. by Naudet, Hezarkhani, Fairbanks and similar] , were in fact, 100% digital fakes.
Would that then necessarily invalidate another persons belief [ partly derived via eye- witness testimony, as well as partly via the videos assumed to be authentic], that plane holograms had been employed?
Or, what if a believer in plane-like holograms [for example, yourself] was, after serious study, forced to conclude that the “amateur” “plane into building” videos were all 100% digital fakes – would that new conclusion force you/them to have to retract your/their theory about the employment of plane-like holographic imagery?
I would say, strictly speaking, no – that it would only mean that if the person is correct about the deployment of holograms, that those holograms were not captured live on film that day, and that therefor those movies showing planes flying into buildings could no longer be seriously considered by that person to be definitive evidence that their hologram theory was correct. [ But that their theory might still be correct, only that it now it would perhaps be impossible to know for certain].
That persons hologram theory would then be completely reliant on the [subjective] veracity/believability of alleged eye-witness testimony.
Other Theories?:
Of course, if that conclusion [fake “amateur” videos] had been reached, the exact same situation would then apply to any/all theories advanced stating, for example, that it was “definitely” a missile, or a remote controlled plane, or UAVs [or whatever] .
The only factor that would change would be the ability of the theorizer in question [i.e. hologram, UAV, remote-controlled plane, or missile theory], to realistically support their claim with the [previously assumed to be authentic] video evidence of the event in question.
All of those theories would then rest solely on the believability of the eye-witness testimony, because all of the video “evidence’ previously used to help support their theory was now assumed [proven beyond a reasonable doubt?] to be fabricated.
The hologram theory would then be no more, or less provable than any other theory about what hit the WTC buildings – it could still be true, however it would not be capable of “beyond a reasonable doubt” type proof, unless something conclusive were to happen regarding witness testimony that made it much more trustworthy than it had previously seemed to be .
For what its worth, my own opinion is that because I believe that all of the videos in question _are_ in fact 100% fake, that I admit that I have absolutely no idea what, if anything, actually hit the WTC buildings – I concede that it could have been any of the current favorites, or none of them, or even nothing at all, but that quite honestly, it is impossible to for me to know for sure, and quite frankly, it is not even that important in the big picture, as far as I’m concerned.
It seems to me to be merely a minor “small picture” distraction that for some reason or another people are prepared to spend hours and hours endlessly debating, and which remains, as far as I can see, probably entirely unprovable one way or another regardless of proposed theory at this time [hologram, UAV, remote-controlled plane, missile] – and that might even always remain to be the case for every one of those theories .
What [I Think] I Know At This Point In Time:
All I _do_ know for certain is that the WTC complex was there on 09/10/01, but by the end of the day 09/11/01 it had been reduced to a large pile of rubble, and that the governments fairy tale about why its no longer there [i.e. planes into buildings] cannot be true, in any way,shape, or form.
The far “bigger picture” [for myself, at least], is that in order to start a war, on 9/11 the government and the “independent” MSM deliberately broadcast entirely fake, computer generated imagery of planes hitting buildings, [ plus fake imagery of a whole lot more than that besides, incidentally 🙂 ].
But I understand, and respect the fact that you “ain’t there” yet. [and perhaps, may never be!]
Regards, onebornfree.
There are at least two important points that you seem not to understand: first, that establishing the videos are fake on the grounds that their content exhibits violations of laws of aerodynamics, of engineering, and of physics is using science to prove that their contents cannot be genuine; second, even if you are right about the easy of creating phony videos, they would have been rapidly exposed IF NO ONE HAD SEEN ANY PLANES. After all, wouldn’t everyone be talking about how THEY WERE THERE AND SAW NO PLANES but THE VIDEOS SHOWED PLANES?
I get that you think it was all done by video fakery (by faking videos using fake planes), while I believe that they were–at least, in the case of the most important instances–producing genuine videos of simulated planes that were there in space/time and not merely introduced into the video footage after the fact. So I don’t buy your theory of how it was done, where the missing strobe lights, the absent shadows, and the disappearing wing all support my position, not yours, but most of all, the witnesses who reported seeing planes that were not there if your theory were true.
“A fictionalized version of how this process might have occurred in real life is depicted in the movie “Wag The Dog”[1997] [short clip]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNDmDZi05dY
[The clip is worth viewing if only as a reminder of the level of video sophistication available even in 1997-” ~onebornfree
This is interesting – to assert that a movie in 1997 give us “a reminder of the level of video sophistication available even in 1997″…
Actually it was a MOVIE, it was fiction, any depictions of the level of video sophistication is part of that fiction. It may offer the concept of where video sophistication could lead, but to assert that the depiction of such sophistication in a movie is rather like saying EARTH VERSES FLYING SAUCERS proved that alien space craft was proven to exist in the 1960s because they were shown in a movie.
BTW onebornfree, this is addressed to the forum – I know you are ignoring me…{grin}
ww
Because then there would have been no witnesses who reported seeing (what they took to be) a real plane and the use of video fakery of the kind you endorse would have been completely blatant. Suppose all of the hundreds of witnesses reported seeing NO PLANE. The fraud would have been obvious. I am sorry, but my explanation of what we see in these videos and the witness reports, not to mention the absence of strobe lights, that the plane casts no shadow, and that its left wing simply disappears before it effortlessly enters the South Tower is overwhelmingly more plausible than yours.
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
I know you’ll perceive this personally as piling on, Dr. Fetzer. From my perspective, you are defending NPT and holograms very poorly; you are not objectively considering the counter points and seeing where your angling to discover truth — as we all supposedly are — must be modified accordingly; and you are quickest of all both to take comments personally when they should simply be ignored and to shovel it out in greater measure. The latter is conduct unbecoming of both a university professor and a Marine Corps Officer.
Let me begin by addressing your April 25, 2012 at 6:58 pm posting:
You were the one who provided the kernal links. Now you’re saying they are outdated? I followed those links and even two or three levels of links presented therein. I googled the matter, and came up with more up-to-date (2011) articles. I even put in “military holograms”, and the best information has to do with holographic battle field maps.
No links that you provided (or that I could find) substantiate being able to project holograms a distance. The best I’ve been able to find is my own damn wild-ass speculation on parabolic mirrors with holographic images, and that doesn’t count for squat.
Did you provide a link to it? No. It is your own radio show. Such information should be readily at your finger tips.
Just taken a course on holography? So what? I took a graduate level EE course in lasers and recently took another in power electronics. If you aren’t interviewing the professor, if you (and Mr. Brown) aren’t referencing the literature and research, if there is nothing in the public domain to demonstrate it, then such verbal assurances don’t carry much weight.
If Mr. Brown is going to be your subject matter expert on holograms, then you put the onus on him. [Invite him to this thread to contribute.] Otherwise, Dr. Fetzer, you’re just being duped. [Don’t feel so bad and welcome to the club. I’m a duped useful idiot on many things, and am no longer such on other things when the science didn’t pan out.]
In other postings you write:
I was in this camp, Dr. Fetzer, but I’m changing my tune.
I’ve been objectively reviewing and considering lots of videos (some posted here) of Sandia crashing. I’ve even been considering the arguments of Mr. Keenan Roberts.
If you were to do the same, it would dawn on you that the situation does require more than the application of d = r x t when the already large velocities get squared to amp up the energies at play in decimating the alleged commercial aircraft.
You write:
In this is actually a key point that all participants should be able to acknowledge: the active role of the media in ruse, a nugget of truth from September Clues that no one has ever debunked. Behold, how quickly “experts” were talking on-the-air to steer public perceptions: “it wasn’t a controlled demolition”; “it has the finger prints of Osama bin Laden”; “oh, the tragic loss of life today”.
I do not trust a single-solitary witness to the 1st plane who was given airtime on 9/11. As far as I know, every single one of them was in one form or another “in the hip pocket” of the corporate media. They were introduced as producers or other job titles whose employment (or that of a spouse) was for the network. Another nugget of truth from September Clues (that they may have clombed onto from others) is the inability of such witnesses to have seen what they claimed from their alleged location.
The 2nd plane had pixels on the telly in some cases while network employees were still blabbing about the alleged 1st plane. At this point, the anchors in the studio saw these pixels and began correcting the reporters on the street who had interviewed witnesses who said “they saw what looked like a missile.”
Once those pixels of the 2nd plane began to air — over and over and over –, you couldn’t go into a public place without a television interrupting their normal programming with updates on the plane; you couldn’t listen to the radio without talk of the planes. Eye-witnesses to whatever-they-actually-saw had their perceptions tampered with as soon as they were in the presence of this media saturation.
Who on this planet has the nuggets to put their eye-witness observations in conflict with the massive weight of media saturation? Cognitive dissonance: all would have assumed that their observations were in error and would go along with the induced general public perception. Similar to basketball and the gorilla psychology experiment, I recall another groupthink experiment (whose links I can’t find) where 6 (or so) participants were asked in sequence to answer a question like “which line is longer?” However, only 1 participant was really the test subject; all others were part of the control and would sometimes purposely give false answers in agreement with the other five. The purpose was to see the influence of groupthink on the test subject: would they be strong enough to hold to their (correct) perceptions, or would they buckle and go along with the group?
Dr. Fetzer wrote:
Given p or q or r (CGIs or video compositing or a hologram), we know from the witness reports that it cannot be CGIs and it cannot be video compositing, as long as we believe the testimony of any of those rather numerous witnesses, where I have interviewed on at length, Scott Forbes. If any of them is telling the truth–and I certainly believe that some of them, including Scott Forbes, were telling the truth–then the first two alternatives can be eliminated and we are left with the last alternative, a sophisticated hologram. Others can believe what they will, but as long as Stephen Brown and Scott Forbes are telling the truth, we have the only rational explanation for the data.
You put a lot of trust behind Scott Forbes and Stephen Brown. I haven’t heard them. And even if I had, good liars are the most convincing, even more so that those who always tell the truth. Therefore, P or Q cannot be eliminated on your say-so alone.
Well, we all have to render our own judgments of credibility. I did not ask you to take my word for it. I said that I had interviewed both Stephen Brown and Scott Forbes and invited you to do so as well. I gave you links. If you want to pursue this, you are welcome to do so. I have found them both to be convincing in relation to my own research. This post is not your best work.
“the absence of strobe lights, that the plane casts no shadow, and that its left wing simply disappears before it effortlessly enters the South Tower is overwhelmingly more plausible than yours.”~Jim F.
The absence of strobe lights? Oh no, there can be no chance at all that the lights on the plane were off on purpose.
The plane does cast a shadow, your lack of visual acuity is showing again. Because of the position of the sun, and the plane was in shadow, the shadow of the plane only becomes apparent just as it reaches the building.
The left wing “simply disappears”, do to the photographic anomalies of light values and similar tone to background – as is explained in detail to you several times over.
“Effortlessly” is a misnomer. Effort can be defined as the energy required to perform a task.. With the energy and momentum involved in this crash,being characterized as minimal is dishonest.
No cigar.
ww
Well, if it was the commercial carrier it was supposed to be, it should have had strobe lights on. That observation was made by John Lear, perhaps our nation’s most distinguished pilot. Ben Collet from Seattle noticed it casts no shadow, which is not a function of being in the shade, if you check it. And the disappearing left wing has an obvious explanation that you are unwilling to acknowledge, which the video that I included in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” reveals.
Plus the plane DOES “effortlessly enter” the South Tower. How many times do I have to explain that the comparison with the Sandia test has no foundation. Since “Flight 175” enters completely into the building before it explodes, the F-14 would have to pass through that massive concrete barrier before it blows apart–but of course that does not happen. It seems to me that you are just a bit too willing to dismiss evidence that contradicts your position, which is very dishonest.
Huh..more blendomatic spinflecks…Oh Mr. Fetzer,
“if it was a commercial carrier” — This has been dismissed, it’s irrevlevance to the current discussion is nonexistant.
A shadow IS shade, WTF? Same root. There is direct light, there is reflective light. Thus shade is relative – you can prove this to yourself by having a dim back light on yourself in a room with several sources of direct and reflective light. Your shadow will not be cast on a wall in front of you until you move nearer the wall. This is the same effect that is apparent in this video, the shadow of the plane was always there in principle from reflective light, it only became visible when the plane was close up on the building.
The disappearing wing has a much more reasonable and less mysterious answer in the issue of the nature of photography, which has been explained here too many times to repeat over and again.
We went over the term “effortlessly” already as well. The plane was NOT entirely in the building at the moment the explosion began – clearly visible is the ignition moment when the rear of the engines flare, this is approximately at center mass for the plane.
You can ‘explain” that the comparison with the Sandia test ‘has no foundation’ until you are blue in the face. It makes no difference to the facts of this matter.
As far as dismissing evidence that is inconvenient to ones case – yours is the most blatant example on this forum.
ww
Craig,
This is a response to your questions to me from you post of April 26, 2012 at 12:12 pm. You wrote:
Can you not recognize for yourself the dishonest debate tactics I listed above (misframing and misstating other’s arguments and questions, evading and dodging, straw man arguments and other fallacies)? Aren’t these tactics self-evident, regardless of whether or not “people on opposite sides of the debate accuse their debate opponents of committing these offenses”?
I guess I’m having trouble understanding why you are not able to readily spot these tactics when they are used here in this thread.
I really do appreciate your attempt to be fair as a moderator and to generously take time out of your busy schedule every day to host and moderate this forum, I know it is a chore and difficult for one person to handle.
At this point, I would suggest that you study these common fallacies and dishonest tactics I mentioned and become familiar with them and practice being able to spot them in debates. There are some good books and online resources on the subject. I would say that if you are interested in keeping the debates here at an intelligent and respectful and productive level and not let them devolve into what we’ve seen here on this thread, then it behooves you to learn how to easily recognize these tactics, and then put limits on their use.
Beyond that, all I can say is that we all have our particular aptitudes, specialties, and abilities. Although you have shown a good level of intelligence and perspective in your articles you’ve written on the complex issue of 9/11, perhaps this ability does not extend to recognizing these dishonest debate tactics, even when debating the same subject matter. The question becomes, do you have the time to study and learn to be adept at spotting them?
You seem to me to be among the most dishonest, in my opinion, so I find it just a bit much that you are faulting others about the standards of discourse. I spent 35 years as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, which makes me the expert and you not. You like to cite the F-14 case, where the plane blew apart into millions of tiny pieces and it came to a screeching halt. Do you think that is what happened with the Boeing 767 seen in these videos? Did it blow apart into millions of tiny pieces? Did it come to a screeching halt? Do you think that the F-14 actually PASSED THROUGH that massive concrete barrier? Because the Boeing 767 DID PASS THROUGH AND ALL THE WAY INTO THAT MASSIVE STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDING. If you were honest here, you would admit that these points are absolutely correct. But you won’t.
Mr. Fetzer, why can’t you simply and honestly address the main issue of the F4 crash test that has already been posed to you over and over again (the issue of no appreciable deceleration observed with the tail during the first 80% of the impact even while the front of the plane is already being crumpled and smashed to smitherines against an impenetrable concrete wall), without creating straw man arguments and without stating obvious points that no-one is disputing and that are not of issue (I know why, but I will refrain from stating the obvious)?
How come everybody else here understands this point except for you?
Please re-read my post of April 26, 2012 at 3:30 am
Here, I’ll repeat it for you again:
Now, Mr. Fetzer, either specifically address the issue I am posing to you or don’t waste my time.
1) Do you agree with Mr. Gregory Jenkins conclusion that:
?
Yes or No?
If no, then what specific problem have you found with Gregory Jenkins analysis specifically relating to the measure of the velocity of the tail suction during impact of the F4? What specific evidence cited in that paper are you disputing? Any answer that does not address the specific questions above is an evasion and further proof that you will not debate honestly.
No more bobbing and weaving, straw man arguments, or stating obvious points that are not at issue here. ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN POSED TO YOU ABOVE FOR THE LAST TIME.
keenanroberts (for the last time, let us hope) insists that I have missed something here,namely:
“If no, then what specific problem have you found with Gregory Jenkins analysis specifically relating to the measure of the velocity of the tail suction during impact of the F4? What specific evidence cited in that paper are you disputing? Any answer that does not address the specific questions above is an evasion and further proof that you will not debate honestly.
“No more bobbing and weaving, straw man arguments, or stating obvious points that are not at issue here. ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN POSED TO YOU ABOVE FOR THE LAST TIME.”
But I have not been bobbing and weaving. That there was no measurable deceleration during the first 80% of the F-14’s impact during the Sandia test shows nothing. What is important is that the plane DOES NOT PASS THROUGH THE BARRIER,but BLOWS INTO MILLIONS OFTINY PARTS.
Do you not notice that “Flight 175” passes all the way into the South Tower BEFORE IT BLOWS UP? I mean, how much more different could these cases be? You offer up an obviously faulty analogy and then expect it to be taken seriously when there are more differences than similarities?
I am doing my best to take you seriously, keenanroberts. But this is simply absurd. The F-14 blew into millions of tiny pieces and its velocity dropped to zero. It did not pass through the barrier. The 767 did not blow apart and its velocity did not vary. It passed completely into the building. Q.E.D.
“I spent 35 years as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, which makes me the expert and you not”
Do you really think this statement helps your case, Mr. Fetzer? You seem to think that this somehow gives you a free pass or absolves you of your despicable, unscholarly, illogical, dishonest, ill-mannered behavior in which you have conducted yourself on this forum.
In fact, Mr. Fetzer, if it is true that you have spent 35 years as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, then this fact is further evidence that your behavior is not accidental, but intentional.
EL TOPO
SELECTED QUOTES OF PROFESSOR JIM FETZER
All from this thread alone:
Jim Fetzer says to Keenan Roberts:
April 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm
“Do you have any idea how much of a fool you are making of yourself with one post after another that begs the question by assuming you are right and I am wrong?”
And to yours truly:
“If you had a functional brain, you would admit that you were wrong
No one I have ever known has combined such massive arrogance with such vast ignorance.
…he is a total fraud … someone with an abysmal lack of understanding of physics.
Another proof that this guy is a phony and a fraud… more nonsense, rubbish, and drivel.
I can’t believe he keeps pushing such rubbish You have so many ridiculous arguments that I have refuted repeatedly that your role here as a scam artist can no longer be denied
I can only infer that you are completely dishonest and have no intellectual integrity whatsoever. I cannot believe that you are engaging in this kind of sophistry when I have been so forthcoming. This man has completely lost his grip on reality. This guy comes across as some kind of scam artist. hybridrogue1 has no standing to fault others, when his role her has been to promote misinformation and attack – obviously unqualified–does not understand–massively ignorant–complete incompetence–I recommend him for “Dunce of the Year” award. You are either incredibly stupid or are here to stir up rubbish. People like them can have a powerful affect on the weakminded, however, of which you are a sterling instance. You are truly incompetent.How many truly stupid posts are we supposed to tolerate from this man before we conclude that he is either incompetent or corrupt? This is idiotic. Someone like you must enjoy making a fool of himself, because you do it again and again and again. You are a total absurdity. That a buffoon like this guy continues to post more and more drivel in an endless stream would indicate that he has no brains at all, until you realize that he is simply trying to blow smoke in the hope that some here are going to be misled. Some of those commenting here are obviously unqualified, which includes hubridrogue1.”
And my personal favorite: “Please try to avoid the ad hominems you prefer in responding.”
And these jewels of self contradiction as pudding:
Jim Fetzer says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm
“I am NOT “maintaining that the speed shows there was no plane”, ONLY that it shows that, if there was a real plane, it cannot have been a standard Boeing 767.”
Jim Fetzer says:
April 22, 2012 at 8:08 pm
“Since it cannt be a real plane (for reasons I have laboriously explained in excruciating detail)..”
We can’t say the man hasn’t a sense of humor…
ww
A sterling example of the quality of reasoning that we have been receiving from hybridrogue1:
“And these jewels of self contradiction as pudding:
“Jim Fetzer says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm
“I am NOT “maintaining that the speed shows there was no plane”, ONLY that it shows that, if there was a real plane, it cannot have been a standard Boeing 767.”
Jim Fetzer says:
April 22, 2012 at 8:08 pm
“Since it cannt be a real plane (for reasons I have laboriously explained in excruciating detail)..”
“We can’t say the man hasn’t a sense of humor…
ww”
Except, of course, the first quote concerned the demonstration that the plane was traveling faster than a standard Boeing 757, while the second was based upon the impossible entry and the frame by frame analysis, which demonstrated that “the plane” was passing through its own whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its own length in air. I doubt that I have ever seen a more blatant and disgusting distortion of someone’s argument(s) by comparing the conclusion derived from one set of premises (about the impossible speed) with the conclusion derived from another set of premises (about the impossible entry and frame by frame comparison).
Is this the quality of argument you endorse, keenanroberts? hybridrogue1 is perpetrating a fraud. There is no possible way that hybridrogue1 could not know he was dissembling. If this forum has any standards at all, Craig, this kind of blatant dishonest should qualify for his permanent removal.
This thread is now about to tally past the 600th comment, and Jim Fetzer’s comment above of April 26, 2012 at 11:11 pm is the epitome of the reason why this thread has reached such a bloated comment count with no end in sight. For the 3rd or 4th time now, Jim Fetzer has refused to address this particular issue regarding the Sandia F4 crash test that showed no appreciable deceleration of the F4 tail end during the first 80% of its impact into a solid impenetrable object that disproves NPT folks’ (including Jim Fetzer’s) claim that the videos of the WTC plane impact contained a violation of the laws of physics because they showed no measurable deceleration of the tail end of the 767 during the time that the forward part of the plane was impacting the tower, and instead has responded with more deceptive dodging and weaving, with his last comment containing a subject shift, a straw man, and a false dilemma, sending the discussion round and round and round yet again. It is obvious to most people reading this thread what is wrong with Jim Fetzer’s last comment and why it is dishonest, and I am exhausted having to deconstruct and describe Jim Fetzer’s dishonest arguments and evasive behavior again and again and again, so I will refuse to waste my time going point by point through his dishonest tactics in his last comment. If anybody here does not recognize the dishonest tactics I identified in Jim Fetzer’s last comment, then please let me know (that invitation does not extend to Mr. Fetzer for obvious reasons) and I will consider going through it. Otherwise I am not going to waste my time going point by point through his dishonest tactics in his last comment.
This thread has been hijacked and dominated by this intentional time-wasting, exhaustive, round-and-round with no end in sight and virtually no progress being made with trying to get the NPT folks to honestly debate any of the issues or acknowledge the points and arguments being made to them, or even a willingness to accurately represent not only their opponents’ arguments, but their own as well, with the possible exception of Señor El Once who has been conceding bits and pieces of the arguments against NPT little by little. It is a game of attrition, in which it appears that the NPT folks, led by their chief con-man Jim Fetzer, hope to exhaust everybody else to the point where the NPT gang gets to have the last word and declare victory.
Take these remarks as you may, addressed to no one in particular.
I think Mr. McKee is doing an excellent job of running this site, in the story development, in managing the flow of traffic, and assessing the general quality of the commentary. That each and every one of us has some special nemesis at one time or another is just the nature of social/cultural interaction.
Pleading for the banishment of, or the curtailment of our own special nemesis is a dangerous game that can at some point blowback on the champion of such censorship.
Some of us may indeed understand the techniques of the disruptive moles, shills, and PR angents sent to monitor this very touchy issue to the ‘powers that be” — but even the best of us cannot be certain of the most important aspect – INTENT.
Most of us recognize that here on this very thread, the issue of the essay that heads it has been illustrated, it has become a quagmire.
I would like to counsel that all of us take a step back, a deep breath and calm our engines before we blow a cylinder, or suffer an infarction. No one wants to have to go into the shop for a major overhaul over a debate on the web.
The intent of the Strategy of Tension is the results we see in our society today…don’t let the despots take you out without a shot fired.
ww
Most of the abuses of language and logic have come from hybridrogue1 and his associates, such as keenanroberts. They have resorted to the straw man fallacy (by exaggerating their opponent’s views to make them easier to attack), the special pleading fallacy (by citing on the evidence that favors your side and dismissing the rest), the faulty analogy (by comparing cases that have more differences than similarities or few but crucial differences), and, of course, their personal favorite, the ad hominem attack (by using abusing language or otherwise denegrating their opponent when they cannot cope with his arguments). If anyone wants to do a survey, I have no doubt that by far more fallacies have been committed by those two than by any others. Its a bit much when they try to claim the moral high ground, when they have both subverted it.
Really?
ww
When you were called on deliberately misspelling my name, you claimed it wasn’t deliberate and sought to make amends with Craig. Now that you have committed as blatant an offense as any I have ever encountered–by claiming I have been inconsistent by juxtaposing the conclusion that I offer from one set of premises with the conclusion I offer from another–then if you don’t get the boot, then I am going to depart from this forum for having no intellectual standards whatsoever.
Jim,
You are giving me an ultimatum. I do not respond to those. If you think this blog has no intellectual standards then I wish you well in finding another that suits you better.
What’s meant by “strobe lights” on the aircraft? Are you talking about the lights on the ends of the wings?
OSS
Yes–on the wings and above and below the fuselage, an observation that originated with John Lear, perhaps our nation’s most distinguished pilot. Just as the missing shadows were noted by Ben Collet and the disappearing wing in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVaC5SH_B6o
I am pretty sure he is talking about the red flashing lights – wingtips, tail end, and under the nose are the usual positions. The strobe is the blinking effect…like Saturday Night Fever…{grin}
ww
Thiese lights?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDuFUM3Mdi0
Ohh no ….no OSS, not you too!
Please don’t tell me you have joined the “pack” ……It would break my heart??
“Except, of course, the first quote concerned the demonstration that the plane was traveling faster than a standard Boeing 757, while the second was based upon the impossible entry and the frame by frame analysis, which demonstrated that “the plane” was passing through its own whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its own length in air.”
If this contextual split is so internally apparent to yourself, it certainly doesn’t stand so apparent from the outside. And I would give you this, if you weren’t so persistent in using the same sort of argumentum. I might be inclined to say, ‘oh okay’, as it is, it reads as another excuse, one mulled over for some time I might add.
I am not going to start lobbying for your dismissal from the site Mr. Fetzer, because I do not fear you nor your substandard argumentum. It is obvious that you can’t stand my presence because I have you pinned for what you are. I blow your game. There is this kitchen, there is this heat. When the sweat starts to roll down your jowls, it might be a sign for you to voluntarily check yourself out of the room.
ww
Well, if Craig does not give you the boot for your blatantly dishonest and offensive conduct in this instance, you will have the playing field to yourself, since it will mean this forum has no standards.
“…you will have the playing field to yourself…”~Jim Fetzer
I won’t have the forum to myself Jim. Apparently you fail to notice all the other people here, who must surely be aghast at this final juvenile theater.
You’re one of those people who have absolutely no respect for your adversaries. You loose out with utterly dismissing them as a person, letting them become an ‘it’ to you. You loose out by failing to learn from them. I learned a lot while arguing with you, so I appreciate the role of adversaries in my life – which should all be lived as a learning experience.
I am actually quite familiar with physics. I am not so interested in the calculation aspect, but more the theoretical side of it.
So anyway, putting my mind to these issues beginning the first year of the aftermath, I studied the structural engineering aspect, and the science of controlled demolition, and of course this all branched out into the physics underlying the event.
So the opportunity to ‘work’ with you on this thread has been a delight,because I was compelled to study, to revisit these concepts, mainly to reassure myself of the correct terms for the concepts I already had a grip on – thus one learns to hone arguments by an honest effort to discover the truth – because truth ALWAYS wins. It wins regardless of anyone recognizing it sometimes simply because it is what is.
Anyway, I would chastise you in the harshest of language for slapping Craig in the face to punish me – but I am sure that he prefers that I didn’t. So I just put the suggestion to you to envision the last time you were cussed out for being what you know deep inside you really are; all those words and the deepness of their cuts.
ww
Everyone,
I am reviewing the criticisms and suggestions you’ve all made (even the ones that are really starting to piss me off) for improving how comments are handled. When I post my next article, likely Saturday, I will be more strict about keeping the thread on topic (video fakery and no planes discussions can continue on this thread or on a new one created for them, but they will not migrate to the new one). I’ll be stricter on personal attacks and dishonesty, if intent can be determined.
I like Onesliceshort’s suggestion for dealing with comments in terms of relevancy. Time is, of course, an issue here. Did everyone realize this thread is now over 120,000 words long? And most of that by four or five people? Several of the most prolific of you post three, four, five comments in a row without a response in between.
I have no problem with the suggestion that a new forum be created. I’d be especially supportive if Onesliceshort or Adam Syed were involved.
Having said that, I’m getting really fed up with people saying how outrageous it is that I’m not scolding or censoring or banning one person or another. There’s plenty of responsibility to go around for the level of the discussion.
So, everybody, please keep your shirts on and behave.
Craig, you rock! This is currently the best 9/11 Truth website by a mile.
You probably don’t need any more suggestions but … maybe people could moderate themselves by having two comments sections – one “on topic” and one “off topic” for evidence related debates. I did suggest this before but it may have been lost in the 120,000 words (100,000 of which would belong to the charming hybridrogue1).
I agree that the involvement of Adam Syed and onesliceshort would be beneficial.
Just remember Craig this is a good problem to have! Keep up the excellent work.
Truthoz,
Thanks for that encouragement. It’s nice to hear. I agree that the ideal thing is to have topics separated, and I want to achieve this somehow. But all comment streams are attached to a particular article. And people often want to go beyond the topic of the article. In this case, anyone wanting to discuss Richard Gage and CIT has long since been frightened off. I’m working on how best to deal with this.
I appreciate your positive energy. Jump in anytime.
Since I did not find a “Reply” button on the post where Craig suggested I was issuing “an ultimatum”, I want to explain why that was not the case. I thought a break would be a good idea, since I find it too much to continue beating my head against a stone wall. So, while I may post again from time to time, I will not be doing so with my past zeal and enthusiasm, where even it is obvious that my past arguments are being discounted. One such case is when OSS continues to claim, again and again, that I am not responding to his argument about “80% deceleration”, which has been the core of his claim that I have been “evasive” and “dishonest”, but which has no basis in fact, since I have replied about this and, I believe, more than once. But here is one of those:
Jim Fetzer says:
April 26, 2012 at 11:11 pm
keenanroberts (for the last time, let us hope) insists that I have missed something here,namely:
“If no, then what specific problem have you found with Gregory Jenkins analysis specifically relating to the measure of the velocity of the tail suction during impact of the F4? What specific evidence cited in that paper are you disputing? Any answer that does not address the specific questions above is an evasion and further proof that you will not debate honestly.
“No more bobbing and weaving, straw man arguments, or stating obvious points that are not at issue here. ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN POSED TO YOU ABOVE FOR THE LAST TIME.”
But I have not been bobbing and weaving. That there was no measurable deceleration during the first 80% of the F-14′s impact during the Sandia test shows nothing. What is important is that the plane DOES NOT PASS THROUGH THE BARRIER,but BLOWS INTO MILLIONS OFTINY PARTS.
Do you not notice that “Flight 175″ passes all the way into the South Tower BEFORE IT BLOWS UP? I mean, how much more different could these cases be? You offer up an obviously faulty analogy and then expect it to be taken seriously when there are more differences than similarities?
I am doing my best to take you seriously, keenanroberts. But this is simply absurd. The F-14 blew into millions of tiny pieces and its velocity dropped to zero. It did not pass through the barrier. The 767 did not blow apart and its velocity did not vary. It passed completely into the building. Q.E.D.
_____________
Now the point I was making about hybridrogue1 was so obvious that I took for granted everyone would see what I was driving at. He took the conclusion of one argument–which was devoted to showing that, based upon Pilots analysis of the speed of the plane seen in the videos–namely, that it can’t be a standard Boeing 767, because it is traveling faster than a standard Boeing 767 could fly at that (relatively low) altitude, because the air is three times denser than at 35,000′, where such a plane can make 500 mph. But not at the 700-1,000′ altitude involved in the South Tower strike.
This finding can be confirmed by visiting Pilots web page, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ under
Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed
For Immediate Release
Supplement to “9/11 World Trade Center Attack”
which shows that the plane shown in the videos cannot be a standard Boeing 767. It does not show it could not have been a “modified” or a “special” plane, but it does show that it cannot possibly be a standard Boeing 767. And that being the case, I find it astonishing that even Rob Balsamo wants to deny the occurrence of video fakery, which conveys false impressions by means of videos, since the plane shown has been claimed to be a Boeing 175 but cannot possibly be one.
As though that were not sufficient to prove the occurrence of video fakery, Pilots has also shown that Flight 175 was in the air over Pittsburgh at the same time it was allegedly entering the South Tower; so unless the same plane can be in two places at the same time, Pilots has shown both that it cannot be a standard Boeing 767 as well as that it cannot possibly be Flight 175. This can also be confirmed by visiting Pilots web page, http://pilotsfor911truth.org, under
ACARS CONFIRMED – 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA
So why anyone would contend that video fakery was not going on in New York is completely beyond me. OSS wants to claim that I am playing games with language, but I have explicitly defined what I mean by “video fakery”, which encompasses the use of fake planes or altered videos or both. If he wants to make a different argument, all he has to do is explain the meaning he attributes to “video fakery” and set forth his position as I have set forth mine.
The second of my arguments concerns whether or not this could have been a “modified” or a
“special” plane, which is based upon the violations of Newton’s laws, which I have, it is true, explained again and again. Having shown (by my first argument) that it cannot be a standard
Boeing 767, I have explained many, many times why the effortless entry into the South Tower would have been impossible for ANY REAL PLANE. There is no deceleration at all, when its velocity should have fallen to ZERO. The arguments for subtle detections of deceleration are therefore unavailing. Just as the fighter in the Sandia test did not penetrate the barrier (and its velocity dropped to zero), a real plane would not have penetrated this massive steel-and- concrete barrier without its velocity dropping to zero. Yet is passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air–which is impossible unless a 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to its trajectory than air!
The fact that there were small, narrow windows does not affect the argument. The made up less than 50% of the area of the facade, where the plane was actually intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete (about an acre apiece), which would have posed enormous horizontal resistance. In an earlier post, I observed that the momentum argument does not matter, because whether the plane was traveling at 500 mph (400 mph, 300 mph, . . .), the effect would still remain the same whether it was the plane in motion or the building. That hybridrogue1 does not understand Newton’s third law or even the relativity of motion does not strengthen an argument that reflects a colossal misunderstanding of physics. And, while I am not a physicist, I have studied enough physics to grasp that the impact of a plane flying at 500 mph hitting a stationary building would be the same as that of the building moving at 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. The effects would be the same.
So my first argument was intended to show that, based upon Pilots calculation, the plane cannot have been a standard Boeing 767. AND I POINTED OUT THAT THAT ARGUMENT DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PLANE WAS NOT A REAL PLANE BUT THAT IT COULD NOT BE A STANDARD BOEING 767–which also entails that it could not have been Flight 175, since Flight 175 was a standard Boeing 175–which also entails that video fakery must have occurred, since the plane shown in these videos is representing as being Flight 175. THE SECOND ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. So hybridrogue1 performs the sleight of hand of suggesting that my position is inconsistent on the basis of the claim that I am arguing BOTH that I have not shown that it was not a real plane AND that I have shown that it was not a real plane BY IGNORING THE PREMISES OF TWO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS. There is no inconsistency, but there has been an act of duplicity.
This is such a blatant act of dishonesty and corruption I thought it would be an easy call for Craig, who has done an excellent job here, by and large, but I was wrong. Instead of seeing my point about hybridrogue1’s duplicity, he has interpreted my remark as a challenge to his integrity, which it was not. But there you have it. hybridrogue1 must be laughing his head off because, even though I nailed him to the wall, it has had no effect and, indeed, Craig took offense and has interpreted it unfavorably against me! More’s the pity, because he actually went after hybridrogue1 for deliberately misspelling my name, again and again, even while he insisted it had been accidental. Well, I think that I as a forum participant in good faith has the right to expect that remedies will be applied for offenses committed here and in proportion to the seriousness of those offenses. This one was grave, since it entails deliberate deceitful misrepresentation of my position, which I explained at the time. Lies are easy to commit and explaining why they are lies can be tedious and complex. But that does not change them from lies to honest arguments. I expected something would be done. It was not done. So be it!
Mr. Fetzer,
After reading this* explanation in your current post. I will concede to your point. But with this caveat, none of this is clear on this thread. And as I pointed out, the seeming contradiction was added as an afterthought to a post showing that for you to have complaints to the use of ad hominem directed at you is pure hypocrisy.
Nevertheless, I accept this fuller explanation concede to you my error and most humbly apologize. I will not speak to the rest of your post as I disagree strongly with many of the points you made. But we have been through that and it is futile to go on with it.
**”So my first argument was intended to show that, based upon Pilots calculation, the plane cannot have been a standard Boeing 767. AND I POINTED OUT THAT THAT ARGUMENT DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PLANE WAS NOT A REAL PLANE BUT THAT IT COULD NOT BE A STANDARD BOEING 767–which also entails that it could not have been Flight 175, since Flight 175 was a standard Boeing 175–which also entails that video fakery must have occurred, since the plane shown in these videos is representing as being Flight 175. THE SECOND ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. So hybridrogue1 performs the sleight of hand of suggesting that my position is inconsistent….”
ww
By the way Jim, it seems to me that as a matter of simple decorum you might have been gracious enough to apologize to Mr. McKee for the derogatory statements you have made about him and his standards for this site.
This shows to me that you are simply a self serving so-and-so, leaving the same bad taste in my mouth with each encounter with you.
ww
Jim,
Whether it’s an “easy call” or not, you can’t just expect that someone will be banned because you demand it. I never took a side against you in all this, and I’m still not. Yes, I took offense but it should be fairly obvious why.
In order to be certain enough of intentional mischief that I would ban someone, I would have to (or at least want to) review the thread going back a ways to confirm that I had everything in context. Should I have done that more diligently from the beginning? Apparently.
I can see now that before posting any comment I had better read every line, all the accompanying links, and all the responses (comparing all points made to previous statements, etc.) so that I can immediately spot dishonesty.
That being said, Jim, when you make a complaint like the one you did, you have to allow an opportunity for the subject of your complaint (I mean me, in this case) to respond thoughtfully. Instead, you stated three different times that if I didn’t ban your opponent that it would indicate that this blog has low, or no, standards.
That puts me in a position where I can only look bad. If I decline to do want you want, you say my blog has no intellectual standards. If I do what you want, I look like I’m too easily pushed around, which means I have no standards in that way.
I wonder how much success you’ve had backing people into corners this way. Anyway, I said I’d review the thread (one the weekend), so please give me a chance to do that. Thank you.
P.S. I did not do anything to remove the “reply” button. I wouldn’t even know how to do that if I wanted to.
Craig, your point is well-taken. I expressed myself too strongly. I admire the even-handed way in which you have conducted the forum, which, as trruthoz has observed, is actually the best 9/11 forum in which I have participated for having intelligent and knowledgeable participants on every side. So I hereby withdraw that declaration. You are doing a great job, on the whole, with the largely thankless task of moderation. My complaint, as I assume everyone can tell, was out of frustration with hybridrogue1 for (what I take to be) a series of deceptive and unfair arguments that have driven me up the wall, where, when I have caught him with his pants down (as in the case of his repeatedly misspelling my name and presenting conclusions that are consistent as though they were not by suppressing the context, their premises, and the points I was making)
he has “made nice” and pretended that these were innocent mistakes, when they were not. But I shall try to hold my peace and, at the very least, not defect any frustration with him toward you.
I appreciate that very much, Jim. Glad to have your continued participation. Among the things I want to catch up on are some of your interview links. Looking forward to listening.
Surely Jim, if you are paying any attention to this forum, you must have seen this as it has been up all day:
hybridrogue1 says:
April 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm
TWO THINGS
First, I would like to ask OSS if he was in on the arguments on ‘Pilots’ that Jim drew his quotes from, that I posted together as contradictory. If so, can you garner whether his come back that the context is the reason for the contradiction. I looked again and cannot make a distinction for certain.
This section of my posting the list of ad hominem from Jim, was as I said. ‘a cherry on top’ and not the meat of my posting. If we can be assured that Jim’s excuse is valid, I will gladly retract that portion of the post with an apology.
ww
Hi OSS,
As you haven’t responded to my previous posts, the ones before my last, i’ll ask you another question just to find out if this has now become a permanent MO of yours when it concerns me??
I have always found you to be absolutely honest, fair and reasonable, and trust this is an ongoing thing with you of course, so even if you should refrain from giving me an answer, at least i hope you’ll be kind enough to give me a reason for why not!
You wrote: “NPT is based on wordsmithery. It has all of the bases covered verbally. It has no parameters. It can redefine even the terminology used. Bullshit heaven.”
When going back 5 – 6 years, i’m still under the impression that the first time NPT was used with brutal disdain and later as an utterly derogatory term (hurled with venomous abandon toward CIT,
Killtown, Di Maggio, Holmgren and others), was initiated by the “usual suspects” with the presence
of Hoffman, Victoria, Arabesque and a few more up front, quickly followed by all the ‘hangers-on’ – of which there’s too many to mention.
To new readers: CIT maintains (as do OSS, Jim Fetzer, myself and many more) that no plane impacted at the pentagon. Killtown and Di Maggio maintains (as do all we above) that no plane crashed at Shanksville. (None of us maintains that no plane was present at either of these sites – just that no planes actually crashed there)!
It was these dear people mentioned above who first bore the brunt of being “called” NPT ‘wackos’!
It is because of these “pioneers”, that i personally am very happy to call myself a NPT adherent as well.
Or in other words: For me it’s virtually like crying out with others, “I’m Spartacus ….i’m Spartacus ….”,
– if you get the drift!
To OSS: Do you agree with my recollection, and the sequence of events? And if not, why not?
Sincerely hoping you’ll respond this time …….otherwise i might “shed a tear” over a seemingly lost ‘good friend’ of the past!
Peace
Cheers
Hi TM,
Wow, sorry mate, I simply missed your post (kinda crowded here ya know!)
1. The witness evidence and complete lack of govt evidence point to no planes crashing at the Pentagon or Shankesville. But there were planes involved. Evidence points to these planes as not being “Flight 77” or “Flight 93”. That explosive events occured and these aircraft flew on.
2. The witness and physical evidence and complete lack of/contradictory govt evidence point to aircraft other than “Flight 175” and “Flight 11” being involved in the attacks in Manhattan. Aircraft that most definitely weren’t standard Boeing 767s. Most likely modified aircraft to achieve the speeds recorded and possibly to achieve penetration and destruction of an area to prime the eventual CDs of the towers.
3. I believe that the hologram argument which is based on the penetration of tower 2 (mainly) is weak. At best, not strong enough to conclude that holograms were used. That actual manipulation of footage on a major scale was used. That such a dangerous operation was carried out when all eyes were turned to the first tower. That all other avenues of investigation that I’ve listed on the impacts That possibly point to DU bunker buster technology should be dismissed (even if it is personal speculation)
You should know me by now TM. I’m in no “packs”. I call a spade a spade and will always admit when I’m wrong. Even Jim Fetzer knows that I’m sincere (I hope) and that I’m not flailing about just because it’s the easier route.
I haven’t quoted government sources or even pointed to the alleged plane parts because none of it has been identified. I didn’t use witness testimony that I knew was vague or dubious. And I certainly haven’t judged you or looked at genuine blokes like yourself differently since we started debating this. I simply believe that aircraft of some sort were involved in all ops on 9/11.
Peace
OSS
Thanks OSS, for your very nice reply. I’m considerably relieved!
To your point 1: Thumbs up.
To your point 2: Thumbs up again. Except: you believe a ‘real plane’ impacted, while i believe an ‘unreal plane’ did a too ‘smart’ pretension to ‘appear’ as an impact plane.
(Needless to say that i fully understand your position, and respect it)!
To your point 3: You may say that the argument is ‘weak’ (at this point in your life), but had you read the pages in the DARPA’s budget papers as i did, you ‘just might’ have had a different perspective on the matter, than you got at the present time. Who knows!!
I do know you’re NOT in a “pack”, OSS. I just wanted to hear it again from the “Nardia Lion’s mouth”; as just in a sort of round about way to ‘pacify’ Jim, who thought that more and more people were “banging up” against him ……including you, i gathered!!
To your last: Thumbs up again.
I noticed that you didn’t answer my question about NPT directly.
Again, i just want you to know that i fully understand your reasons, so ‘no worries mate’.
Cheers
OSS, I asked several times whether you had read “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate:
Case of Rob Balsamo”, because it includes an extended critique of “modified plane theory”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/ from which I quote the following passages relative Rob’s similar position:
QUOTE:
Rob Balsamo’s insistence that a “modified plane” could have performed the feats observed in these videos is not only peculiar because he still insists that Pilots will never accept “video fakery”, even though his own position implies it, but that he cites Dennis Cimino as someone else who rejects NPT and “video fakery”. But when I consulted with Dennis about this, he offered a wide ranging critique of Rob’s position about the plane, since a constraint on the “modification” would have to be that it still looked like a Boeing 767 and closely resembled the image of the plane shown in these videos. According to Dennis, however, that is virtually impossible, where Rob has produced no evidence to support any such modifications:
“I think that the amalgamation of all that I had stated about the obvious ‘lack’ of engine and structural modifications to these planes (if the VIDEOS are any indication to the planes used) is pretty on target: the compressor stall issue, the drag coefficient issue, and the clear lack of ANY meaningful visible clues that would support that these planes were re-engined and structurally modified in a way to decrease form drag and parasite drag, seems to indicate that you can scream MODIFIED all day long but how so? The question remains to Rob is this: “IF these planes were modified, show where and in what fashion. . . .
“These nacelles still had high bypass turbofans in them. Very fuel efficient engines but not as capable of speed as PURE JET types which are much more fuel hungry, in the speed department area–and LONG LONG LONG nacelles are needed for afterburning to be possible, as the exhaust section is extremely long on those types of engines. As far as I can tell there is NO EXTERNAL EVIDENCE of any the following:
1) wing aspect ratio and or other MAC ‘mean area chord’ changes to these aircraft’s wing structures;
2) wing or vertical stabilizer sweep angle changes;
3) fuselage tapering to decrease drag; or,
4) augmented thrust of any kind in form of JATO or other assists.
“In light of these simple truths that are SELF EVIDENT if you look at those videos which we are pretty sure are FAKE, there is no empirical evidence to support the requisite modifications needed to allow these planes to achieve these speeds and maintain them to their targets at these altitudes in STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLIGHT.
“And without extreme modifications, it’s highly UNLIKELY if not pretty damned impossible for these planes to fly at 515 KTAS at such a low altitude, below 1,000 feet msl, without a lot of major problems due to COMPRESSOR STALLS and engine inlet blockages, as well as structural failures, especially as the one aircraft abruptly SNAP ROLLS just before going into the building. At that speed and at that roll rate, that most likely would have broken the plane up. So I’m still firmly in the VIDEO FAKERY and NO REAL PLANES department here for sure.”
To the extent to which Rob’s conjecture is testable, therefore, it appears to be false; beyond that, it is simply speculative. What that means is that he is offering a guess, speculation or conjecture, which is an example of the weak sense of the term “theory”, which stands in contrast to the strong sense of an empirically-testable explanatory hypothesis, as in the cases of Newton’s theory of gravitation, Darwin’s theory of evolution, or Einstein’s theory of relativity. I discuss the distinction in “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”, which Rob, as with my articles on planes/no planes, does not appear to have read or, at best, simply skimmed.”
END QUOTE
I have come to realize that practically no one here ever actually follows up on any references or links to other articles or studies, which has led to your protracted belief and reiterated claim that I have been non-responsive to your “modified plane theory”, when I have responded but only indirectly by encouraging you to read this article as well as “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, where I discuss the meaning of “video fakery”. Henceforth, therefore, I shall quote what I have in mind from those other sources here in the forum so it will not be necessary to make the effort to read them. What remains of our differences, I believe, is the meaning of “video fakery”, where you believe, if I understand you correctly, that there were no simulated planes in the air that were filmed by the Naudet Brothers, Hezarkhani, Evan Fairbanks, and others, which of course is why the witnesses make a difference. Before I became convinced that at least some of those witness reports had to be authentic, I would have agreed with you. So I appreciate that you are following-up on my interview with Scott Forbes to discuss further.
This is an astonishing turn of events.
It surprises me, like the twist in the plot of one of those old ‘Who Done It’ flicks from the 40s. It seems just so weird. Jejune of course, but in a surreal way.
Craig I am sorry he slapped you in the face to get to me. And it does, it saddens me to think what tales will be told about his misadventures to Truth and Shadows.
I hope at some point to address the lessons I learned in my arguments with Jim, they are valuable. They would be valuable for Jim to have learned as well.
As he did address me as the party at fault, I hope you will allow this through Craig.
Again, I am sorry for being a part of all of this. I don’t take blame for his actions by saying this, only he can carry that. But a sad affair it is anyway.
ww
Hi Craig,
feel that i have to come in defense of Jim Fetzer.
You write:
“Jim,
You are giving me an ultimatum. I do not respond to those. If you think this blog has no intellectual standards then I wish you well in finding another that suits you better.”
I don’t think that Jim is given you an ultimatum at all.
Instead i think he’s given you an understandable “provocation” borne out of not only total exasperation, but, also on his part, borne out of total and utter despair.
If you would look back on all the previous posts, it will astound you how many times he had to repeat himself, saying the same things over and over and over again. No notice was ever taken by the so-called ‘opponents’ to what he was actually saying, and hence the continuous repetitions.
Can you imagine any author, writer, journalist, writing a book, an essay, an article, and repeating each page 3,4,5 times out of fear that no one really got the gist of what was written on the first page?
Can you imagine yourself having to write your initial articles 3,4,5 times out of fear that no-one
will actually get it the first time?
No, of course not. Of course you cannot imagine yourself having to do that!
But that is exactly what is going on here, right here in this very thread.
Please compare:
I personally can so easily remember what you have previously written. The same goes concerning what onesliceshort, onebornfree, Señor El Once, Truthoz and others have written.
I would never put you or them in a situation where you have to repeat what you have already said. That would be totally idiotic of me, and would at the same time show total disrespect to all of you.
Instead, if i wanted you to elaborate on something said, i would quote the passage in question, in context if needed, and take it from there.
What is going on in this thread, forced upon us by certain “individuals”, has now become beyond the joke, beyond the ‘pale’, and should really be totally unacceptable in a blog like this.
Trust you get the essence of what i’m trying to express above, and that you receive it in the good spirit it is given!
Cheers
Ps! I have used the word “total” in quite a few places. This is where i wanted to use ‘favourite’ swear words, but instead applied a willpower and a self-control, even i didn’t know i possessed!
So yes, i am too, very upset about the incredible disingenuousness displayed by certain people in this thread!
Tamborine man,
I understand that Jim is frustrated. But he told me to ban someone or he would leave the forum because of a complete lack of intellectual standards. Sounds like an ultimatum to me. And pretty insulting.
Despite my own frustration, I’m happy to have someone of Jim’s prominence in the movement contributing to my blog just as I’m glad to have the rest of you (except all you shills – and you know who you are!). I just can’t ban people on request. But, as I promised elsewhere, I am going to review the entire thread in more detail than I’ve been able to do until now. I might reach some new conclusions once I’ve done that.
I will say that I had to keep writing the same post over and over again because I wasn’t being understood, I might wonder whether it was worth it. If your opponent isn’t budging, how does endless repetition create better understanding?
It was clear to me several days ago that the debaters here were hitting the same points again and again. Nothing was changing and nothing was going to change. Why keep doing it then? If I thought someone was deliberately not listening to me and not even considering any of what I had to say, I’d move on.
Hi Craig,
i see that Jim Fetzer has answered for himself, so not much more from me on this subject, except would just like to mention that upon reading his remark about ‘intellectual standards’, i did not for one moment think that this was addressed to you personally. Far from it in fact!
Instead, i rather suspect it was more directed toward the ‘antagonists’, than anywhere else! ;o)
Otherwise i’ll like you to know that i can so easily understand and sympathize with the ‘predicaments’ you from time to time find yourself in! Good i’m not in your shoes. I would definitely not be able to handle it as well as you do.
(Just a little bit of honest praise to you from here ‘down under’)!
Cheers
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man wrote with regards to Dr. Fetzer:
On the surface, all good public speakers know to register whether or not their audience is grasping the material presented. Repeating the same thing over and over with little variation in wording (except for the creative comments about the instructor’s perceptions of others’ intellectual aptitudes) might get a marine grunt to do another chin-up but does not get good end-of-the-semester student evaluations.
Going deeper than the surface, the unvarying repetition in question starts to reflect poorly on the professor’s grasp of the information, as if he were aping one of his students in having memorized material without truly understanding the concepts that would otherwise allow it to be expressed in another fashion. More importantly, when the concept is truly understood, one knows also how to gauge applicability when other factors are added.
Here is the crux of the issue. Vehicles are designed for their application space, and part of the design is selection of materials. The application space defines velocities and loads both in carrying capacity and resulting from movement, such a g-forces. This in turn defines what energies the vehicle’s materials must withstand. The typical application space for commercial and military aircraft includes safe take-off and landings, and probably does not include smashing into concrete barriers or steel buildings at high velocities.
The Sandia test facility videos as well as Mythbusters impresses upon me how utterly weak & feeble the materials of normal vehicles are and how quickly they spectacularly fail when the energies of high velocities [K.E.=(1/2)m(v^2)] are applied.
I can concede the point that the tail of the alleged UA175 aircraft would not necessarily slow when it impacted into the towers.
Anomalies remaining on the table that lack explanations:
– Why did the alleged UA175 aircraft not exhibit more “splatter” (ala Sandia F4 and Mythbuster) and “slicing” (ala Mythbuster)?
– How in the hell did the alleged aircraft achieve its velocity? [Aircraft wasn’t UA175?]
– How would it have possible to so smoothly navigate into the targets at those velocities? [Aircraft not under human control?]
– Why do certain videos blatantly show anomalous effects, like missing wings?
Dr. Fetzer has not made a solid case for holograms. Period. I researched holograms at various times over the last year and came up then with the same zippo results that I did just a few days ago. Holograms (today) are not operational enough to have pulled off 9/11 ten years ago.
Dr. Fetzer and I have something in common: we were both duped by pods-on-planes a few years ago. (In fact, Dr. Fetzer may have been its major champion at the time that got me convinced of this.)
Here’s a bat-shit crazy theory that I had before and now return for y’all to chew on. Instead of pods-on-planes, I call it planes-on-pods. Here are the data points:
– Before run-down by anchors in the studio, a reporter said that “witnesses thought they saw a missile.”
– Missiles can have wings and to most people — particularly when massively re-enforced by the media — could somewhat resemble a plane. Even the infamous Bob and Bri video [that has crafty editing and doesn’t show the 2nd plane] had Bri exclaim “it’s a small military plane.”
– Missiles can fly high speeds at low elevations; missiles fly very accurately by computer; missiles can fly into buildings and explode on the inside.
– Missiles would not exhibit crash physics.
– September Clues goes to lots of effort to first cast doubt on 9/11 imagery and then to shoot itself in the foot so that even I start calling it disinfo. Disinfo tactic: become an authority and own a subject, and if you can’t steer it, then do something to purposely discredit yourself and thereby the subject.
– Ace Baker [someone with his own disinfo reputation] adamantly claimed [off-list in an email to me] how difficult it would be to put pixels of something moving over the images of something moving. I’ve learned that the harder the attempts to wave off something — nothing to see here folks –, the more likely it is a flag to wave on, land on, & investigate further.
– September Clues does capture lots of video anomalies, like even the infamous nose-in/nose-out that when run up against Mr. OneSliceShort’s postings of delay-burst-bunker-buster videos makes more sense.
– http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1220/vlcsnap74651ez4.png
– http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7281/vlcsnap81689yt4.png
My hypothesis is that crafty video editing overlaid pixels of a commercial plane on top of imagery that would otherwise have captured something looking more like a missile-with-wings. What was formerly identified as the pod-on-plane might really be remnants of the missile pod on which the pixels of the plane try to cover.
One note on your post above Senor:
“Missiles would not exhibit crash physics.”
But Senor, this is a point against your argument of a missile sans plane, as there ARE crash physics in evidence.
In order to rule that out, you now need to combine with the digital fakery. That you have, and those arguments are defeated as not proven but a contested supposition, you merely compound one unproven supposition upon another.
Now to propose a missile launched just at impact by the plane itself, would seem to me the much stronger argument.
ww
Well, I was never really a “pod person”, since I believe that it was a flight-control mechanism to allow ground personnel to take control in the case of a hijacking. Jeff Hill called Boeing about it and they told him they knew what it was but could not explain on grounds of national security.
But I could not be recalling my views before Morgan boxed me into taking seriously the idea that all of the plane crashed might have been faked. And I am so glad that he did, because I am convinced that the fabrication of those crash sites is the key to deconstructing 9/11 lies.
Tamborine man has an excellent mind, OSS is completely sincere, but I am puzzled by Senor El Once. My argument for a hologram is not that complicated. Since it was not a real plane but looked like a real plane, it had to be something that looked like a real plane but was not real.
Anyone familiar with magic shows will have the idea. As long as some of the witnesses are telling the truth, whatever it was that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane had to be visible BEFORE it entered the South Tower. But CGIs and video compositing do not allow that.
The only hypothesis that fits all the data points appears to be a hologram. This is certainly one of those cases where, once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how (initially) improbable, must be the truth. But I still think that this argument is easy to follow.
Did you ever catch my interview with Stephen Brown,
who had taken holography at Cambridge University?
FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 2010
Stephen Brown
Exotic 9/11 physics
POSTED BY TOTAL AT 9:03 PM 0 COMMENTS
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-stephen%20brown.mp3
Since I hold Senor El Once in high regard, let me see if I understand where where we stand:
(1) We both agree on NPT:
(a) that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(b) that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(c) that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and,
(d) that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
I also infer that we agree on the use of video fakery in New York, where simulated planes were used in lieu of real planes and the videos have been used to convey the impression that Flights 11 and 175 REALLY DID hit the North and South Towers, respectively, even though that is false.
The difference between us, therefore, if my assessment is correct, is that Senor El Once now believes that it was done using a missile, which passed over the heads of the crowds and led to multiple conflicting witness reports, where the missile was touched up to look like a plane before the videos were broadcast using either CGIs or video compositing, which is a plausible theory.
I do not believe it was done that way, since there was too great a risk that the missile would have been captured on video at some point and the charade exposed. But I welcome that he and I are in agreement about NPT and video fakery, assuming I have all of this right, and I am very much in his debt for the very rational and objective manner in which he conducts himself here.
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
The whole point of the discussion in this thread was that there was NOT crash physics evident in terms of splattering or shredding or bouncing of parts. What was observed was pieces of the building (like aluminum cladding) falling off. We know mechanisms were planted in the towers to cause their destruction, so it isn’t so far fetch to believe mechanisms were planted and timed to explode at or about the time of a computer controlled missile impact to help create the outline of an aircraft. Let’s Roll Forums makes a lot of hay with regards to the resident (foreign) WTC artists [but for other purposes].
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Your are absolutely correct when you wrote:
It also isn’t detailed enough to be believed.
Where are (the links to) research papers that explain how holographic images can be projected some distance? Where are the real world proof-of-concept examples that demonstrate this?
Everything I have found suggest stark limitations involving holographic film, concave mirrors, or plexiglass that have the hologram, in front of which is projected the holographic image with respect to the observer. [Please excuse my detour into the ridiculous…] These would imply that the holographic plate, concave mirror, or plexiglass was suspended by wires from a high flying aircraft.
No argument there. Take a closer look at these missiles.
– http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1220/vlcsnap74651ez4.png
– http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7281/vlcsnap81689yt4.png
When in flight, they would have wings. Relatively speaking, a real & large commercial aircraft farther away would appear the same to observers as a real & smaller made-up-to-look-like-commercial-aircraft missile closer.
As the mythbusters and Sandia videos demonstrate, when the footage of an object traveling ~500 mph is shown in real-time, human eyes can have difficulty in capturing details. It is just too damn fast. They have to slow it down.
Not true. CGI and video manipulation would tweak the captured image before being aired to the public. [Only one image was aired almost live with a 17 second delay, which is a lot time for computer cycles. All other footage had more time available for CGI to cover over a flying missile with pixels of a plane.]
As given above, holograms is not the only hypothesis. The links to my images above as well as a part or two of September Clues gives my hypothesis at this point more weight. Come up with something more than talk (or talk radio) on the hypothesis of holograms being able to fulfill the ruse of 9/11 WTC planes, and I’ll be happy to change my tune.
Senor El Once, if you are suggesting that a missile-with-wings might have been camouflaged by means of a hologram, which was then “touched up” prior to broadcast, that is not unreasonable and might explain the controversy about this. But based upon my interview with Stephen Brown,
FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 2010
Stephen Brown
Exotic 9/11 physics
POSTED BY TOTAL AT 9:03 PM 0 COMMENTS
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-stephen%20brown.mp3
I am convinced that the technology you doubt existed in 2001, no doubt even earlier, where the current state of military technology tends to be 20 to 30 years ahead of what is being provided to the American public, in part to deploy it on “special occasions” to deceive an unknowing public.
“The whole point of the discussion in this thread was that there was NOT crash physics evident in terms of splattering or shredding or bouncing of parts. What was observed was pieces of the building (like aluminum cladding) falling off.”
My what a keen eye you have Senor, to distinguish between the buildings aluminum cladding and bits of airplane parts…and astonishing talent my dear sir.
You have finally impressed me Senor.
ww
“If you would look back on all the previous posts, it will astound you how many times he had to repeat himself, saying the same things over and over and over again. No notice was ever taken by the so-called ‘opponents’ to what he was actually saying, and hence the continuous repetitions”~Tamborine man
But this does not address the problem as it truly stands. As many of us have pointed out, the repetitions, were especially annoying because they did not account for specific points made to the fallacies of the original point he had made. When he was countered for being incomplete by repeating something in dispute, he refused to address the complain at hand and simply repeated his original assertions. It is one thing to say, ‘I understand your complaint, but it is not valid because of X-Y-Z’, it is another thing entirely to insist from an ‘argument of authority’, that his pronouncement is correct “because I say so and I’m the expert”.
This is our beef with his argumentation. And on top of that this was pointed out to him over and over again, we were stuck in Fetzer’s rut, not one of our choosing.
I think that you aren’t getting this because of a bias in favor of Mr. Fetzer. You obviously believe his original assertions are correct. That would be fine – but you do not seem to grasp that he never actually addressed the counter arguments in any serious manner other than his appeal to his own authority.
I think a fair reading of the thread itself makes this argument prima facea.
ww
Why do you insult the participants here by insinuating that those, such as Senor El Once, Craig, truthoz, or anyone else, who hold views that are comparable to mine ARE AFFECTED NOT BY LOGIC AND EVIDENCE but by “a bias in favor of Mr. Fetzer”? That trivializes their rationality. What could be more obvious than that those who favor the side I am defending–NPT, which even you acknowledged was correct, in one of your more lucid moments; and video fakery in t he form of the use of simulated airplanes for Flight 11 and Flight 175, where Flight 11 was not even scheduled that day and 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time of the South Tower hit?
Do you have no conception of the presumptuousness of your attitude here, where you are taking for granted that you are right and I am wrong and implying that no one else, ONLY YOU, HAVE THE ABILITY TO THINK THINGS THROUGH? Well, I have been calling you, again and again, for one flawed argument after another, where you continue to insist that a real airplane could perform feats that no real airplane could perform. I have explained this time and time again, for the reason that an objective, rational mind ought to acknowledge the force of logic and evidence.
When you immediately acknowledged that I was right about NPT when it is properly defined as the conjunction of four claims–that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower–I thought that was a very good sign. Now I take it that, since you agree that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower, your only concerns are over how it was done. You think it was not Flight 175 but was a real plane, even though it was performing feats no real plane could perform.
Here is where your posts become not only obnoxious, as you yourself concede, but irrational in the extreme. You have never even acknowledged that this plane was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which posed enormous horizontal resistance. When I point out the mass ratios favor the building by 2,500 to 1, you ignore it and insist that momentum makes the difference, as though it mattered whether the plane was flying at 500 mph, 400 mph, or any other speed, when Newton’s third law renders that argument void.
As I recall, you have admitted that, if a commercial carrier, a Boeing 767, were to impact with just one of those massive floors in space, that it would have been obliterated. (We know the effects of an encounter with a tiny bird weighing only a few ounces, so your response was rational.) Now imagine it is encountering eight (8) of those floors, not simply suspended in space but connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other? Please tell us.
Is there any room for doubt that it could not possibly have entered the building without collision effects of kinds and quantities that you are not prepared to admit? You love to trade upon the vagaries and ambiguities of language to insist that THERE WAS A TINY DECELERATION when the plane’s velocity should have dropped to ZERO or that THERE WERE COLLISION EFFECTS when they are virtually unnoticeable and do not include the fuselage crumpling, the wings and the tail breaking off, bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. You are practicing what is known as the fallacy of equivocation by shading meanings in order to favor your own position.
That is not honesty in argument, which is the principal fault I find with you. You take conclusions out of context and proclaim them to be inconsistent, when they are nothing of the kind; you take a remark about my qualifications as an expert on reasoning as though I were claiming no one else’s arguments on these issues matter; you even deliberately misspell my name and, when I call you on it, pretend it was inadvertent! How much of this nonsense are we supposed to take?
And now you are equivocating again when I have observed that the plane has entered into the building before it explodes by claiming that it hasn’t entered completely, when it actually has — and where getting the plane all the way into the building before it appeared to explode was part and parcel of why they had to fake it. No real plane could accomplish the goals of:
(1) entering a massive, steel-and-concrete building without collision effects, where its fuselage would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, and such, which no real plane could do;
(2) where getting the plane into the building before it exploded was essential to have a pseudo-explanation for the later “collapse” of the building, which an external explosion would not do; and,
(3) where they had to time it with explosions in the subbasements, which would drain the water from the sprinkler systems, which otherwise would have extinguished the very modest fires that would remain after the pre-positioned jet fuel was consumed in spectacular fire balls.
In case this last point comes as a surprise to those who are unaware, Willie Rodriguez was senior custodian in the North Tower and reported a massive explosion in the subbasement, where a similar explosion occurred in the South Tower, as seismic records maintained by Columbia University reflect. So they had to time these entries as closely as they could for the sake of perpetrating the deception. Even with simulated planes, they were unable to do better than their arrival 14 and 17 seconds AFTER those explosions occurred, where they were to be explained away on the basis of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts, which was a stretch but which they believed a gullible public would accept, if their occurrence was even noticed.
For more, see the studies by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”, which has appeared in several versions, one of which can be found archived here:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html And a revised version here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf
Unless you understand the reasons why they had to fake the planes (for both Flights 11 and 175), the use of simulations seems like quite a stretch. But once you appreciate the problems they had to solve, the pieces fall into place. For those who would like an overview, try “False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State” (9 September 2011), which I presented in Portland, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEzoBKAkzmU There was no other way to do it.
Since my first paragraph was inadvertently incomplete, here is how it should have read in full:
April 28, 2012 at 11:24 am
Why do you insult the participants here by insinuating that those, such as Senor El Once, Craig, truthoz, or anyone else, who hold views that are comparable to mine ARE AFFECTED NOT BY LOGIC AND EVIDENCE but by “a bias in favor of Mr. Fetzer”? That trivializes their rationality. What could be more obvious than that those who favor the side I am defending–NPT, which even you acknowledged was correct, in one of your more lucid moments, and video fakery in the form of the use of simulated airplanes for Flight 11 and Flight 175, where Flight 11 was not even scheduled that day and 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time of the South Tower hit–have a higher regard for my conclusions BECAUSE THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THEM?
“Why do you insult the participants here by insinuating that those, such as Senor El Once, Craig, truthoz, or anyone else, who hold views that are comparable to mine ARE AFFECTED NOT BY LOGIC AND EVIDENCE but by “a bias in favor of Mr. Fetzer”
Do not use my brushes to paint new pictures Mr. Fetzer. I made this remark directly to one single person, Tamborine Man. Your inclusion of others is of your own extension and not even available as subtext in my statement. It is in fact a subtle way to imply that I am casting dispersion thus causing an antagonism amongst they and I – it is a divide an conquer strategy, it is improper and dishonest argumentation.
That Tamborine is rather a mascot to your ‘majesty’ cannot be mistaken, he is your most outspoken champion.
As far as the rest of your post, it is more arrogant bluster, with more of the tired argument that we have gotten from you as mantra. And as far as characterizing myself as on who poses as the “ONLY {one to} HAVE THE ABILITY TO THINK THINGS THROUGH,” is an astonishing thing to say for a man of such overbearing hubris such as yourself.
Your litany of points is shared by the others you mention in degrees and by aspects, and not in total as your masterful rhetoric would indicate.
As you are so satisfied with yourself that you can go on making such wide open and all inclusive assertions, that is fine with me because it makes you look foolish.
ww
TWO THINGS
First, I would like to ask OSS if he was in on the arguments on ‘Pilots’ that Jim drew his quotes from, that I posted together as contradictory
If so, can your garner whether his come back that the context is the reason for the contradiction. I looked again and cannot make a distinction for certain. This section of my posting the list of ad hominem from Jim, was as I said. ‘a cherry on top’ and not the meat of my posting. If we can be assured that Jim’s excuse is valid, I will gladly retract that portion of the post with an apology.
Now this:
This is the first instance of Fetzer’s use of this argument. Note the structure and wording of this paragraph. Now go through the thread and pick out how many times Jim repeats this, almost verbatim, in fact absolutely word for word many times. It is like a ‘chant’ or ‘mantra’, or a recording loop on a Chatty Cathy doll…or Monarch Programming.
I find this to be absolutely bizarre behavior. I am curious as to whether it can be simply dismissed as lazy thinking, and might not be indicative of something more sinister in which Mr. Fetzer would be a victim of MK:
Jim Fetzer says:
April 18, 2012 at 10:48 pm
“keenanroberts seems to think the speed of the aircraft–which was analogous to an empty beer can–impacting with a massive 500,000-ton building–which was like a brick wall–matters, when Newton’s third law dictates that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph hitting a stationary building are the same as a statonary plane being hit by a 500,000-ton building moving at 500 mph. He is ignorant of physics and his arguments show it. Is he unaware of the damage done to a plane by impact with a tiny bird weighing a few ounces? It should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. But none of that happened.”
ww
Dear Naomi,
I am sorry. I am sorry to read your perceptions of me as less than charming. And there is no doubt that these observations have some merit. I admit to being obnoxious in many of my exchanges with Mr. Fetzer.
However, it is my habit to tailor my exchanges with others to fit their own style of argumentation – as it seems that is the way they view the world. So in trying to reach Jim, I stood level with him on his own platform of style and form.
If you would review the entire conversation you will find that it was Jim that began the abusive attitude in his very first comments to me. I have also documented that in several instances in between then and now.
I understand that as a fan of Jim’s, you will automatically take his side. It is common in social animals such as humans to defend ‘their side’, and be blind to the foibles of their comrades.
I do not think this will change your mind, but offer it as food for thought.
ww
Why should we doubt that, if one party or another sides with another, it is because they find their use of logic and evidence more persuasive than others? hybridrogue1 does not seem to notice that he is just as much a candidate for agreements with other parties as am I. This is one more of his subtle abuses of language to try to spin situations one way rather than another. If I have fans that he does not, it is because my arguments are more rational and persuasive than are his. And that is clearly the case, which all of those who review this thread can ascertain for themselves.
“hybridrogue1 does not seem to notice that he is just as much a candidate for agreements with other parties as am I. This is one more of his subtle abuses of language to try to spin situations one way rather than another. If I have fans that he does not, it is because my arguments are more rational and persuasive than are his.” ~ says Mister Jim Fetzer
What I have “seemed to have noticed” is that there are a group of people here that are probably split about 50/50 between one “side” or the other, and that that modulates in degrees as to specific points.
If you have ‘specific fans’ and I do not, and I have what I would rather ‘term those in agreement’, rather than this jejune fan allegory as if we were rock bands or entertainers – means that only you receive agreement because of the ‘rational and persuasive qualities’, and I receive agreement because those who give it are ‘somehow deranged’ is the tenor of your arrogant argument here.
And of course we all are addressing a candid world. No doubt there will be a penumbra of opinions on that head.
I am bored with this constant badgering with your argument from authority Mister Fetzer, it is tiring in its persistent redundancy – practically every post you make involves some cutting juvenile remarks aimed at me. While you suffer the vapors over something like being referred to as one of our favorite Uncles. As the saying about glass houses goes, also is; those with thin skin shouldn’t cast ad hominem and ridicule. Your hypocrisy is simply boundless.
ww
I want to make some general points to the combination of issues that seem to be an attempt at putting all the visual evidence in question as per the WTC event.
Beyond the slim physical evidence that remained after the unlawful erasure of the crime scene, the visual evidence is ‘Best Evidence’ for the assertions against the official story.
Combining the lack of substantial physical evidence with a dismissal in toto of the visual evidence, equals No Evidence.
This is why I am highly suspicious of the attempts to erase the visual evidence. As a professional special effects artist with many years of experience, I made a fairly deep investigation into the September Clues and it’s attendant forum. In my professional opinion, Simon Shack is utterly devoid of any aspect of competence in the field. And this is not an appeal to authority on my part, but can be backed up with the long series of observations made on the ’36 Leaders’ thread on this very web site.
I have also made a study of the other advocates for this theory of digital fakery, and found them to be flawed in many ways. I have articulated my arguments against these in a few instances as well.
It is therefore my firm conviction that any rejection of visual evidence must be held to the highest standard of proof, even beyond ‘reasonable doubt’ – it must be determined as a certainty that such evidence is unreliable. And be proven with such certainty on every count. Such proofs of a few instances of fakery proves only that those particular instances are fakes. As I have found not a single instance in my studies of this, I must demand that it is on the onus of those who dispute the evidence to prove their case. It is not on the other side to prove a negative.
ww
Well, you seem to believe the myth that it is impossible to prove a negative. But you can prove the negative, “There is no elephant in your living room”, by going there and observing that there are no indications of any elephant (visual, auditory, tactile, or olfactory) is there. You can prove the negative, “No all rabbits are white”, by producing a single non-white rabbit. You can prove the negative, “The plane in the videos is not a standard 767″ by establishing that it is flying faster than is aerodynamically possible for a standard 767”, as Pilots has done. You can prove the negative,
“What we are seeing is not a real plane” by demonstrating that it is performing feats that no real plane could perform, including passing through its own length into a massive steel-and-concrete building, whose mass is 2,500 times that of the plane, in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, which is impossible unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air; not to mention that it was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which posed enormous horizontal resistance, where a real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground, and where its fuel would have exploded upon impact and not delayed until the plane was all the way inside the building, but where none of that happened, which means that what we are observing in these videos is performing feats that no real plane could have performed and cannot possibly be a real plane, thereby proving that negative, too.
Yes Jim, and you can prove you didn’t kill your mother simply by producing a walking talking happy mommy. No argument as per the absolutist statement of the famous myth.
However, from there you go onto these issues of dispute as if they are a proven certainty.
It is this continual insistence, that all these points you just repeated are now absolute certainties when you have been countered time and again on their validity. You proceed as if none of those arguments have ever been made to you, or that your assertions that those arguments have no merit is so because, YOU Jim Fetzer have declared such.
So for me to again have to swim through these redundant swampy waters one more time is too much to demand of me.
So I will end with this simple assertion: You are wrong.
See how easy that argument is?
ww
Jim Fetzer says this ; April 27, 2012 at 10:30 pm:
“…an ultimatum”, I want to explain why that was not the case. I thought a break would be a good idea, since I find it too much to continue beating my head against a stone wall.”
After saying this; April 27, 2012 at 12:27 am:
“Well, if Craig does not give you the boot for your blatantly dishonest and offensive conduct in this instance, you will have the playing field to yourself, since it will mean this forum has no standards.”
So Jim, we are now to take it that what you ‘really really meant to say’, was that I would have the playing field to myself for a few hours while you ‘took a break’. ..Lol…a child could see through this twirly burlesque.
It was a bluff, another disingenuous tactic to force Craig’s hand and have me banned.
Since you obviously have no respect for decorum and gentlemanly behavior, all of your whining complaints about using ridicule, and ad hominem are mere positioning tactics.
I made one serious error in this game you are playing on me and the forum, and that was in playing a card I wasn’t certain of – that I hadn’t made sure was correct. I rarely make the same mistake more than once.
Let me be clear as to my ground objection to you: It is your campaign for the dismissal of the visual evidence — the ‘Best Evidence’ for the WTC aspect of 9/11. This is clearly the second stage of the unlawful erasure of the physical evidence of the crime scene.
Since I think this is the purpose of your current agenda, I am not explaining this to you so much for your understanding, but to let the readership and the rest of the members of this forum grasp my intense opposition to what I see as another aspect of the ongoing 9/11 PSYOP.
ww
Swimming the swampy waters one more time:
Mr. Fetzer,
Your argument against the application of Sandia is ridiculous.
You assert that the Sandia jet hit the barricade {specifically engineered to withstand the impact} and exploded in an instant.
But it did NOT – It exploded in a specific manner taking TIME. As I have pointed out that time is very short, but it is an amount of measured time in this experiment by Sandia.
You go on the assert that since the tower impact shows the plane enter {go through the barrier} that the relation to the Sandia test does not apply – Why? ‘Because it didn’t explode on impact.’ Yet it DID explode on impact, the fact that the explosion occurs as the center of gravity enters the tower, simply means that the explosion retains the forward momentum as it passes through the building; rather than being contained by a solid structure such as in Sandia, which prevented the forward momentum, causing a reaction of dispersed energy upwards sideways and most significantly back into the remaining portion of the jet from center ‘g’ to tail.
Plus you add the circular element of your argument that the jet couldn’t break the facade. Why? Because the Sandia jet stopped at the barrier – as if it makes no difference that the barrier was made specifically to withstand impact.
Then you exclaim, “no no” and let your pony run through the ‘Mass Differential Routine’__which is also reliant on disregarding the detail of specifics – such as point of impact energy-reaction wherein the vast majority of energies are consumed at specific place, while the remaining energy is dispersed throughout the rest of the mass as omnidirectional energy {therefore not momentum [three necessary components, velocity, mass, vector: specific direction] but forces defined in wave mechanics – Oscillation, vibration, shaking.
So your ‘mass differential’ argument is shown to be only one of several physics components that you leave unaddressed.
Then we turn to your assumptions as to the strength of the structure at point of impact. Which is also mitigated by several components which you refuse to add into the equation Such as the sectional Density of an object of round (cross sectional) profile which is defined as the mass of the object divided by the square of its diameter. The heavier the object is in relation to its cross sectional area, the higher its sectional density. The higher the sectional density, the less the amount of frontal surface area (per unit of its mass) that is presented to the target, and the less of the target’s ‘matter’ (relative to the penetrating object’s mass) that will be displaced by the passage of the object through the target. And other such physics as kinetic energy transfers, etc.
ww
Before discussing the impossibility of the plane’s flight Jim, just a few more observations:
You repeated your mantra, that the only consideration is Mass Differential to Keenan Roberts, who retorted that it was absurd because that would mean that a bullet couldn’t penetrate a person and leave a wound. Hah – you snarled, that it was a ridiculous analogy, pointing out the obvious reasons of material of human flesh the hard bullet, etc.
Of course you didn’t seem to realize that your second assertions actually defeat your initial assertions, by admitting that there were indeed other factors to the equation. Then you began to argue the strength of the structure, which is of course an attendant canceling of the original assertion of the primacy of the ‘mass differential’ argument. This seems to me to be a cherry picking game with you.
So what is your opinion? Is mass differential prime? – Is mass differential prime but as amended? Is mass differential as amended, replaced as prime? If not, at what point would an amendment be heavy enough to become prime, and make mass differential a secondary?
Is a little bird watching all of this? Or did it head off the plane and divert disaster and this has all been a dream?
ww
Mr. Fetzer,
My opening question above is: ‘I want to make some general points to the combination of issues that seem to be an attempt at putting all the visual evidence in question as per the WTC event.’
My question is not addressed…yes it is a question, just use your frame reversal trick pony; I am asking why you are so intent on erasing all the Best Evidence for the WTC portion of 9/11.
Apply my question marks at any point you like in your deconstruction – ? here’s one…so yes. it IS a question — ? — ?
What is the motive for blinding the truth movement in this fashion?
ww
@Jim Fetzer:
Dr. Fetzer , I was looking for the Forbes interview on your site, but was unable to locate it. There does not appear to be a dedicated search engine there for a name search. Do you have a date for the show or a more direct link to it for me perhaps? Regards, onebornfree.
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2010
Scott Forbes
South Tower Employee / 9/11 Eyewitness
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-scott%20forbes.mp3
onebornfree, let me add that you seem to me to be among the most open-minded and objective of the participants here. I have just mistakenly attributed your request for the Scott Forbes link to OSS, which gave him credit for a rare follow-up that properly belongs to you. I look forward to your appraisal of his reports and of his competence and integrity, which impressed me favorably.
Hi everyone,
With regard to a more structured forum, I’d like to remind everyone that pilotsfor911truth.org/forum is very well designed, and Rob Balsamo doesn’t ban people based on what theories they promote, because he believes in free speech. The Pilots forum is broken down into a whole bunch of subforums: Latest News, Lobby, WTC, Pentagon, Debate, etc. It’s well designed and could use some more traffic!
I appreciate the positive sentiments my way, Craig and truthoz. 🙂
What virtues Adam is attributing to Rob Balsamo do not exist. If Adam had read, “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, he would know better, because during an extended discussion on a thread devoted to Dennis Cimino, without any notice or fanfare, he simply cut off my posting privileges. He, like others on this thread, had found it too difficult to cope with the points I was making, so he simply shut me down. I am sorry to say, therefore, that Rob Balsamo has many virtues, but not banning people because of their positions is not among them. Indeed, if you read that article, you will see that he even had me classified as a “troll”! I was dumbfounded, but you can confirm it for yourself by reading my article on Veterans Today or by studying the thread at Pilots, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931
where he cut me off after post #217, as I recall. He went on a roll after that and put up some really terrible posts, confident that I would not be able to contradict them. So you must forgive me if I do not share your enthusiasm for Rob Balsamo. Why don’t you ask him if that happened, where you will find that I actually document it in “Reason and Responsibility in Public Debate”?
You know Jim, You have incredible chutzpah, to come back on this board so soon after the storm and fury of your drama queen exit of just hours ago.
If you think that I will now be intimidated, having had to make an apology to you – that I will refrain from addressing you when you continue to make statements of opinion dressed as proven fact, you are mistaken.
You made this comment to Keenan:
“I spent 35 years as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, which makes me the expert and you not”
And I would propose that this very statement travels in the subtext of everything you write.
One does not prove expertise with a boast, but displays such expertise in practice.
Pure diktat is an offense to reason. I propose that Fetzer does not make effective reasonable arguments, but makes brutal brow beating arguments.
ww
HybridRogue1 119 (27%)
Jim Fetzer 80 (18%)
Brian Good 43 (10%)
OneSliceShort 49 (11%)
keenanroberts 20
Señor El Once 15
___________________
Señor,
You have made this analysis on the count of posts – not on word count. Should an accurate accounting of words be made, I would propose that your posts would outweigh a single post of mine to somewhere around 5 times as many.
If we take this into account – just comparing we two, you would have posted 75 post to my 119. I still have out-posted you significantly, but nothing so drastic as your assessment would indicate.
This is why statistical analysis must always be checked for accuracy in framing. You may go back and do a word count and prove me wrong by some percentage. Go ahead, you seem to relish chasing your tale with such trivial pursuits.
I don’t enjoy pointing such things out to you as the next thing that always happens is another barrage of trivial points that really amount to very small substance. So do not take this as an invitation to go round and round on a host of issues that we have already covered more than completely – but redundantly so. Okay?
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
The actual word count for the active participants is for you to perform. Until we see some hard figures, you’re just guessing.
And as you try to re-frame the statistical analysis, here is what those efforts cover over.
– My less frequent but wordy postings are much easier to IGNORE and skip over. [I’m sure you found that beneficial.]
– My less frequent but wordy postings involved probably more thought and analysis. [Sometimes I go through two or three drafts before posting once. My “break” last weekend until my monolithic posting on Tuesday involved such drafts and contemplative thinking while mowing the yard and preparing the garden that led to improved drafts.]
– Your multiple postings in response to the same posting indicate that your thought and analysis were incomplete on the first posting. [Writing off-line helps greatly with this failing.]
– Your frequent postings often involve “shoot from the hip” responses that incite flame-wars (whether or not intentionally).
– You and I had little interaction in this thread, which the posting count more accurately reflects than word count.
– The posting count, as opposed to word count, indicates who was more active and with whom, and therefore shows who was dominating the forum and potentially steering it (e.g., belittling snide remarks to concepts, flame-bait, etc.). [This is a general statement coming from my experience with such analysis in other forums, and those negative examples are NOT an accurate reflection on your activities here.]
Señor El Once,
I really don’t like getting several posts in a row from one person. It begs the question whether they are trying to flood the comment section. I haven’t blocked anything on that basis alone, but I would much rather that all contributors do as you suggest: write the post in a separate document, and once it’s done, then post it. And THEN, wait for a response. You are have consistently followed this approach.
To both Senor and Craig,
Senor made a valid observation about his encyclopedic posts being easy to glance over and move on. It is to my mind more comfortable for the average reader to take digestible size chunks of arguments divided by specific points – and to see these points tossed back and forth in again, a digestible manner.
For the reader to hold all of the points in combination is more difficult that for a respondent who takes a seven page argument and goes through that point for point and replying with another seven page or more document. Which seems more the place of the article writer than a commentary section to an article.
Just my thoughts and reasons for my personal approach.
PS, I have for the most part simply begun ignoring most of Senors articles posing as comments.
Not even that I feel disagreement, it is simply to bulky.
ww
Your succinct and very well written post
inspired me to quote this “Grook” to
Your Honour, Señor El Once:
“Grook on long-winded authors
Long-winded writers I abhor,
and glib, prolific chatters;
give me the ones who tear and gnaw
their hair and pens to tatters:
who find their writing such a chore
they only write what matters.”
Cheers
“I don’t enjoy pointing such things out to you as the next thing that always happens is another barrage of trivial points that really amount to very small substance.”
Very accurate description of Señor’s MO.
Reminds me of the term ‘tar baby’
Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tar%20baby:
Hybridrogue, I love your knack for so eloquently pinning people’s personality types and methods.
Of course, now I’ve just set myself up for another tit for tat response that will undoubtedly be at least 10 times lengthier…
On the actual subject of the blog entry (gosh, gasp): Those who were chanting victory upon Richard’s “complete withdrawal of support” in Feb. 2011 are not too happy right now. This blog has been up since April 15 and I’ve noticed (unsurprisingly) deafening silence from that crowd about Richard’s tread back toward a more neutral position. Now, however, they’re letting slip that they’ve seen this article:
truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=50015#50015
What’s interesting and ironic is that it’s on a thread in which they’re calling Gage and AE liars and frauds.
I always know that when I’m being bashed by snowcrash I’m on the right track. Interesting that he’s unhappy with the censoring of “critics” at 911blogger.
“Snowcrash” is perhaps the single most blatant provocateur to infiltrate the movement, imo. Anyone who falls for the ruse that he’s an honest researcher needs to take some lessons in elementary discernment (LeftWright…. cough cough). He pretended to be my friend in 2009 and even helped Sheila Casey out on a transcript of Roosevelt Roberts’ interview. He then said he was going to retire from the movement because he had a brain tumor. Then he disappeared, only to resurface months later (I forget how many) as a full blown JREF-like character. Who knows, maybe the real Snowcrash really did die of a brain tumor and his identity was stolen post-mortem. Just a theory of course. Or, it was one person’s intent/assignment to gain the trust of the real truthers before revealing true colors.
We can add snowcrash’s less clever sidekick, jimd3100. Here’s a delightful quote from the truthaction.org thread that mentions my Gage piece:
“McKee – The only brain that exists in his head belongs to the fly that buzzes around in it.”
Zing! And a snowcrash follow-up:
“I haven’t linked to the Gage piece but anyone who wants to read it in its full shining stupidity probably knows where to find it. (truthandshadows wordpress)”
Baff! The first comment had me reeling, and the second one finished me off! Does anyone other than shills like these two and their colleagues actually read this stuff? Even scarier, is anyone persuaded by it?
P.S. I can never comment on these two without feeling like I need a shower afterwards.
I would love to read what is being discussed at ‘truthaction.org’ but the dang site won’t load for me.
I have read some rather ‘conservative’ babble from this snowcrash fellow a few weeks ago on ‘blogger’ – I was surprised to find Mr. Legge piping in chorus with some of it..sad to say.
I find a lot of information in Legge’s papers, not necessary the conclusions he draws from it, but good data.
One can find good data in many works by those in borderline agreement with parts of the official story – “nuggets” as senor calls it. Even the NIST report is packed with good data – it is the spin, even counter to the internal date that is despicable with NIST.
ww
Jim Fetzer said: “I spent 35 years as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning,”
Dr. Fetzer, I cannot fault your logic/critical thinking/ conclusions, based on your assumptions.
After all, in order to logically reach conclusions, certain assumptions have to be made, correct? The deductive reasoning process must always follow from the initial assumptions made :
[1] initial assumption[s] + [2] employment of logic/deductive reasoning =” [3] conclusion reached.
Correct?
As far as I can tell your own[ logically derived] conclusion in this instance rests on 2 underlying assumptions, which are :
[1] that the laws of physics cannot be violated- real planes could not perform the feats depicted in the Naudet, Fairbanks, Hezarkhani videos.
[2] that the videos of those events are all genuine. [Interestingly, this second assumption is the exact same assumption shared by almost all of your other detractors here- it seems that you have a lot more in common with them than might first appear- you argue with them solely over the issue of Newtonian physics.]
It is assumption number 2 of yours [i.e. that those videos are genuine], that I have a problem with.
I have attempted to politely point out that in my own opinion it is methodologically incorrect for a trained scientist to make such a blatantly unproven assumption before moving on to a logical conclusion, and the further reinforcing of that initial assumption via non-verified verbal testimony, to then reach a supposedly “definitive” conclusion [i.e. that what we see in the Naudet, Herzekhani and Fairbanks videos are UAVs or holograms], with no investigation whatsoever into the videos in question beyond the observation that they portray scientifically impossible events. [That fact alone should have been a big “red flag” to you, regarding their authenticity, in my opinion, but, I digress.]
In my post in this thread for 04/25/12 I gave a partial list of some very important factors that you have not taken into consideration _at_all_, regarding those videos authenticity, before reaching your wholly pre- biased assumption that they are all to be trusted, and then moving on to reach your “logically derived” conclusion: that the videos in question unquestionably portray UAVs and holograms.
With all due respect,[as I have previously mentioned I have in the past very much enjoyed your books/radio shows] I submit that such an large, important, influential, pre- assumption of the authenticity of the video sequences in question is wholly unworthy of the scientific methodology [Or am I missing something?].
Regards onebornfree.
Hi onebornfree,
neither the Herzakhani or Fairbank videos are for me the determining factor for why i’m convinced the plane we see is a mere ‘projection’ of a plane, and therefore not real in a tangible physical sense. They are at most just another contributing factor amongst so many others.
We got three options here:
1. It could be a real plane.
2. It could be a CGI inserted plane.
3. It could be a hologram projection of a plane.
The first option is completely out for me.
The second option is certainly something i’m quite willing to consider. For the possibility exist of course that video or film shots of the plane in close-up, perhaps would have revealed more ‘blemishes’, like a little bit more ‘transparency’ effect, than what one would be able to see in the long shots.
So for this reason they might have had to do a little CGI repair to the videos in order to conceal the ‘hologram-appearance’, by making the plane look more solid in the close-up videos.
(Even then, in one video they still seem to have done a pretty lousy job with one of the wings, by the way)!
So If the above happened to be the case, then that naturally takes care of option three!
Cheers
Just realized that my last sentence could be misunderstood, so for clarity i’ll add the following:
“So If the above happened to be the case, then that naturally takes care of option three, by strengthen this third option even further.”
Cheers
onebornfree,
I believe you have some legitimate complaints combined with some misunderstandings about my position, where I will attempt to sort them out. I believe you have made some important points but that many of your worries are rooted in misconceptions about the degree of certainty with which knowledge about events like 9/11 can be known, which I shall attempt to explain in this reply.
First, let me observe that there are two broad kinds of reasoning, deductive and inductive, where deductive arguments are such that, whenever their premises are true, their conclusions cannot be false. That is the case because they are merely recapitulating some or all of the content of those premises, so if their premises were true, their conclusions could not be false for that very reason.
Inductive arguments, however, do not possess that property and have conclusions that could still be false even when their premises are true. This means that their conclusions are probable or likely, when their premises are true, but where they could still be false, even when they are based upon all of the available relevant evidence and establish the best-supported among alternatives.
Here is a simple illustration of the difference. From the premise, “Jack and Jill went up the hill”, which is equivalent to the conjunction, “Jack went up the hill and Jill went up the hill”, from which it follows, “Jill went up the hill”. But suppose the premises are, “Jack went up the hill” and “Jill is usually with Jack”. That makes it probable, “Jill went up the hill”, but does not guarantee its truth.
I have explained this most extensively in “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”,
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm where the most important principle of scientific reasoning is known as “inference to the best explanation”, which involves comparing the explanatory power of alternative hypotheses to establish which provides the best explanation.
This principle requires a comparison of the likelihood L of hypotheses h1, h2, and so forth on the basis of the probability P of the evidence, e, if they were true, where that those values are taken as the measures of evidential support that they derive from that evidence, L(hi / e) = P(e /hi), or
that the likelihood of hypothesis hi, given evidence e, is equal to the probability of e if hi were true.
Suppose we have a corpse with bruises around her neck but no bullet holes or knife wounds, for example, then the likelihood that she was shot, given there are no bullet holes, is equal to the probability that there would be no bullet holes if she had been shot, which is equal to zero. And similarly for having used a knife when there are no knife wounds. But strangulation is different.
Since there are bruises around her neck, there is a non-zero likelihood that she was killed by strangulation, which makes it the preferable (or better supported) of those three hypotheses. But that does not make it acceptable until the evidence has “settled down” and points in the same direction. An autopsy might even reveal that the cause of death was actually poisoning instead.
So we are looking for the best explanation of the available, relevant evidence. I have done a lot to explain why NPT appears to be true, based upon the evidence that I have presented in those articles I have cited, “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. But there is too much there to simply replicate all of it here.
When we have an impossible entry, an absence of collision effects, a plane that does not explode on impact but delays until it has entered the building, we have to ask, “What explanation has the highest likelihood?” I have explained why the evidence supports the conclusion that this can’t be a real plane because it is performing feats that no real plane can perform, as you understand.
Now the use of violations of laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics to disprove the authenticity of a video is rock-solid. These laws cannot be violated and cannot be changed, as I have explained in many places, including several books and numerous articles that were subject to peer-review and were published by notable scholarly and academic publishers and presses.
That, of course, does not GUARANTEE that I am qualified to address these questions, but it does offer good reason for drawing that conclusion. Similarly, that you or hybridrogue1 are the persons you appear to be or claim to be is not CERTAIN, but, at the moment at least I have no good reason to doubt that hybridrogue1 is also known as “ww”, even though I might be wrong.
And that is the case, in general, with regard to empirical knowledge: we draw inferences on the basis of probabilities and likelihoods, where our conclusions can be TRUE but can never be certain. When you talk about CERTITUDE about the identity of witnesses, therefore, you are imposing an impossible standard. There are many ways persons could fake their identity.
General considerations, however, make it highly unlikely that around 500 witnesses would submit reports about what they saw and heard that day for the sake of creating fabricated data to perpetrate a fraud. That involves writing reports and submitting them and placing your name on that report, which, in my experience, is not something taking place as a common occurrence.
Now I went out of my way to interview Andrew Johnson, who had reviewed the witness reports, and they were all over the place: some saw a small plane, some a military plane, some a dark plane, some a light plane, where only one reported seeing a United Airlines airplane enter the South Tower. But the number who saw what they took to be a plane was rather impressive.
I wanted to see if I could find at least one witness whose report appeared to be credible, even if it could be the case that he was faking it. And that person turned out to be Scott Forbes, whom I interviewed on “The Real Deal” and have provided a link so you can access it. He not only confirmed seeing a plane approach the tower but was amazed when it “swallowed the plane”.
While I have not attempted to track his fingerprints, personal history or birth certificate, I have no good reason to doubt that he is telling the truth as he experienced it, which came through to me during our interview. So I encourage you to listen to it and drawn your own conclusions at
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2010
Scott Forbes
South Tower Employee / 9/11 Eyewitness
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-scott%20forbes.mp3
Just to illustrate that your standards are just a bit excessive in relation to the personal identities of these 9/11 witnesses in New York, bear in mind that we are not even certain of the place of birth of the President of the United States, where I have also interviewed experts on his birth certificate who concluded, as I have myself concluded, that it appears to be a piece of fakery.
At the Pentagon, however, there are good reasons to question the veracity of the reports we have from witnesses there, especially because they are almost all military personnel, where, as I have observed, as a Series Commander at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, I could have had 300 recruits swear they had seen the Batmobile driven into the Pentagon.
I did three two-hour shows with Mike Sparks on “The Real Deal”, which you can also access by entering his name in the search bar at the top left of http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com, where he found good reasons to question almost all of those witnesses with regard to their locations and their observations, where we have independent grounds as well to doubt it was hit by a 757.
Your observations about the angles of the videos and all that, however, seem to me to fall into another category. As far back as 22 April, for example, you were making arguments like these:
QUOTE
In my previous link to the Fairbanks video on my blog site I stated that in my humble opinion it was a 100% fake video [i.e. not just plane inserts into otherwise live imagery ] ; also that with other “amateur” footage of Fl 175 into WTC, where both the plane image and the explosion are clearly seen, that for [just] one thing, there is no visible vortex produced by the plane disturbing/altering the shape of the explosions depicted, as it should have done, therefor those videos are all also fakes[leaving aside, for the moment, the sheer physical impossibility of the event depicted in all of them]. [I previously gave a youtube link to a short video explaining the vortex phenomena and examining the lack of any disernible vortex in any of the plane crash video sequences. Here it is again, if you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krL4fkrySZ4
There are many other technical reasons to believe that all of the various Fl.175 collision footage sequences are 100% fake, mostly to do with perfect hand-held camera tracking of objects claimed to moving at 500mph, [for example, see the short gif movie taken from the Herzekhani ” amateur footage at the very bottom of my blog page here: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2009/09/dr-reynolds-and-planebuilding-meld.html , where the moving plane image somehow manages to stay perfectly in the center of successive frames even as it moves across the screen ] ; plus impossible vantage points of the alleged photographers, perfectly timed zoom-ins, lighting /shadows totally at odds with known lighting conditions that morning , etc. etc [the list of anomalies is long and I will not attempt to get into them all here, just to mention a few in passing ] .
Concerning the lack of a visible vortex distortion of the ensuing explosion, the exact same is true of the Naudet footage of the first strike – there is no visible plane vortex distortion of the explosion itself whatsoever, when there should be one clearly seen, given the cameraman’s vantage point, which indicates to myself and others that that footage was also probably faked in its entirety [i.e. no plane insert into an otherwise live feed] .
It appears that Mr. Fetzer may believe that the Naudet video of the first strike is real-time, but that it had a plane image inserted into an otherwise live feed, if I understand him correctly. [Although the original Naudet footage was never broadcast as “real-time” “live”, it was not seen on national networks until the next day, the 12th, I believe] .
I would myself suggest that the absence of any visible plane vortex in that Naudet video sequence is but one of many reasons to conclude that the entire sequence is fake – there are many, many other technical anomolies corresponding to the short list I just gave above for all of the alleged Fl.175 “amateur” footage.
END QUOTE
While you don’t have me quite right about the Naudet footage, for example, where I believe it was real footage of a simulated plane (consisting of four UAVs in close formation), I agree with your arguments about the absence of wind vortex in both instances, which I have attributed to the use of simulations (using a hologram for the South Tower) but where their absence offers further proof that these cannot have been real planes. I apologize for not having been more responsive to your earlier posts, because you are making many excellent points, which might in the end convince me that these videos were themselves faked using CGIs or compositing, an explanation that I have resisted heretofore only because of the weight of the witness reports, where, as I have said, the more strongly we weigh them, the more evidence of a hologram. I look forward to more posts from you, where you might be able to convince me I am mistaken and that it really was done in the fashion you describe. That certainly cannot be ruled out as one more illustration that, in scientific reasoning, as more evidence and alternative hypotheses becomes available, previously accepted hypotheses may have to be rejected while previously rejected hypotheses may have to be accepted. I want to thank you for pursuing this with me.
obf,
It’s good that you are at least able to spot a huge flaw in the logical reasoning of the professor who demands that we all unquestioningly bend to his claim to authority (as someone who spent 35 years as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, making him the expert and not us”), in regards to one of his 2 assumptions being “a blatantly unproven assumption”, although I completely disagree with you on which of the 2 assumptions is the false one.
Nevertheless, you’ve missed an even bigger flaw in his reasoning that utilizes these 2 underlying assumptoins. Regardless of which of the 2 assumptions you take as the true one vs the false one, the fact is that THESE 2 ASSUMPTIONS ARE IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION WITH EACH OTHER. Both cannot be true at the same time.
The underlying assumptions being, as you stated above:
[1] that the laws of physics cannot be violated- real planes could not perform the feats depicted in the Naudet, Fairbanks, Hezarkhani videos, which, by definition means that these videos are all fake
[2] that the videos of those events are all genuine.
I guess the question that comes to mind is, how can a professor who spent 35 years as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, have constructed a deductive argument so completely illogical that it would be considered unworthy of consideration even in a grade school level beginner’s course?
Since keenanroberts has difficulty distinguishing the distinct, I would observe that, if the planes were fake, as I and TM surmise, then it would not have been necessary to alter videotapes that recorded them, in which case we would have genuine videos (unaltered by the insertion of CGIs or by means of video compositing) of simulated aircraft, which were actually in the air in real space/time to record and produce a form of video fakery that combined real videos with fake planes. If you check it, this is a point that I have made before quite explicitly; and I can hardly believe you could be posting on this subject after this extended discussion and not fathom the key difference that divides most of the parties to the debate about “video fakery”. Please do you best to understand the issues before you make posts that are as meaningless and irrelevant as this.
To find onebornfree more or less ‘reasonable’ is one thing. But as per the topic of video and photography I find him even more “clueless” than his guru Mr. Shack, and Shack is utterly destitute in visual acuity and technical abilities.
So what ever ‘reason’ to be found in his thinking is based on misperception – in fact gross misperception. It is a hoedown of hoot to read some of the “analysis” at the ‘Clues Forum’ for just about any photo expert or effects artist. I found it simply laughable.
Again, my opinions on this are put forth in some detail on the ’36 leaders’ thread on this site, in the program notes above…a click away.
ww
Oh, right, sorry Jim, I forgot about your “sophisticated hologram” claim, for explaining how the videos show an apparent (according to your faulty video analysis and bogus unscientific claims) violation in the laws of physics in the collision of the plane into the WTC but are at the same time genuine videos, through your supposed “process of elimination” (even though nobody has found any evidence that these types of sophisticated next generation hologram technologies exist, even 10 years later, not to mention the incredible risk of the hologram charade being exposed had someone caught any number of things on video – the sun or other bright reflected objects shining right through the hologram, etc., – that would have certainly exposed the hologram hoax).
And round and round we continue to go with Jim’s absolute refusal to EVER address honestly any of the counter-arguments to his illogical, unscientific, contradictory nonsense…
“it would not have been necessary to alter videotapes that recorded them, in which case we would have genuine videos (unaltered by the insertion of CGIs or by means of video compositing) of simulated aircraft, which were actually in the air in real space/time to record and produce a form of video fakery that combined real videos with fake planes.”~Fetzer as an answer to keenanroberts as having difficulty distinguishing the distinct.
The actual distinction in this instance is that ‘video fakery’ entails altered video in some manner in the actual realm of the technology itself.
What happens in ‘the air in real space/time’ is as self defined: a live image in the real world.
That this image is captured by video does not ‘video fakery’ make, but a video record of a real space time event.
This is the “distinction” in all but Orwellian Newspeak.
ww
Tamborine man says:
“neither the Herzakhani or Fairbank videos are for me the determining factor for why i’m convinced the plane we see is a mere ‘projection’ of a plane, and therefore not real in a tangible physical sense. They are at most just another contributing factor amongst so many others.”
So presumably you are referring strictly to the Naudet video of the “1st strike” at the N. tower, correct?
If so, what other factors [ concerning the Naudet video , I assume], are you referring to?
Regards,onebornfree
More than 100 improbable circumstances had to be satisfied for the crew to take the Naudet film:
Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm
Several of the most important considerations about that footage are presented in this article:
“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/
These include the following:
(1) the image does not look (even remotely) like a Boeing 767;
(2) a time-sequence confirms that it has an anomalous shape;
(3) on impact, it presents a four-pointed, “Z”-shaped formation;
(4) after the smoke clears, that “Z” has beome an elongated “V”;
(5) there are no wake (or wind) vortex effects (smoke turbulence);
(6) the gash in the facade is extended at its right tip after the fact.
There are others, but these are indicative of video fakery by the use of a simulated airplane.
“There are others, but these are indicative of video fakery by the use of a simulated airplane.”~Jim F
You know Jim…this has been thoroughly explained as due to low resolution/pixelation on top of being out of focus. There is nothing mysterious in bad photography…any beginner has gotten back pics in the analog days, and found what they had hoped would be a great shot of something out of focus, subject not framed correctly, etc.
I am disappointed that a man of your supposed intellect cannot see something so very simple. To blow this up into some grand mystery when it is such a simple little thing…
I think the question as to why such small matters as this become such huge issues of contention is a much more interesting question. That brings a much more interesting answer as well.
ww
Hi onebornfree,
no, i was not referring to the Naudet video at all.
I don’t understand what you mean!!??
Cheers
Jim Fetzer said: ” While you don’t have me quite right about the Naudet footage, for example, where I believe it was real footage of a simulated plane (consisting of four UAVs in close formation), ”
Yes I realized that a day or so ago- that you currently believe the Naudet footage to be genuine, and that it had captured a close formation of UAVs. [This realization was a surprise to me.]
That is the main reason I have repeatedly asked you all of those boring questions with little variation, I wanted to make absolutely sure of what your true position was before I assumed something that did not accurately represent your point of view, yet again. 🙂
regards, onebornfree.
Since I have been forthcoming about your inquiries, perhaps you could respond to two of mine:
(1) Have you read “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”?
(2) Have you read “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”?
Some of the most important visual evidence to which are make reference are presented there.
Post or not at your discretion…
Mr. McKee, I realize that I have posted a lot of comments today. The reason for this is that as the page loads for me today [and quite often] it loads top first. So I have to scroll down the entire thread to get current.
As I do I keep finding new barbs and disparaging remarks from Mr. Fetzer – often upstream quite aways. I am compelled to answer some of these remarks…and I must admit, it is getting quite tiresome being badgered so persistently.
I am trying my best to remain civil in this as per your reasonable plea, but my patience is growing short. This is not a request that you reprimand Fetzer – I can take care of myself, but it has caused a distraction to the posts I originally intend to post when I find such. I often carry my original thought in mouse – but loose that and the upload here, in copying some trash from Fetzer, that I wish to counter….so I am not asking you to curtail him, but for your patience with the amount of posts I make.
Thanks, Willy
Hybridrogue1,
I chose to post your comment so that I could offer my observations. When it comes to posting a lot, I think you and Dr. Fetzer are running neck and neck. The total word count would lean towards him. Number of posts in the latter part of today, you’d win.
As to badgering, it seems that you are able to give as good as you get (boundless hyprocrisy…). I would also say that I have noted an effort on Jim’s part (and yours, too) to elevate the debate above pure name calling. It’s not a huge improvement, but it is there. I hope we can continue that way. I find the discussion quite interesting when a less confrontational presentation of facts and opinions is taking place, and I suspect other readers prefer it as well.
As to the way your page loads (don’t quite get this), I think it is incumbent on you to respond to comments in the order in which they appear and reasonably close to the time they appear because otherwise you risk leaving the readers of the thread confused. Unless I misunderstood you…
P.S. To both of you: on some points you are never going to agree, so I would wonder whether it’s that useful to keep arguing with each other. If it’s a new argument to a previously voiced position, then by all means, but there are times when you both just keep reiterating your positions with no change from either of you. Having said that, I do appreciate the modest improvement in tone I’ve seen.
For some reason, I find no “Reply” button for many of hybridrogue1’s posts, He now thinks that the phrase “no planes” means NO PLANES, when it actually means “no Big Boeings” or “None of the planes the government claims hit on 9/11 actually hit”, which I have spelled out as follows:
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower (but a simulated plane appears to have hit it);
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon (but a diversionary aircraft flew toward and over it);
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville (but probably landed in Cleveland later in the day);
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower (but another simulated plane was projected toward it).
hybridrogue1 adops the child-like attitude that the simplest possible interpretation ought to be imposed, when I have repeatedly explained the meaning of “NPT” as No Official Planes Theory,
for a variation. The only “Orwellian” dimension here is his continued distortion of its meaning.
Jim,
I agree with you that no official flights crashed anywhere. I wonder if that’s something we can all agree on. Because to contend that a real flight crashed into the towers suggests that hijackings really took place or control of the plane was taken over from elsewhere. Am I wrong in thinking this?
Craig, That’s an interesting proposition. When I first defined “NPT”, even hybridrogue1 agreed. I have been looking for that post, which struck me at the time as being an honest response. Let’s ask if anyone rejects any of the following four propositions:
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
And if we agree on those propositions, then (1) and (4) imply the use of video fakery (of one kind or another) in New York. So even if some of us may disagree about how it was done–using fake planes or altered videos or both–perhaps we can also agree on that, too.
I’d like to get views on whether people think any of the actual flights crashed anywhere. Maybe we can separate that from what it implies just for the moment. I just want to know whether anyone believes that the flights that allegedly took off with passengers ended up crashing where they are supposed to have.
Craig, I try to post under the comment I am responding to – at times there are surprising results if several others have responded in between. I have no control over how WordPress loads, half the day early today, it loaded as raw HTML without the designer layout. Only a one inch comment box….???…don’t blame me, I’m not doing it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>
Fetzer, it is simply not in your power nor authority to change the meaning of words.
If you wish to change the phrase to; “Fetzerian Newspeak” that is fine by me.
> No planes means, no planes. No Boeings means no Boeings.
>Video Fakery means faked within the video technology.
>Capture of a hologram would be real video of a atmospheric mirage – which happens in nature as well and is never considered “video fakery”
“None of the planes the government claims hit on 9/11 actually hit” –I agree.
1. Utter speculation.
2. Very likely, but still, supposition.
3. Agreed.
4. Utter speculation.
As far as the meaning of words Mr. Professor, ask any person on the street, they are the ones you have to convince. You are constructing such a self contained lexicon as to reach the definition of a cult. What’s next signate rings with magic symbols?
I refuse, I will not join in this Babylonian jabberwacky. Whoever wishes to…knock yourselves out.
ww
Craig, please change my answer to number > 2. Most likely but not certain.
Thanks, that is more what I actually think, after seeing it posted.
ww
Sorry, I don’t see where you chose one answer originally. So I posted your requested change. As for WordPress, I don’t understand how to manipulate comments very well. For instance, I have no idea how to move them around if they end up in the wrong place. We’ll just have to do the best we can.
“As to badgering, it seems that you are able to give as good as you get (boundless hyprocrisy…)”~Craig
Well Craig, the thing is I have never denied my capacity for combativeness and ridicule when I felt I was dealing with the ridiculous. However the intimation as to hypocrisy is misplaced as I have never complained about being called names or other such abuses.
As I told Senor a while back I don’t mind at all to be knocked about, as long as I am not restrained from knocking back.
It is those who are well and good at giving a knocking, that then turn around and run for mama when the knocking comes back on their own head that are hypocritical. Every one in a fight is not the “aggressor”. As a martial artist my whole life I have always understood that defense is the most powerful position. That ‘Offence is the best Defense” is doublespeak, and the Chi is at center as responsive, and reaching past center in offense puts one off balance.
To replay into the demonstration of such drama queen hysterics of a certain poster was not my intent on my message to you…I really just wanted to ask for patience with my quantity of commentary. I mentioned the continuing badgering because I thought it was agreed that we would both stop the snotty preambles and summaries.
ww
As another example where the “Reply” button is missing, this guy questions my analysis of appeals to the Sandia experiment in comparison to the images of Flight 175 entering the South Tower, at
hybridrogue1 says:
April 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm
(1) the fighter was mounted on a railroad track and rocket-propelled into a major concrete barrier;
(2) the fighter was filled with water and blew into millions of tiny pieces upon impact;
(3) the fighter did not pass through the barrier and its velocity dropped to zero;
~(1) “Flight 175” was in the air at 700-1,000′ altitude flying about 500 mph into the South Tower;
~(2) the airplane was filled with air and did not blow into millions of pieces upon impact;
~(3) “Flight 175” passed through the barrier without any variation in its velocity.
In response to my observations that (a) the building was vastly more massive than the aluminum airplane, highly comparable to a flying empty beer can, where (b) its mass ratio was greater than that of the airplane by a ratio of 2,500 to 1. By Newton’s third law, the momentum did not matter.
In rebuttal, hybridrogue1 commits another faulty analogy by suggesting that, if I were right about mass ratios, then bullets could not penetrate a human body; but planes are not dense objects like bullets and the South Tower was not flesh and bone, as though I had ever implied that they were.
This is another nice example of his abuse of language and logic, where he uses the technique of divide and conquer (to separate their relative density and their mass ratios) as though they did not both weigh in favor of the building over the plane. He is engaged in argumentative propaganda.
WHAT??? I said what? You say I said this?:
“In rebuttal, hybridrogue1 commits another faulty analogy by suggesting that, if I were right about mass ratios, then bullets could not penetrate a human body; but planes are not dense objects like bullets and the South Tower was not flesh and bone, as though I had ever implied that they were.”
I said THIS:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You repeated your mantra, that the only consideration is Mass Differential to Keenan Roberts, who retorted that it was absurd because that would mean that a bullet couldn’t penetrate a person and leave a wound. Hah – you snarled, that it was a ridiculous analogy, pointing out the obvious reasons of material of human flesh the hard bullet, etc.
Of course you didn’t seem to realize that your second assertions actually defeat your initial assertions, by admitting that there were indeed other factors to the equation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Point being, Fetzer always repeats this: “the mass ratios are what matters here”…as the Prime Postulate to consider first as bed rock for further analysis. But Does that mean really?
I end the post with:
‘So what is your opinion? Is mass differential prime? – Is mass differential prime but as amended? Is mass differential as amended, replaced as prime? If not, at what point would an amendment be heavy enough to become prime, and make mass differential a secondary?’
And as I have shown in posts that remain unattended by the professor, that the over all mass is at rest in this frame – and still is in the reversal of “plane into building” to “Building into the plane.”
This is due to the issue of two missing components to the description of Momentum.
The are three: Mass – velocity – Specific Direction [a vector quality]
It is the third, the vector quality that frames the building at rest on a specific spot on the earth.
While this might seem as small issue, it comes into play in the following way, because the most important physics for framing the base to postulate from becomes, naturally if you think a moment; It is the impact site point and moment when the building is inert. the entire mass is not in resistance to the site point and moment. The mass below supports the weight, but there is distribution of this support in increments throughout the structure. All of the strength of the building never comes to play at the specific impact site point. It is then the actual Crash Physics which are of prime moment; our proximate component for analysis.
And this is explained in more detail in the group of three posts, where these quotes are in I think the middle post.
ww
The quote where Jim mocks that he is making an statement analogous to Keenan’s proposal as a fair analogy. But this is not the point. When countered to his assertion, he immediately went into plane material strengths verses building material strengths, structural matters having nothing to do with the subject of momentum for any integer but the plane.
The principles of Inertia is the moment of mass at rest. Kinetic principles in relation to the Inertial principles are of moment at impact. In fact this is Crash Physics, which both Kevin and I have been insisting is the proximate component for the impact. For crying-out-loud, the impact is a crash. What the [***] could be more obvious than this?
This baloney about the mass differential is applicable in an entirely different way than Jim characterizes it. And I have already explained that above in this very thread…
Jim has ignored, or misframed it in his retorts to this, for at least a week. And in these retorts he always swings back to a repetition of his general analogies that haven’t squat to do with the issue he claims to be countering.
I can’t help but conclude after all that has gone down here, that he thinks his ‘reinterpretations’ of what I have said deserve an answer. I want him to answer what I have actually said.
ww
“Ahhh..what’s up doc?”~Bugs
“the mass ratios are what matters here”~Jim the Professor
“And that’s all folks” {roll the Loonytoon’s theme please}
ww
Answering Dennis Cimino’s dismissal of the more likely modified aircraft possibility (from the paranoid attack piece on Rob Balsamo)..
The claim is that the aircraft in question couldn’t physically achieve the speeds recorded (which is correct for standard Boeing 767s). Nowhere has anybody mentioned that a 767 was modified. Cimino is even using the specs of a 767 (weight,etc) when discussing the modification possibility.
Yes, the outward appearance of the aircraft resembles a 767, but what isn’t known are the materials, engine thrust, weight, or any possible strengthening of the frame, wings, nose and tail.
And it’s nonsensical to say that “passengers and luggage” should have fallen out on impact when nobody is disputing that it was UA175.
Yes, “parasitic drag” is an issue but Boeing engineers had to resolve this same issue with the Boeing 747 which carried the shuttle on its missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Shuttle_Enterprise_at_Ellington_Airfield_1978_4.jpg
I know this modified Boeing 747 has 4 engines and the 445mph speed (with shuttle attached) is at altitude but look at the monster! Imagine the drag on that contraption.
The modifications/strengthening of the aircraft was carried out in the 70s.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft_interior_bulkhead.jpg
No, I’m not a pilot, but a quick google search brought me to the 747. At least it’s more tangible evidence that even in the 70s, parasitic drag of major proportions were addressed. And that in 30 years since, for Dennis Cimino to claim that it’s impossible to overcome low level high speed flight in a souped up aircraft with the apparent similar body frame of a transport category Boeing 767, while pushing solid state (in some cases reflective) holographic technology that nobody can point me to bar alleged DARPA experimental proposals takes the biscuit.
How could a hologram of such dimensions, solid looking and in some cases reflective be pulled off over such a distance without a hitch given the basics of holography?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography#How_holography_works
I know there are military projects we’ll never know about but even in 2012, 11 years after the event I think the following piece genuinely shows how far DARPA has really come with this technology..
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/darpa-has-3d-holographic-display.html
http://www.vizworld.com/2011/03/darpas-3d-holographic-display-technology/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23149/?SID=6590a9fbff8ce3cbe74e9fab5e1cf7d1
Give me a break Dennis.
Superb post OSS. A very strong argument backed up with good data. Bravo.
I had thought the idea that the planes could not be refitted and hardened was pure speculation at any rate, just the argument put revealed that.
ww
Hi OSS (and with kindness),
I don’t think the extra speed and modifications of the alleged plane is for you worth talking about, as it only strengthens the view as to the impossibility of a plane impacting WTC2.
A plane suddenly appears out of nowhere flying over 900 km/h., and some seconds later disappears completely inside a building. That’s it. That’s the last you see of any of that plane and its over 900 km/h. velocity – in a building that is only about 64 meters deep. Next you see 3 fireballs taking shape. They are obviously not very powerful, as no appreciable damage is seen in their wake, either on the north or east wall of WTC2.
Just some black scorching and some black sod!
To get an idea of what should have taken place, please take a look at this video (made by a couple of countrymen of mine), where one of the segments show a bottle of red wine exploding inside a microwave oven:
http://youtu.be/lUZ-e2SkeMI
I shall refrain from insulting peoples intelligence further by going on in more details about what they are perfectly familiar with and can easily and trustingly imagine themselves.
You write: “And it’s nonsensical to say that “passengers and luggage” should have fallen out on impact when nobody is disputing that it was UA175.”
This, I think, was only addressed to all those people who “believe” the plane was UA175!
OSS, when it comes to Hologram projections, then I don’t think it’s a good idea of yours to rely on what Wiki or DARPA is telling you about this technology at the present time, as they would have told you something entirely different 12 years ago.
The following from before year 2000, is what you should take note of instead:
From DARPA’s budget papers 2000 – 2007, page 123:
“…..
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers).
…..”
A paper from 1998 exist which you can Google with this title:
3-D Holographic display using Stronium Barium Niobate.
With the following introduction:
“An innovative technique for generating a three dimensional holographic display using strontium barium niobate (SBN) is discussed.
The resultant image is a hologram that can be viewed in real time over a wide perspective or field of view (FOV). The holographic image is free from system- induced aberrations and has a uniform, high quality over the entire FOV. The enhanced image quality results from using a phase conjugate read beam generated from a second photorefractive crystal acting as a double pumped phase conjugate mirror (DPPCM). Multiple three dimensional images have been stored in the crystal via wavelength multiplexing.
(PDF from 1998.)”
Trust this will give you a slightly different perspective!
Cheers mate
“To get an idea of what should have taken place, please take a look at this video (made by a couple of countrymen of mine), where one of the segments show a bottle of red wine exploding inside a microwave oven.”~Tamborine
This is hilarious my man…a leap into Judy Woowoo style pseudoscience.
You guys are a hoot.
I am sorry but I cannot address the substance of a post that has no substance.
ww
Hi TM,
Sorry man, I stand by my simple analogy of how the 747’s apparent impossibility to compensate for drag with the space shuttle mounted on it (and travelling 445mph at altitude) shows that with the right adjustments and strengthening of areas normally susceptible on standard transport category aircraft at low level, high speed flight, modification to achieve this is certainly not impossible.
I looked at the holograph technology discussion paper. Please read it through mate. There is a lot of technical jargon but if I can grab the basics you (or anybody here) can!
3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA338490
Note: look at the limited field of view (FOV) with the first experiment:
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9760/imagelfs.jpg
Note: look how exact these positions have to be to project a static image:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1671/imagecww.jpg
Given the multiple angles at which the aircraft was captured, the following is very important:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uCdeRGw4PQ
The following is also very important. Each individual holographic projection is stored on a crystal (Strontium Barium Niobate) and each complex projection requires the previously mentioned specifically placed multiple apparatus to achieve just one hologram. A single frame.
A lot of the jargon is way over my head but even I can see that both the theoretical and experimental stages of this concept is nowhere near as advanced as to project a realistic aircraft caught on video in its last seconds of flight. Or multiple images caught at different angles (including ground to air angles), at varying distances.
The maximum FOV achieved is 44° but with major distortions.
The apparatus has to be in exact positions, distances and angles from eachother to project a static image.
How could they have projected this solid looking, constant, mobile hologram without first having previously set it up for a dry run??
How can even this (alleged) impressive technology even begin to portray an aircraft not only in motion, but covering a distance of 700fps over thousands of feet, in a descent, banking, and disappearing at the precise moment of reaching the building?
Sorry TM. Couldn’t happen.
Aren’t you the guy who has now reluctantly conceded that he has never read “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” or “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”?
So how did you determine that the latter was a “paranoid” attack piece on Rob Balsamo? Did you simply intuit it? Did dream it? If you haven’t read the article, then how could you possibly know?
par·a·noid (pr-noid)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.
2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.
n.
One affected with paranoia.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Unlike you, I have read this piece and, having actually written it, can assert that it demonstrates that Rob Balsamo’s views are inconsistent and incoherent. It does not suggest he is paranoid.
And since I document every point I make about Rob Balsamo AND YOU HAVE ADMITTED ON THIS FORUM THAT YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN READ IT, what are you doing making that claim?
This is about as disgraceful as any post from hybridrogue1, who systematically abuses language and logic for the apparent purpose of obfuscating the truth. What, I dare ask, is your excuse?
“you, I have read this piece and, having actually written it, can assert that it demonstrates that Rob Balsamo’s views are inconsistent and incoherent. It does not suggest he is paranoid.”
Ha!
No Jim, I wasn’t referring to Rob. I was referring to the tone of your blog. Which I did read.
If the tone wasn’t paranoia inducing, how do you explain the comments that followed, some of which pointed to posters now looking at Rob and his forum with “suspicion”?
As for Dennis..
Or Dennis totally exaggerating (if not lying) about members “attacking” him or giving the impression that everybody was on his case when members actually wanted to defend one of their own, before his public strop. I personally defended him because I had thought that he was being hoodwinked into NPT. His first email to Rob stated that “planes were used”. His eventual flip-flopping really did gobsmack me. But I still refrained from badmouthing him.
His claims that there is censorship at Pilots and that one or two control discussion over there when in reality, there’s usually a heated discussion every other day among different members on different topics. Not like the nodding dogs at 911blogger and TruthAction.
Rob didn’t agree with your new all-encompassing interpretation of NPT and/or video fakery being tagged on to the Pentagon, Shankesville and the work he’s done on Flight 175. Everybody has the right to their opinion. But when it comes to lumping in your theories and demanding that Rob’s and CIT’s hard work be connected to them because of a play on words, a line had to be drawn. He has a right to his opinion too Jim.
I’m not going into it again before you post. I’d like you to read what I found in the holograph paper TM mentioned to me.
Cheers
OSS
Senor,
This is from one of your tomes above – which is not the issue, the quote is self evident.
“The whole point of the discussion in this thread was that there was NOT crash physics evident in terms of splattering or shredding or bouncing of parts.”~Senor
This is speculation based on analogies not the actual computations of this particular crash. You are leaping to conclusions without sufficient data.
I am curious as to how you would state how the various physics interact?
You jump straight from this assumption to speculation on charges to shape the wounds to the facade, PRIOR to proofs that the plane did not penetrate the facade.
It is such leaps of logic that leave me baffled when reading you. I have given up for long periods of time trying to follow this hopscotch manner. And it is futile to mention any of this because your replies are even more jumbled. Now I don’t care who else agrees or if anyone else agrees with this assessment, it is simply my true take. And I am not mad at you about it, I just don’t see the reason to hassle over it.
Can you simply state the interacting principles? Without any speculation on what the unknown quantities are, just the principles.
See:
hybridrogue1 says:
April 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Swimming the swampy waters one more time:
Addressed to Mr.Fetzer
A reminder for the professor as well.
ww
I have to commend hybridrogue and oss for their super human level of patience to continue the endless debating in the face of such persistent dishonesty and game playing and hubris by the Professor of Profundity without becoming so exasperated and infuriated that they blow a gasket. I don’t know how you do it.
Hi Keenan,
Thanks. Patience? I have a lot of that. But I have no need for that in this case, I find the “persistent dishonesty and game playing and hubris by the Professor of Profundity” to be a wonderful opportunity for the purposes of demonstration – a “God-send” actually.
His posts are perfect for deconstruction, they are overflowing with absurd ‘reasoning’ and lack of cognition. He is like a programmed robot applying his ‘principles’ as rote, with no underlying comprehension to the spirit within them, that which gives classic logic calculus life and presence in the real world.
One might ask how it is that Fetzer has been able to not only survive, but thrive in this corrupt system’s field of “academia”. Consider that he is not only not censored by the establishment but has attained a high chair at a prominent university – while at the same time becoming a prominent leader in the 9/11 truth Movement.
It might be argued insui that he is tolerated for his “great mind”__but in despotic systems such as ours; great minds are used to further the aims of the system, or they are discredited and destroyed.
I have written further thoughts on this, but it is not time yet.
ww
The descriptive “profundity” should be in quotes since it is a self-proclaimed quality and not one that would be chosen by most who have witnessed the professor’s rather peculiar methods, of course.
Hollograms of the 9/11 planes coming in and striking the towers were not possible to create at that time or even today. We simply do not have the technical ability to project such large fast moving objects into empty space, over such a long distance, that was capable of fooling people from so many angles. It just isn’t possible, we do not have the capability to do it. All this talk of hollograms is a giant waste of time.
Video fakery of so many videos from so many angles is also HIGHLY IMPROBABLE just from a technical standpoint. Considering the non technical issues it becomes obvious that video fakery (I.E. CGI Planes, video composting, etc) is such a remote possibility that it can be ruled out. Let me explain why:
Firstly, in order to ensure that no unfaked videos were ever released which could expose the entire “video fakery” fraud the perps would have to somehow know about, confiscate, fake, and then release ALL the videos captured on 9/11. How could they do that? How could they know about every single person who took out a video camera and started recording in the NYC area? Answer: THEY COULDN’T.
Secondly, how could they confiscate all the videos in the first place without the video owners stopping them, protesting, filing lawsuits, hiding them, making copies, etc? Answer: THEY COULDN’T.
Thirdly, even if the perps were somehow able to obtain all the videos taken on 9/11 how could they get all the “faked” planes to match up across all the videos so that the plane was in the right place, at the right time, at the right speed, and the right size in each? One mistake of perspective, or size, or speed, etc risks exposing the whole fraud. So how could they do it? Answer: THEY COULDN’T.
Talking about video fakery is also a giant waste of time.
May I also point out that this thread has been hijacked and no longer has anything to do with the Gage article.
What ruffadam is claiming here is inconsistent with the content of these videos. But he offers several good reasons why simulating the planes would have been overwhelmingly simpler than attempting to fabricate a host of videos from diverse sources. But unless he believes that the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11, the existence of impossible events as elements of the contents of these videos contradicts his position: since real planes and real videos cannot show impossible events, either the planes are not real or the videos are not real or both. There is no other alternative. And Stephen Brown does an excellent job discussing this on “The Real Deal”:
Did you ever catch my interview with him, who had taken holography at Cambridge University?
FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 2010
Stephen Brown
Exotic 9/11 physics
POSTED BY TOTAL AT 9:03 PM 0 COMMENTS
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-stephen%20brown.mp3
Adam,
You’re right about the thread being yanked off topic. I’ve stopped worrying about it with respect to this one thread because it went off topic only a couple of days after the article came out. I’m content with letting this topic continue on this thread, or on another that could be created at some point.
I’m working on a new piece that I hope to post later today that I believe will provoke some interesting debate about the direction of the 9/11 Truth movement. The subjects of no planes and video fakery will not be allowed to migrate to this new thread. That’s pretty much the best I can do now.
I think the discussion has left a lot to be desired in terms of decorum and repetition, but I think there have been interesting points made. It may well be that anyone who would like to comment on Gage and his past pronouncements will find the new thread a good place because the article is indirectly related.
To those who want to be discussing other subjects than video fakery, I appreciate your patience with the mammoth discussion of the past 10 days or so.
Hi ruffadam,
Another superb commentary from a professional in the field of video.
Understanding this technology, at least the basics is essential. Anyone can use the web to look up information on this like anything else. Before speaking to this issue, one should get a grasp of it – not simply buy into the theories proffered from a point of ignorance.
This “he said – she said” game is indecipherable unless one knows these basics.
ww
Jim Fetzer said: ” you are making many excellent points, which might in the end convince me that these videos were themselves faked using CGIs or compositing, an explanation that I have resisted heretofore only because of the weight of the witness reports, where, as I have said, the more strongly we weigh them, the more evidence of a hologram. I look forward to more posts from you, where you might be able to convince me I am mistaken and that it really was done in the fashion you describe. That certainly cannot be ruled out as one more illustration that, in scientific reasoning, as more evidence and alternative hypotheses becomes available, previously accepted hypotheses may have to be rejected while previously rejected hypotheses may have to be accepted. ”
Dr Fetzer, thank you for your outline of inductive versus deductive logic.
It may be hard to believe, but I have no real interest or desperate urge to try to convince you of _anything_. [Seemingly unlike just about everyone else here :-)]
For ultimately, and no differently from anyone else here, only _you_ are capable of doing that [i.e. convincing yourself].
All I can perhaps do is to question one of those two main underlying assumptions that appear to have lead you to your conclusions to date , and possibly make you a little more aware of the [in my view] over-presumptiveness of that second assumption, and then perhaps cause you to maybe try to question your own assumption as a more impartial/detached observer of your own mental/logical processes- “on the outside looking in” as it were.
To that end I have attempted to point out to you some of the factors [previously listed in my overly long April 25, 2012 3:57 am post] that you appear to have ignored/not checked into, when making your second assumption concerning the authenticity of the videos in question and then going on to further reinforce that assumption via witness statements, before finally reaching your own logically derived [and staunchly defended!] conclusion to date.
Still, even if you become slightly more aware of your own initial assumption to date [i.e. that the Naudet, Herzekhani, Fairbanks “amateur” videos are all genuine] , and that you have [in my opinion] to date not really thoroughly questioned in your own mind before moving on to your eventual conclusion, you may well decide to stick with that assumption, for whatever reason.
You might even attempt to investigate some of the issues I have raised that I believe have a direct bearing on determining more accurately whether or not those videos are real or fakes, but _still_ in the end conclude that those videos are all real- its completely out of my control.
Only you have the power to change that assumption, and before you can do that you have to see it for what it really is, and then to seriously question it, should you think it worth your while.
In the end, [and no differently than for anyone else], your assumptions and the conclusions drawn from them, are your responsibility and yours alone.
Regards, onebornfree
Well, I cited your earlier 22 April post, not to skip over the 25 April post but because it was the first time that you laid out some of these considerations. Listen, if the witnesses are all frauds, if they are liars or phonies or fakes, then I am with you 100%, because your points about framing and all that are significant. I was inclined to believe in either CGIs or video compositing before I took all of these witnesses into account, where it has seemed to me extremely improbable that so many — 500 with reports compiled by The New York Times — would be so wrong for reasons like these that I made a point of tracking down a witness who seemed to me to be impeccable, who turned out to the Scott Forbes. Now if you can give me good reasons to discount what he has to tell us — about the building swallowing up the plane and subsequently coming apart like sand, which I find compelling, then lay it out. That is the question that divides us, where Senor El Once has already suggested that it could be a combination of simulated planes and tweaking the videos before they were broadcast, in which case we could both be partially right and jointly correct.
Craig McKee says: “I’d like to get views on whether people think any of the actual flights crashed anywhere. Maybe we can separate that from what it implies just for the moment. I just want to know whether anyone believes that the flights that allegedly took off with passengers ended up crashing where they are supposed to have.”
For what little its worth, at this time I believe that no planes crashed anywhere, that the all videos showing plane-like images were/are 100% digitally faked on computers, and that a few random plane parts were either planted after the event, or were simply photoshopped into photographs,[ or a combination of the two] .
However, I understand that nobody else here believes anything like the same thing [and I don’t care 🙂 ].
However, it might be worth thinking about and reminding ourselves of the fact that, given the complete uniqueness of every individual in the entire world [uniqueness of values, life experiences, belief systems, tastes etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum] , the fact of the matter is that _no one_ can realistically 100% agree with what anyone else here thinks happened, or did not happen on 9/11.
Which makes all of these arguments over interpretation of scientific principles ultimately pointless. No matter what Sir Isaac Newton, Jim Fetzer or myself might say, some here will remain 100% convinced that aluminum cuts steel. That’s just the way the world is.
So what could we all agree on? Maybe, that 9/11 was an ” inside job”?
_That_, and that alone, would seem to the one stand-alone statement that the most persons here could agree with. Any takers?
You are supposedly ignoring me onebornfree, but you seemed to address all of us here.
“So what could we all agree on? Maybe, that 9/11 was an ” inside job”?”
Yes indeed, that is the bottom line, 9/11 was [and remains] an inside job.
ww
Jim Fetzer says: “Since I have been forthcoming about your inquiries, perhaps you could respond to two of mine:
(1) Have you read “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery’”?
(2) Have you read “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”?”
To answer your questions Dr Fetzer, no I have read neither to date. Regards, onebornfree
Tamborine man says: “Hi onebornfree,
no, i was not referring to the Naudet video at all.
I don’t understand what you mean!!??”
In that case, I have no idea what you meant [in your first post to me] either! 🙂
Regards, onebornfree.
“Totally fake! But you would still believe it!”
Yea….shhuuuur I would…{grin}
Do you know why the contrast is so extreme in this? Do you know why it has such extreme pixelation? Do you understand why it is so lacking in any appreciative detail – even the parts that are taken from ‘official video’?
It begins with poor quality video for that part to begin, things on the web that underwent compression algorithms – then these were transferred to Giff animations. Everything you see here is Giff animations. None of it is real video.
Ace Baker is using cheap consumer quality animation and CAD software to construct this silly crap. These programs have no capability to model and incorporate any physics perimeters into the the CAD models nor the animation frames. This is garbage…and anyone that thinks it looks real has the visual acuity of a bat.
Thanks for another laugh Jim.
ww
Four videos or video clips appear at the end of
“Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, namely,
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/
Totally fake! But you would still believe it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5v_vioaMU&feature=player_embedded
9/11 Fake: Media Make Believe (bee-lie-live)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFqCU4VdFqo&feature=player_embedded
Theory of Ghostplane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc&feature=player_embedded
PROOF ‘PLANE’ WAS HOLOGRAM THAT HIT 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g&feature=player_embedded
Craig has asked if we might at least all be able
to agree on the following four propositions:
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon:
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the Pentagon;
where, even if we may disagree about how it was
done, video fakery by EITHER using simulations
of planes OR altering the videos by CGIs or using
video compositing OR BOTH, we ought to be able
to agree that video fakery of one or another of these
kinds took place. Even hybridrogue1 immediately
acknowledge (1) through (4) when I first spelled out
the meaning of NPT. Can we all agree to this point?
I watched those videos and they are absolutely incredible.
I can agree on point 4 , that flight 175 did not hit the Pentagon.
Aren’t you the clever one. I think he meant South Tower.
I think Wright was pointing out the mistake…in his usual coy fashion.
ww
Yes, I got that.
“the meaning of NPT. Can we all agree to this point?”~Jim Fetzer
Absolutely not.
Agreeing to the proposition that none of the planes identified in the official story as listed, is no excuse for trashing the English language. This is the strongest lesson from Orwell, the drip by drip destruction of words and their meanings.
I suggest all think this over carefully before falling into the trap of the misuse of language in this way.
Why the need for a catchy ‘brand’? Why the insistence on speaking in ‘blurb language’? This is the mode of the TVZombie. This is the ‘short-cut’ thinking style used for ‘persuasion’ not communication, this is part of the PR formula designed by Bernays.
I am not making this as an accusation of Mr. Fetzer, I am just pointing out how careful we must be in our thought constructs. Boxing oneself in a false epistemic frame leads to prefab answers prepared in advance like Happy Meals.
Think about how your thinking is massaged in the paradigm of pop TV culture.
I ask that Mr. Fetzer reconsider his position on these points.
ww
This is a nice example of the irresponsible rubbish that comes from this source. What in the world could he have imagined that “no planes theory” means in relation to 9/11? that there are no planes? that no planes flew on 9/11? that the official account about the planes is mistaken?
Just to show how trivial he has become, let me define “Fetzer’s NPT”, vs other NPTs. Fetzer’s NPT asserts that none of the planes that the official account maintains crashed on 9/11 actually crashed on 9/11. That should not be too difficult even for this guy to understand. Thus it claims:
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Now I have previously explained that, while Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day, where we know that a plane flew toward the Pentagon but swooped over it, and that simulations or fabricated videos or both of Flights 11 and 175 were used in New York, what is the problem?
All this nonsense about Orwell and double-speak is a reflection of his own modus operandi on this thread. When I first explicitly defined “NPT” by means of (1) through (4), hybridrogue1 said, if that was what I meant, then even he agreed! So his silliness at this juncture has no warrant.
Similarly, since Flight 11 was not even in the air that day and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly entering the South Tower, surely we can all agree that one form or another of video fakery involving fake planes or fake videos or both was employed in New York.
Those who take exception ought to declare themselves and explain why they dissent from what, at this point in time, ought to be obvious to everyone who has studied the evidence. Let’s hear from everyone: where do you stand, at this point in time, on Fetzer’s NPT and video fakery?
Those with a single pair of synapses to click together can comprehend my post you refer to Mr. Fetzer.
You and I share a secret understanding don’t we Mr. Fetzer?
Both can tell a practitioner of the craft.
You knew within two exchanges between us on this thread that I had you ID’d.
One of us is freelance, the other is a professional. Aye professor?
Now rather than play with your deck of cards, I have my own to play, and I will explain the next stage in the psyop going down here. And why you are so upset that I am blunting it’s progress with my counter arguments to you.
In a post from this morning I pointed out this next phase is ‘community organizing’ — we shall join together in a series of ‘agreements’, we shall ‘self police’ those agreements. This of course begins with your first attempt here for shared agreement on your terms. Once set in motion it is simple by the numbers from the communitarian playbook, a continual stroking and massaging.
Now, few of the other members are likely to have the background in neurolinguistics to understand what is going on here – so you and I will teach them, as you work your “magic’, and I explain the trick behind it. Agreed? Of course you have no choice in the matter unless you can figure out a way to get rid of me here. Let’s see how long it takes for you to try that gambit again.
ww
“Just to show how trivial he has become, let me define “Fetzer’s NPT”, vs other NPTs. Fetzer’s NPT asserts that none of the planes that the official account maintains crashed on 9/11 actually crashed on 9/11. That should not be too difficult even for this guy to understand.”~Professor F
And just what makes you think I give a damn about “Fetzer’s NPT”?
I already told you what I think of ‘branding’ and the juvenile mindset that is derived by this BS public relations regime. The term is ‘Fetzerian Newspeak’, it is a massage through this medium.
We shall play a game of, ‘Revelation of the Method’. This term is also used in one way to bond the enchanted to what is called “contract” by the high-tech necromancers of the postmodern era.
But I just use it here as a title for a game. In this game, you will apply the method to the audience on this board. I will then reveal the method. It will be fun and learning experience for all. Including you dear sir.
ww
Since hybridrogue1 has declared that he doesn’t give a damn about “Fetzer’s NPT” defined by
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;
then why is he posting here? If he doesn’t care about (1) – (4), why should we care about him?
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Consider me in agreement with “Fetzer’s NPT” where are these flights are defined by the govt with regards to aircraft model, airline, flight manifest, and associated stories (e.g., cellphone calls, heroic passengers, boxcutters):
Consider me also in agreement my Mr. Rogue’s Bernayzion caution regarding being boxed into prefab Happy Meal PR thought constructs. Case in point, Dr. Fetzer wrote earlier a summary of my position:
It is repeated here:
Instead of “simulated planes,” I prefer the phrase “cruise missiles mocked up to look like commercial aircraft.” This data point aligns with eye witnesses seeing something. Repetition on the telly throughout the day would bend the feeble memories of eye witnesses to that of the pixels of the commercial aircraft.
Although I’ve read reports about the military exercises of 9/11 involved insertion and deletion of radar blips, a cruise missile at high enough altitude ought to have enough a radar blip.
Reminds of a “Mission Impossible” episode from the original series. [Hazy recollection] At the very end of some escapade, the people being duping saw some to-be-assassinated character board a helicopter with whirling blades. The people go to the other side of a building. Then they see a same-colored helicopter fly off seemingly in the distance where it explodes horrifically. In reality, the exploding helicopter was a scaled-down model and, owing to its small size, was closer and easier for the clever Jim Phelps crew to launch while saving the character.
Here’s a few nugget of truth that just came back to my attention.
– Lasers are one of many triggers for nano-thermite.
– Many different videos capture a bright flash on the face of the respective tower in a frame or two before the nose of the rendered aircraft enters.
– The WTC had these resident artists, foreigners working on strange things. (Let’s Roll Forums gives all sorts of speculation into what they were doing or what their purpose was.) They did build a contraption that would extend out the window of the building and act as a platform. (One art project supposedly involved a helicopter taking photos of lots of individuals who would step out naked onto the platform.) At any rate, such a platform would also give them access to the aluminum clad building face. Thus, my hypothesis was that this would be an opportunity to insert/paint their explosive nano-thermite cartoon outlines of a plane on the tower’s face.
– A laser on the cruise missile could flash milli-seconds before impact to start the nano-thermite outline ignition.
– A laser mounted on some other building could both direct the cruise missile to its target as well as ignite the nano-thermite when the cruise missile got close.
– The laser flash would also serve as a synch-pop to help align all versions of the video when inserting pixel versions of a commercial plane to mask the missile.
I recognize that a real plane could also be outfitted with such a laser like a pod underneath, such that its laser would ignite the nano-thermite in time for its fuselage and wings to plow through it. I view this as less likely than a cruise missile, because the angle of the wings of a real plane would be harder to get aligned with the artists’ nano-thermite work. A cruise missile only has to be on target with the center.
P.S. To Mr. Rogue, I hope to get some work done this week, so maybe you should deal me out of your game.
To Mr. Roberts, please be a dear and make your detailed argument about NPT with the assistance of extraterrestrial technology and mentioned in your posting of April 29, 2012 at 5:24 pm. Don’t shy away from extrapolating to the energies needed to pulverize the tower. In for a penny, in for a pound.
The next stage in this psyop is what is known as “community organizing”. This is a technique developed by Atzioni in his writings on “Communitarianism” {a clever rebranding of communism, adding 7 extra letters to confuse the gullible}.
I advise all to look up these terms and Atzioni, to get a grasp on what this new twist in the game here is all about.
ww
Since we are discussing the lexicon of NPT and its many possible epistemic frames, I would like to propose that NPT could also, in addition to all the other possible definitions proposed, refer to extraterrestrial technology.
One thing I am baffled by is the fact that the NPT folks have apparently not considered extraterrestrial technology through the process of elimination to explain the “impossible” feats observed in NY on 9/11 as much more plausible than the Sophisticated Hologram Theory. The logic as proposed by the NPT folks’ premier scholar goes as follows: The premises used for construction of this Sophisticated Hologram conclusion are that 1) since real planes and real videos cannot show impossible events and 2) the fact that there were too many witnesses who saw and too many videos that captured what appeared to be real planes for them all to be lying or fake, therefore 3) something must have been projected into the sky simulating real planes – that being some sort of unknown advanced technology that can project/simulate aircraft via the clear sky.
Even setting aside for the moment the presumption of both of the premises, which has already been debated so thoroughly that a dead horse has been beaten into the ground, this “sophisticated” hologram conclusion is such an incredibly weak theory, both logically and scientifically, for at least 2 reasons: 1) no known technology exists that can project holograms at such a distance, and in clear air without a medium such as fog or mist, as well as produce solid shadows in a bright sunny day and a host of other effects observed, and 2) the chance of the charade being exposed was almost certain, with people being able to see through the holograms whenever it passed in front of the sun or some other bright background/object, or if something had gotten in between the projector and the projected images, etc.
No one with a background in the scientific method would propose such an illogical, improbable theory.
The extraterrestrial technology theory, however, is way more reasonable. Since it is widely known that extraterrestrial craft, or ‘UFOs” as they are more popularly referred to, can fly at any speed and perform any acrobatic feat possible, as well as shape shift and produce an unlimited array of special effects, disappear and reappear at will, etc., this would have been a much more logical and scientific theory to arrive at through the professor’s rock solid “process of elimination” system of logic.
I really like your theory here Keenan,
I actually proposed that the Martians did it several posts back. Senor noted that such a brilliant concept had actually already been concieved by some fringe genius on the edges of the truth movement.
Alas, beat to the punch I decided to go with my inherent rational search for answers.
I dabbled in the idea that it was some jinn from a lamp in Arabia that had been found. Of course jinn are capable of any magic one can even imagine – imagine that – I did…but then there is the possiblilty of a fleet of magic carpets and super scimitars…the psychic rays of raging oysters scooped up in hurricane Erin…ah the possibilities are endless…ones logic a and sanity are put in the closet.
Thanks for the post, it was a nice break from the ‘sanity’ from some on this board.
ww
By the way Jim, I read your, ‘Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo’.
It was a hoot. You certainly have a “way with words”. I can’t wait to read this one:
‘Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of HybridRogue1’.
I’m sure you will enjoy my forthcoming:
‘Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Jim Fetzer’.
‘Till then we gather our ammunition, aye el topo?
ww
I’m sure you will enjoy my forthcoming:
‘Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Jim Fetzer’.
Which is now available under a new title at this link:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/
\\][//
We all know your agenda, WW, so it is unsurprising that you continue to attack me. For those who care about 9/11 Truth, as this guy does not, here is my latest presentation about 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEI9KzaE0zk&feature=youtu.be
Had I thought about it at the time, there is a strong case for hybridrogue1 as Number 11:
“Top Ten 9/11 Cons: ‘Fraud Vitiates Everything’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/21/top-ten-911-cons-fraud-vitiates-everything-fve/
Imagine my surprise to be notified of these current comments by “the professor”.
My favorite is his comment as to my being ranked Number 11 of his list of Top Ten 9/11 Cons. Quite a complement considering the company I am thrown in with.
>> “Jones also advocates an inadequate mode of scientific reasoning, which means that the procedures he endorses as “scientific” are not those that properly qualify.”~Fetzer
A charlatan like Fetzer accusing Steven Jones of not being scientific is a real hoot!
\\][//
Well, might as well throw in another comment here at the bottom of the thread which is tangentially related to this thread, since the issue with Richard Gage and the Pentagon is about more than whether or not he believes the plane flew into or over the building. It has to also do with the dastardly moderators (infiltrators imo) at 911blogger who purged many good people, not for violating rules, but for simply promoting a certain piece or evidence or point of view.
I today observed an interesting comment at 911blogger from another person who seems to have caught on to the pattern of infiltration and corruption. Look at what “Joe” says:
“there is a bloc here at 911blogger…
who maintain the OBL assassination happened as reported by MSM.
Watch for them.
I do not trust them.”
He is referring of course to people like SnowCrash, Jeff Hill, etc., the very same people who are now calling AE frauds and have long promoted the OCT at the Pentagon.
I wonder if Joe’s been banned or suspended yet?
“who maintain the OBL assassination happened as reported by MSM.”
That is remarkable…as this was one of the most transparent psyops in recent times. Hah, they have a TV special on this now or yesterday…my mom watches this crap and believes it. She tells me this morning that they showed the hit right there on TV…Lol I said to her, “Mom, that was an animation – a very ‘gameboy’ unrealistic animation…I can’t believe you think that is real”…well this really pissed her off. I said to her that this was just pure propaganda. Useless, nothing sinks in to TVZombies.
And so conveniently dead now the whole Seal Team 6…”dead men tell no tales”…yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.
So doesn’t this ‘snowcrash’ have a name? Didn’t someone say who he was here already?
Wow, Blogger seems to have suffered utter infiltration. I followed it for a time a few years ago, it had some good stuff on it. The Web Spooks are everywhere these days. Even one under my own bed at this very moment…el Topo. Hah.
Thanks for the update on the orange crate, lemons and all.
ww
An issue at last on which we can agree:
US fabricated raid on bin Laden compound in Pakistan: Political analyst
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/238468.html
I think this post flew under the radar…
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4975
The alleged holographic technology was impressive for displaying static images but primitive with respect to projecting an aircraft travelling at over 700fps.
Please read.
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
The more I review Holograms (in part thanks to your postings), the more I’m inclined to be in your camp and that the holography technology was more than one slice short now, as well as in 2001.
I’m still keeping an open mind. But nothing i’ve read has me promoting holograms on 9/11.
Senor El Once, I have taken your earlier post, which I found fascinating, to endorse the use of a cruise missile, which could have been cloaked with a hologram to more closely resemble a 767. I also believe that an even simpler version of the points you report there (without identifying the source) would be that the flash at impact itself might have been the trigger to ignite the thermite that could have been painted on the outside of the building to create those “cookie-cutter” cut outs. I certainly hope you are not back-tracking on some brilliant points that were made there.
@Senor el once
Thanks for checking my post out. I had mistakenly believed that Strontium Barium Niobate was a chemical that created a screen to display the hologram but it’s actually the crystal used to store the static image which itself requires very specific angles to refract the light to project it.
@Jim
Jim, have you read the same post Mr Once is discussing? The proposed “solid” hologram technology in question cannot at any stretch of the imagination project an object in motion. Much less project an object travelling at over 700fps over a distance of over 7000ft. Even more improbable given the limitations of the alleged technology, is the proposed “cloaking” of a cruise missile.
Whatever the source, Senior El Once has posted some of the most brilliant observations about video fakery that I have ever read. Congratulations, my friend! This is fantastic work and, in my opinion, holds the key to explaining the presence of nanothermite chips in the dust and how they could have created those cookie-cutter cut outs in the sides of the North and South Tower so fast:
“Here’s a few nugget of truth that just came back to my attention.
– Lasers are one of many triggers for nano-thermite.
– Many different videos capture a bright flash on the face of the respective tower in a frame or two before the nose of the rendered aircraft enters.
– The WTC had these resident artists, foreigners working on strange things. (Let’s Roll Forums gives all sorts of speculation into what they were doing or what their purpose was.) They did build a contraption that would extend out the window of the building and act as a platform. (One art project supposedly involved a helicopter taking photos of lots of individuals who would step out naked onto the platform.) At any rate, such a platform would also give them access to the aluminum clad building face. Thus, my hypothesis was that this would be an opportunity to insert/paint their explosive nano-thermite cartoon outlines of a plane on the tower’s face.
– A laser on the cruise missile could flash milli-seconds before impact to start the nano-thermite outline ignition.
– A laser mounted on some other building could both direct the cruise missile to its target as well as ignite the nano-thermite when the cruise missile got close.
– The laser flash would also serve as a synch-pop to help align all versions of the video when inserting pixel versions of a commercial plane to mask the missile.
I recognize that a real plane could also be outfitted with such a laser like a pod underneath, such that its laser would ignite the nano-thermite in time for its fuselage and wings to plow through it. I view this as less likely than a cruise missile, because the angle of the wings of a real plane would be harder to get aligned with the artists’ nano-thermite work. A cruise missile only has to be on target with the center.”
After reading this, I am now more open-minded about the possible use of a cruise missile which could have been cloaked with a hologram than before. I would therefore welcome your thoughts about the North Tower hit (the Naudet Brothers footage) and whether you believe it was the same scenario, because what we see in these images looks nothing like a plane, not even remotely.
QUOTE
onesliceshort says:
April 29, 2012 at 7:03 pm
“you, I have read this piece and, having actually written it, can assert that it demonstrates that Rob Balsamo’s views are inconsistent and incoherent. It does not suggest he is paranoid.”
Ha!
No Jim, I wasn’t referring to Rob. I was referring to the tone of your blog. Which I did read.
If the tone wasn’t paranoia inducing, how do you explain the comments that followed, some of which pointed to posters now looking at Rob and his forum with “suspicion”?
END QUOTE
There was nothing wrong with the “tone” of the article, which was objective and dispassionate. I explain why Balsamo’s position is inconsistent in agreeing with Pilots finding that Flight 175 was in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time and yet insisting that video fakery did not take place in New York, where I had explicitly defined to include both the use of a fake plane or altered videos.
After all, if Flight 175 WAS over PITTSBURGH, then how can video fakery NOT HAVE OCCURRED IN NEW YORK?) and rejecting NPT when Pilots have offered substantial proof that the plane that approached the Pentagon was not Flight 77; no one believes that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville; and, since 175 was over Pittsburgh, by his own studies, it cannot have hit the South Tower.
So unless Rob believes that Flight 11, which was not even scheduled to fly, actually hit the North Tower, he actually accepts the four tenets that define NPT. So his position is not only inconsistent by accepting propositions as both true and false at the same time (about Flight 175) but incoherent in rejecting obvious consequences that follow from his own beliefs (about NPT and video fakery).
And when he categorically states, “I would like to make it clear that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse the No Plane Theory nor the article mentioned in the OP. I personally have not read the article in detail, nor do I intend to. People are free to make their own choices”. – Rob Balsamo”, he implies Pilots is not a rational organization or a scientific society but one dominated by dogmas.
After all, in science, conclusions are accepted only in a tentative and fallible fashion, which means that they may have to be revised on the basis of new evidence or new alternatives, which Balsamo is rejecting categorically. Indeed, elsewhere he has stated that PILOTS WILL NEVER ENDORSE NPT OR VIDEO FAKERY, which is simply absurd since they both follow from Pilots own findings.
That some students of 9/11 have found this to be “suspicious” is hardly surprising. That is a well-founded response to the irrationality of Rob Balsamo, which I document in that article. That you are now touting the “tone” of the article and not the evidence I present or the reasoning that I base upon it raises questions about why you are attempting to defend Balsamo’s indefensible views.
As for the state of hologram technology, unless you have listened to Stephen Brown’s interview, you are again in the perverse position of commenting on an article or an interview that you openly admitted you had not read as recently as yesterday and apparently have never listened to as late as today. Plus there are variations on the hologram theme: see my response to Senor El Once.
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
To view a traditional movie, you have a projector through which film runs, light sent through the film, and a surface some distance away on which the image is displayed. The observer is typically at a distance from the surface, either in front of or behind the projector.
Much of holography turns this around. There doesn’t have to be a projector; assume the observer is in the same location; the surface where the image is to be displayed (possibly with the illusion of the depicted image being in front of the surface) is holographic film, holographic concave mirror, etc. The positioning is: observer, perceived holographic image, and holographic medium.
The point is that the holographic media needs to be there as a backdrop or surface. This is a major limitation.
I saw a cool off-shoot of this. It has a mirror angled at 45 degrees that is spun at about 20 Hertz. Computer controlled laser light is directed from above into the mirror. The observer’s view angle is perpendicular to the laser. Makes a pretty cool rendering.
Dr. Fetzer writes:
I would like to be open-minded about this as well, but I have yet to find anything to suggest that a hologram could be projected out into the air (like a Bat-Signal) without something — a surface, a mirror, a cloud, a smoke trail — for it to be rendered on. Hurricane Erin sucked away the clouds and sucked the smoke a certain direction. For all of the different angles and distances that we have for the captured image of the aircraft, the smoke trail could not have been used and achieved correlated images.
You have regularly pointed me to your interview with Stephen Brown on August 27, 2010 to support your belief that holograms. The MP3 always seemed to crap out at a point between the 1/3 and 1/2 mark when the discussion was about lasers and masers. The almost half that I listened to was about exotic weapons. If there was anything about holograms in that interview, it was in the second half that I can’t get to.
What else do you have to support holograms usage on 9/11?
Research into holograms is fascinating.
The only problem: nothing I’m discovering suggests that holograms now (or on 9/11) could be projected, much less cloak a cruise missile with wings.
Mr. Fetzer,
As you seem to have the uncanny habit of cherry picking just those posts you can play word games with, and leave all the meat and potatoes of countless substantial arguments made against your “physics” unattended;
How about a simple straight forward answer to this one, which I have asked several times now:
I am asking why you are so intent on erasing all the Best Evidence for the WTC portion of 9/11.
With the lack of all the physical evidence from the unlawfully scrubbed crime scene, the best evidence for the event at WTC is the huge volume of imagery both video and still pics.
Why do you wish to blind us to the entirety of the event?
This question also applies to all of those pushing this video fakery nonsense, like the Shack cult, and offshoots of that.
The intent here seems clear enough to me.
ww
Well, if I have ignored it, that would be because it is false. This is another of your practices, which consists of begging the question in the form of a question: “Why to you wish to blind us to the entirety of the event?” is a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type of question. The latter assumes that you have been beating your wife; the former, that I am “out to blind us to the entirety of the event”, which is simply absurd. With the possible exception of David Ray Griffin, I have published on more aspects of 9/11 than anyone else I know, which you would know if you had done some research. Just google “Jim Fetzer, 9/11”, if you doubt it. That’s easy enough to do. You find it easier to advance faulty analogies, straw men, equivocations, and biased evidence.
I have a list of “Resources on 9/11” that includes dozens and dozens of articles of mine, not to mention hundreds and hundreds of radio and TV interviews. I have been flown around the world to make appearances on television and at international conferences. Anyone who wants to see for themselves that this guy is making this up should visit http://911scholars.org and take a look at some of the interviews and presentations archived there. A nice simple example refuting his claim is “New 9/11 Photos Released”, where I use a series of photographs to demonstrate that the Twin Towers did not collapse: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html
I believe that most of the photographs from 9/11 are authentic, but that some of them are fake.
A nice illustration of the breadth of my work is “False Flag Terrorism and the Rise of the Global Police State” (3 September 2011), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEzoBKAkzmU And from my research on JFK, I learned that separating the authentic from the inauthentic evidence is the key to sorting things out. Because of my collaborative efforts with the most highly qualified individuals to ever study that event, we found that the autopsy X-rays had been “patched”, that another brain had been substituted for that of JFK, and that the Zapruder home movie of the assassination had been revised to remove a limo stop and alter the appearance of the wounds. See “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today” (22 November 2011), http://noliesradio.org/archives/40500 If we had not made those discoveries, it might still be debatable whether the government was involved.
What astonishes me is that you would imply that contrived crash sites and fake videos are some of the “the best evidence” for what happened at the WTC. Notice that you again beg the question by assuming that they are authentic, when they obviously are not. What I have realized in doing more research on all four crash sites is that the evidence that they were fabricated is overwhelming and provides the simplest and most powerful proof that this was indeed “an inside job”. What they do function as “best evidence” for is that the events of 9/11 were contrived and that 3,000 Americans died during a fabricated attack to promote a political agenda. And that you use a wide variety of fallacies to argue to the contrary has revealed to me that you are not a truth seeker but have an agenda of your own, which, I am sorry to say, has convinced me you are a charlatan and a fraud.
“Well, if I have ignored it, that would be because it is false.”~Fetzer
>So all the arguments we have made against your false claims would better well have been left with silence? This is simply another evasion tactic meant to yet again avoid those issues you continue to ignore.
“Why to you wish to blind us to the entirety of the event?” is a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type of question.”~JF
>>But then again it is entirely proper to ask a wife beater if he has stopped beating his wife.
“I believe that most of the photographs from 9/11 are authentic, but that some of them are fake.”~JF
>>That’s fair enough, and I accept that. So do you believe that the video and the global destruction of the towers are authentic or animations as the Shack cult asserts?
“What astonishes me is that you would imply that contrived crash sites and fake videos are some of the “the best evidence” for what happened at the WTC.”~JF
>>I parsed between the WTC event specifically to set that aside from the Shanksville event… but again, that is a physically staged deception and not one relying of video fakery. It may have had some photoshopping in some of the stills, but over all it was the stage dressing and not photo trickery.
You continue to push that there are substantial fake videos. I have argued against your visual acuity and technical ignorance on this issue. So you are the one making assertions that these are proven fakes, and proceed to make arguments from there as if your opinion is final on that and we should follow the rest of the argument based on that.
_________________
Now as per your long legend as a conspiracy researcher; I will simply note here the concept of sheep dipping. For sheep dipping a mole, a genuine back story must be developed to ingratiate the operative with those he will then attempt to massage and lead off into divisions among themselves, into wild goose hunts etc.
At times a mole is chosen in a very unpleasant manner, and although this person may resist, there are carrots and sticks…you know, such as professional advancement verses blackmail based on actual sins or framing.
For very deep cover moles they will arise as some of the governments most effective critics, and will be assisted in all manner of ways to make them appear effective, such as supplying ‘limited hangout’ details to be used as a “new discovery” in a old famous case.
I am not to the point that I would be certain enough to accuse that these are applicable to you Jim. But I am suspicious that this could be the case, and I have not made that a secret.
ww
You continue to frame me as dishonest in referring to the issue of my posting of the seemingly contradictory statements you made. However the history of this issue is clear on this points that it was an honest mistake on my part:
> The manner in which these statements appeared on the board left no certain indication that they were contextually removed.
> After you responded…so much later with your excuse, it seemed to me a possible fabrication, I did yet seek some exculpatory verification from OSS, who I understood was in on those debates at “Pilots”. At that time promising an apology should I find that were the case.
>Finally you presented what I believe was clear evidence. At which point I immediately offered you my apology — for which you were entirely ungrateful, snatching it up like a thief and snarling yet still.
Dishonesty is defined as speaking falsely with ill intent and foreknowledge of the falsity of the claim made. It is verifiable that mine was an innocent mistake, For you to now persistently belabor this utterly false characterization of this issue is in fact, a dishonest effort on your part.
I hereby retract my apology while retaining the responsibility for being wrong. I do not see you as having the integrity to deserve an apology.
ww
hybridrogue1,
A comment you sent at 11:08 p.m. yesterday has not been approved, and I’m sure you can figure out why. I felt it crossed the line in terms of name calling. Jim, you are walking very close to that line as well. I get that you both think the other is being dishonest, but can we try to stick to showing why someone is being disingenuous without resorting to calling them names? I fear our recent improvement in decorum is slipping away fast. Thank you.
Jim Fetzer says:
April 29, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Since hybridrogue1 has declared that he doesn’t give a damn about “Fetzer’s NPT” defined by
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;
then why is he posting here? If he doesn’t care about (1) – (4), why should we care about him?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim, You have totally misinterpreted my meanings, and are again addressing your interpretation, rather than what I actually said.
For you to take my rejection of your application for a trademark and logo for a brand, and turn it into this twisted piece of pure spun PR is so blatant and disingenuous that it’s hard to believe you would give me the opportunity to show once how disingenuous and convoluted your arguments are .
You know very well that I am deeply into the issues of both towers and the whole crime scene. What I have rejected is your jejune and inaccurate labeling. I described just what makes it inaccurate as well – just as I am now describing how this post I speak to is the work of a professional propagandist.
ww
Thank you for the quick re-post Craig.
It is difficult when one finds ones own words twisted into such a mangle and used as a bludgeon.
There actually seemed to me that very choice I referred to in the comment I edited out. But I continue to trust your judgement to what will and will not be posted on your own site.
ww
This posted at Pilots –
“I have been informed of some false arguments and logical fallicies still being made by Dennis Cimino and his messenger boy Fetzer… so I’ll just clear this up real quick here for anyone who needs it for reference.
I find it hilarious that Jim Fetzer is attempting to use videos in which he claims are fake, in order to prove that the aircraft do not appear to be modified. If the videos are fake according to Fetzer, how can he possibly use them as proof to determine type aircraft or rule out the possibility of any type of internal modification on the actual aircraft witnessed by hundreds in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and across the river in Jersey?
Clearly Cimino is also not familiar with how aircraft can be modified without any apparent external evidence of modification. Aircraft Accident Investigators don’t use blurry youtube videos to determine aircraft type and performance, and they certainly wouldn’t use videos in which they felt were fake. Cimino is really joking when he uses videos in which he feels are fake, to determine aircraft type and modification… right? He must be joking, not even Dennis would make such absurd claims. At least, I hope he wouldn’t.
As any real Aircraft Accident Investigator, or Aeronautical Engineer will tell you Jim… Such modification can only be detected through inspecting the numerous parts recovered from lower Manhattan. Engine cowls, internal engine components, internal wing components, opening wing panels, close control surface inspection.. .etc.
As I explained elsewhere, using a real airplane, it doesn’t take much to increase aircraft performance significantly, without any changes to external aircraft appearance.
The best part is that Jim Fetzer thinks that the videos “represent Flight 175 and since Flight 175 was in western PA according to ACARS, it could not have been in NYC, therefore the videos must be fake!”. (paraphrased)
Well no Jim, the videos represent an aircraft painted in United colors. Your leap in logic is astounding given the credentials you claim to have. There is nothing in the videos which ‘represent’ or provide POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION that it was in fact United Flight 175.
Using your logic, every single 767 painted in United Colors is “Flight 175″. Psst Jim, I’ll let you in on a secret that most of the world already knows, you cannot determine a Flight Number from a blurry youtube video. lol
Fetzer, you used to teach critical thinking and logic? Really? Your students should ask for a refund.
Jim, why doesn’t the FAA Airman database have Dennis Cimino listed as holding a Flight Engineer Certificate as required for the Second Officer position claimed in his credentials posted to your articles? Why wasn’t Dennis Cimino listed as being a Second Officer when he was listed as a Core Member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth?
I’ll tell you why, it is because Dennis is lying to you.
Hope this helps for those of you who come across such absurd arguments made by Messenger Boy Fetzer.”
Source – http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804735
Does anyone think that Rob Balsamo has accurately presented my positions, even remotely?
(1) I am supposed to be Dennis’s “messenger boy”; but I am the one prominent in the truth movement, not Dennis; and I invited him to collaborate with me on several articles, not the other way around. How could I possibly qualify as “Dennis Cimino’s ‘messenger boy'”?
(2) He suggests that I don’t know the difference between a Flight number and a tail number, when there is no reason to think any such thing: I distinguish between Flight 175, which Pilots has shown was over Pittsburgh at the time, and the “plane” allegedly hitting the South Tower;
(3) Indeed, since Pilots has established that Flight 175 WAS over Pittsburgh at the time, how can the co-founded or Pilots maintain that “no video fakery” was taking place in New York, when it is impossible that video fakery NOT have been taking place, since Flight 175 was not even there;
(4) He quotes out of context, “The best part is that Jim Fetzer thinks that the videos ‘represent Flight 175 and since Flight 175 was in western PA according to ACARS, it could not have been in NYC, therefore the videos must be fake!’ (paraphrased)”, which deliberately omits the beginning.
(5) These videos have been PRESENTED as though they “represent Flight 175 and since Flight 175 was in western PA according to ACARS, it could not have been in NYC, therefore the videos must be fake!” By omitting that they have been PRESENTED that way, he distorts what I said.
Reading this, I am now inclined to believe there may be a simpler explanation for Rob Balsamo’s inconsistent and incoherent positions, which I have spelled out in excruciating detail in “Reason and Rationalty in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsaomo”, which is he is just not very bright.
How can he consistently maintain BOTH that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh at the same time “the plane” was entering the South Tower AND ALSO deny that video fakery has to have taken place, since “the plane” cannot possibly be Flight 175, which has nothing to do with tail numbers.
Since I explained during the tread on Pilots that “video fakery” encompasses any use of videos to convey a false impression–no matter whether it was done by fake planes or by altering the video tapes themselves–his position is incoherent. His views cannot possibly be true together.
Dennis has suggested that some of those posting here don’t have enough flight experience to be aware of the limitations of aircraft modification, which John Lear addressed in his affidavit for a lawsuit that is archived at http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-on-the
Balsamo not only discounts what Dennis and John have explained about the problems with the hypthesis of a “special plane” but ignores the multiple proofs I have presented that no real plane, no matter how “special”, could perform the feats that “the plane” shown in these videos displays.
Someone as naive about physics, the problems with aircraft modification, and the conditions for rational belief as Rob Balsamo, which are substantiated in this specific post, is going to have a difficult time being taken seriously by anyone who has a firm grasp of the principles of reasoning.
“Does anyone think that Rob Balsamo has accurately presented my positions, even remotely?”
Simple answer yes, I think Balsamo has accurately presented your positions.
Your summation reads:
“Balsamo not only discounts what Dennis and John have explained about the problems with the hypthesis of a “special plane” but ignores the multiple proofs I have presented that no real plane, no matter how “special”, could perform the feats that “the plane” shown in these videos displays.”
>> Dennis is suspect for the reasons already put here. Who do you mean by John? If you speak to Lear, he has already admitted that the 767 itself can indeed fly faster at these lower altitudes in his affidavit to the court.
“Someone as naive about physics, the problems with aircraft modification, and the conditions for rational belief as Rob Balsamo, which are substantiated in this specific post, is going to have a difficult time being taken seriously by anyone who has a firm grasp of the principles of reasoning.”~JF
On the point of physics, you have not yourself shown adequacy to this subject – as has been the major complaint of several of us on this board. This is also true of your sense of argumentum, which we have also addressed at length.
As to your visual acuity and ignorance to the topic of photography and photo analysis – this too has been addressed in considerable detail.
ww
I have found it rather fascinating to compare Dr. Jim Fetzer’s and Dr. Judy Wood’s methods of logic and “scientific” reasoning and debating. After watching the following interview that Dr. Greg Jenkins did with Dr. Judy Wood, can anybody spot the methodological similarities between Dr. Fetzer and Dr. wood?
Additionally, notice the similarities in the way that Dr. Judy Wood arrived at her DEW (Directed Energy Weapon) Theory to explain the alleged vaporized/dustified effects of the WTC structure and the way Dr. Jim Fetzer arrived at his Sophisticated Hologram Theory to explain the alleged violation of physics in the way the videos show planes crashing into the WTC towers insofar as the kind of logical and scientific approach taken.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-558096240694803017&hl=en&fs=true
By the way, my favorite quote of Judy Wood from that interview is this one:
This was in response to Dr. Greg Jenkins asking, “I’m wondering, I can’t fathom why you don’t see falling debris in that picture.”
Bonus point for anybody who can list all of the logical fallacies and un-scientific methods that both Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood typically employ.
Triple bonus points for those objective thinkers who acknowledge nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood’s textbook. The prerequisite for this endeavor is having access to her textbook and cracking it open to read it. (And thus, Mr. HybridRogue doesn’t qualify to make knowledgeable comments, and Mr. Roberts probably doesn’t either.)
Dr. Wood’s textbook is a worthy addition to any non-troll’s 9/11 library even when and if it is determined that a chapter or two are disinformation.
Each chapter pretty much stands on its own. Few conclusions are drawn, and very little connecting of chapters is presented. This is both its strength and weakness.
My humble opinion on this subject is presented in the discussion under When did they know?….
Before Mr. Roberts goes too far into the Dr. Wood’s subject in this thread, he should (a) familiarize himself with that thread and (b) probably take this discussion there.
Just let me say this Senor, it has been a long time now since I have taken anything you have to say as worthy of consideration.
It might be best that your continual references about and to me be abandoned. I simply don’t think you should be taken serious.
This continuous (But for HybridRogue) technique is not necessary to your points, and might be taken as a form of harassment. As I said, you can harass me, but it will just mung up the thread because I will harass you back and it will all be wasted time and space here.
So give this game up now and leave it as it is.
ww
Señor, some observations:
1) Your response completely evaded and ignored the subject matter and questions of my post
2) You chose to immediately subject shift into a discussion of Dr. Wood’s textbook, which requires that anybody participating in such discussion possess a copy of said textbook, and then noted that this disqualifies Mr. HybridRogue and probably myself from “make\ing knowledgeable comments”
3) It is not very reasonable to assert that a book that (even you admit) has already been found to be discredited and containing disinformation would be “a worthy addition to any non-troll’s 9/11 library”,
4) You seem to have a peculiar need to search for “nuggets of truth” from non-credible sources, which, to most people is a quite a pointless exercise and is the mark of someone with jumbled thinking.
5) It’s kind of hilarious that you are the one attempting to initiate this subject shift into discussion of Judy Wood’s textbook, and then warn me that before I take this discussion too far into this subject, I should probably take this discussion to a different thread.
6) Please don’t take this comment as an invitation to start another round-and-round chasing your tale with word games and trivial pursuits that nobody cares about but yourself, as I will not be following you on the chase.
7) If, on the other hand, you would like to respond to the original subject matter of my post the questions I posed, which were, “can anybody spot the methodological similarities between Dr. Fetzer and Dr. wood?” and “Who can list all of the logical fallacies and un-scientific methods that both Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood typically employ?”, then I will gladly continue the discussion with you.
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
Your April 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm posting belonged under Mr. Roberts April 30, 2012 at 5:23 am posting and not as a top-level thread item.
Although this is a point of annoyance for me, it does reflect on a certain level a purposely misusing of the REPLY mechanisms on your part. This is one data point in addition to the data point of what the rough stats show for the 751 comments (at time of writing):
hybridrogue1 says: 227 ± 5 (30%)
Jim Fetzer says: 166 ± 5 (22%)
Craig McKee says: 67 ± 3 (8.9%)
OneSliceShort says: 64 ± 3 (8.5%)
keenanroberts says: 47 ± 3 (6%)
Señor El Once says: 30 (4%)
[The counting errors were introduced by me, because I was using the phrase “hybridrogue1 says:” (for example) in my Ctrl+F searching, and these sometimes appeared within other people’s postings that I didn’t always spot.]
A further data point is when your write:
How easy you get tripped up. I guess the following list represents examples of you not taking any of the ~30 postings that I wrote as being worthy of consideration. I love how the date stamps reflects how dreadfully long that has been.
– April 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm
– April 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm
– April 24, 2012 at 9:43 pm
– April 26, 2012 at 12:06 am
– April 27, 2012 at 9:19 pm
– April 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm
– April 27, 2012 at 10:44 pm
– April 28, 2012 at 5:54 pm
– April 29, 2012 at 2:43 am
– April 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm
I wrote:
The reason I mentioned your name is to cut you off at the pass with regards to any expert opinion you might render with regards to Dr. Wood’s textbook: you don’t have it, ain’t gonna get it, and ain’t gonna read it for no nuggets of truth neither.
Which is most curious when you yourself wrote on April 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm:
Putting those into my venacular, you’ve been cherry-picking and data mining for nuggets of truth those information sources that you don’t agree with 100%, yet you repeatedly to this day fail the same test of your objectivity on the Dr. Wood front. What a hypocrite!
For the record, Dr. Wood has very little in her textbook that your or I will be able to find fault with… Until Mr. Shack & crew steps up to the plate and definitively identifies the tainted imagery that made it into her tome and duped her analysis. She doesn’t even make direct statements or conclusions. Where we’ll find fault is in the inference that certain science or technology were applicable to 9/11. [For example, I think her dismissal of hot-spots is based on faulty govt information; I think that neither Hutchison Effects nor Tesla free-energy were involved; and I think that the destruction of each building needs to be considered individually, because space-beams do not apply to the towers, but could potentially apply to the cylindrical bore holes in WTC-5 or the crater in WTC-6.]
Ah yes, but the agenda of your little buddy is laid out, and you felt compelled to write not one, but two dismissive postings within 40 minutes (one at a top-level, no less). Could you be even more transparent? And this on top of the ring-around-the-rosey debate you had with Dr. Fetzer for the majority of your ~227 postings (so far).
You wrote:
Evidence, my dear agent friend. Evidence. Her textbook and website are teaming with evidence that few even attempt addressing in their weak theories, like the butchered sacred cow of super duper nano-thermite. More so than any conclusions or argumentation she makes (or that you think she makes), the evidence is there and needs to be addressed.
You can stick with your premise:
But objectively, Dr. Wood’s textbook needs the same opportunity to come up with a percentage, no matter how small, that you do agree with. Nuggets of truth. Nuggets of truth.
Dear Mr. Roberts,
Whatever happened to your pledge:
This is like the third time you’ve proven the value of your word, and it ain’t much. And now, let’s play the game of torching your strawmen.
No, it did not. Your last sentence was giving out bonus points for logical fallacies and un-scientific methods that both Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood employ. My first sentence was giving out triple those bonus points for acknowledging nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood’s textbook.
You were the one bringing up Dr. Wood and supposedly the logical fallacies and un-scientific methods that she employs. Well, gee, if that were the case, it ought to evident in the most recent and up-to-date publication from Dr. Wood (that I am aware of), namely, her textbook.
Yes, of course, I have been and am making it a requirement that participants possess a copy of her textbook before giving their book reviews, because I deplore to no end book reports made from the high & mighty lofty position of never having cracked it open. Seems only objective and fair to make this requirement. And you can expect that I will thump you over the head with my copy of her textbook until you do.
Tell you what, though. If you can find a Cliff Notes version of her textbook that gives the good, bad, and ugly by chapter (and assuming it agrees with what your opinion would be of her textbook if you would have read it), then you can reference that. If it doesn’t go chapter-by-chapter and doesn’t give ugly, bad, and good, you can imagine the thumping I’ll continue to give you.
I admit to no such thing! It hasn’t been discredited, not in the least, and I’ve given many reasons why: it stems from the crafty way in which it was written.
My premise is that ALL information about 9/11 is disinformation. Let that sink in. There isn’t a single source of information on 9/11 that hasn’t been bent by some form of disinformation, even those things that we all take for granted, like the validity of 9/11 imagery and the wonderous powers of super duper nano-thermite.
Ergo, all sources of 9/11 information must be mined for nuggets of truth.
Because you have been proven a troll whose word can’t be trusted (just in your interactions with me alone), then you will not find Dr. Wood’s textbook a worthy addition to your 9/11 library.
See my answer to #3 with regards to the voracity of ANY source of 9/11 information. Ain’t a single one that doesn’t have errors or can be relied upon 100%. Thus, you’re already trained to look for nuggets of truth. The issue might be that as you go into sources that someone has told you (not necessarily you discovering for yourself) was non-credible on certain points, those nuggets of truth might be spaced further apart with disinformation nuggets.
Mr. HybridRogue has given you the same advice, and he’s the skipper to your Gilligan, right?
Should you have something noteworthy to bring up about Dr. Wood on this other thread and it is response to something I posted, I’ll make that the exception to my promise of holding you to your promise of not engaging me, okay?
Let me take a moment to repeat the choice sentence: I (Mr. Roberts) will not be following you on the chase.
Please be a man of your word and don’t so quickly give me examples of your own dishonesty to thump you over the head.
As was already proven, my posting was on subject. If you’re going to hold up Dr. Wood’s work to find the bad and ugly logical fallacies and un-scientific methods, then you are required to get her most applicable work, namely her textbook. [It is not the same as her website.] Otherwise, I’ll ask you to remove your wallet because it muffles your voice.
Seven strawmen set up by Mr. Roberts; seven strawmen torched.
Señor, the fact that you have shown repeatedly that you are clueless as to the definition of a straw man argument is apparently obvious to everyone but yourself.
Now, for the nth time, how about responding to the original subject matter of my post and the questions I posed and dispensing with all the rest of your pointless and ridiculous blather? Are you even capable of such honest debate?
Dear Mr. Roberts,
You demonstrate for all to see where your head is. And it is not in honest debate. Otherwise, you would not have made the 2:28 pm statement that your 6:08 pm posting completely discredits your honesty on:
These promises you frequently make of not having time for me and my pointless exercises and of having more important (and interesting) things to do with your time? How I wish that they were true, that you would stand by your words, and that you would ignore me so that I wouldn’t point them out [along with copious errors in your analysis and attributions to me] as reflections of your character.
Your attempt at framing the discussion is another indication of your honesty:
The source material for Dr. Wood is her textbook. You don’t have it. If you order it today, you might get it by the weekend or next week.
Until you don’t have it, you are ill-prepared to make any sort of comparison between Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood.
If your framing of the discussion at “logical fallacies and un-scientific methods” wasn’t already a clue as to your dishonesty and agency agenda, then your choice of the ambush Dr. Jenkins interview with Dr. Wood seals the deal. Not everyone is as photogenic and articulate as young Dr. Jenkins, particularly late at night when the ambush interview happened. I suggest you research the back-story of that interview.
If you were being objective, fair, and honest (which you aren’t), you would acquire Dr. Wood’s textbook and see that it is significantly better than any interview she has ever given and her website, which has been under construction since 2006. [Kind of like your blog that has had no postings in almost a year, and seemingly has no original verbiage from you. What’s the matter? Don’t you ever write anything that is worthy of you preserving it?]
If you were being objective, fair, and honest (which you prove you aren’t), you would be eager to explore various sources of information for nuggets of truth. Your challenge to the forum would be instead:
Let’s re-purpose your very words with different punctuation:
Señor, you are either very dishonest, or your reading comprehension ability is seriously impaired. Go back and read my original post, perhaps 3 or 4 more times. You will notice that the source material to compare Judy Wood’s tactics to Jim Fetzer’s is the video I linked to which was the interview Greg Jenkins did with Judy Wood, not Judy Wood’s so-called textbook, which you keep trying to falsely claim for some reason. Why is it so hard for you to get things correct? You obviously have been taking lessons from Jim Fetzer.
Now, for the 4th time, how about giving an honest response to my original post and address the questions I asked?
Actually, never mind. I really could care less what you do. Just don’t expect me to ever take you seriously ever again since you seem to enjoy copying Judy Wood’s and Jim Fetzer’s tactics of endless time wasting, round and round evasion and tail chasing.
Actually, Señor, the fact that you would make such ridiculous excuses for Judy Wood’s dishonest, illogical, and unscientific behavior in her interview with Greg Jenkins, and actually claim that it was Jenkins who was being dishonest, says it all. What I am unable to discern at this point is whether you are genuinely so utterly obtuse and imperceptive as you make yourself out to be, or are just really good at pretending you are.
Oh, and in case you are too obtuse to understand that my previous statement to you that “I will not be following you on another round of chasing of your tail with word games and trivial pursuits”, does not mean that I promised to never say another word to you or about you ever again. So before you go off on another boring and pointless lengthy diatribe about how I am going back on my word, along with a new barrage of conjured up errors in my analysis and attributions to you that nobody but you cares about or will bother reading anyway, you might want to learn Basic Reading Comprehension Skills and save yourself some time and energy, or perhaps get a hobby if you can’t figure out what to do with your time. Or perhaps you are getting paid for all the pointless blathering you’ve been pumping out here…the possibility has certainly crossed my mind.
Dear Mr. Roberts,
Thank you ever so much for your two postings to my one. They are so revealing of your character. For example, you write on April 30, 2012 at 11:37 pm with my emphasis:
And then without even waiting for me to reply, on May 1, 2012 at 6:50 am you post how much you could care!!! And it is all so special! I just loved these gems from your two examples of “endless time wasting, round and round evasion, and tail chasing:”
You wouldn’t by chance be baiting me into a flame war,Mr. Roberts? Almost (but not quite) every posting you’ve made to me in this discussion has this flavor. Please don’t cast your weaknesses on to me.
Oh, that I were “paid for all the pointless blathering!”
$$$ Ca-ching $$$ Ca-ching $$$
Reminds me of Wally in Dilbert when the pointy-haired boss said they were going to pay bonuses for all the bugs found in their company software. Wally then says to Dilbert, “I’m going to go program myself a mini-van!”
Evidentally you missed my April 30, 2012 at 3:15 pm posting that gave some thread stats. I’m not going to “blather myself a mini-van” at my present rate. The Skipper and Gilligan seem to have different incentive plans represented by how exhuberently they paddle their canoes. The dark forces of Cass Sunstein runs strong.
Why are you conflating Dr. Wood with Dr. Fetzer?
Why are you limiting the analysis of Dr. Wood to the Dr. Jenkin’s video?
Why are you so focused on “logical fallacies and un-scientific methods?”
Why are you so adverse to finding nuggets of truth buried in the work of (what other’s label) disinformation?
Agent Roberts, the above is how you try to define home-court, and it tilts. Negatively.
But Truth & Shadows isn’t your home-court. The game won’t be played by your rules. You foolishly write:
You do so at the peril of your participation here.
The Skipper to your Gilligan has called me “slippery.” Right below this very posting he counsels you:
Keep in mind that he gives his Dr. Wood book report without the distinction of having opened its cover.
Not to give the wrong impression: You’ll find plenty of caveats from me regarding the merits of Dr. Wood’s textbook in the linked thread.
Meanwhile, Dr. Wood’s textbook is elevated into a symbol for objectivity. It is test. And all prognosis regarding its content delivered without the benefit of having cracked it open, fails.
Keenan,
Take Senor’s advice and review the “When did they know” thread. Therein you will find what I believe are very strong arguments against this assertion that one needs to buy the Judy Wood book to critique her scientific inadequacies. The material available on the web from her own site, and critiques by other physicists of her work is sufficient in my opinion; to dismiss her as a serious scientist.
Her book may well indeed be a nice addition to your library for a nice coffee table book, as to the high quality of the pictures and such. However the argumentation as to what these photos reveal is a fairytale round’about debunked by demonstration and logic by many scientists.
ww
My major complaint with Mr. Fetzer is that he continues to inadequately defend his physics. His responses to the following posts have been either no response at all, or dissembling and miss-framing his response by arguing to his reinterpretation of the argument made, rather than addressing the actual argument [straw man].
I would like to see these physics questions resolved in a rational manner.
hybridrogue1 says:
April 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 26, 2012 at 2:39 am
hybridrogue1 says:
April 25, 2012 at 9:20 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 25, 2012 at 10:17 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 25, 2012 at 5:18 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 24, 2012 at 7:18 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm
keenanroberts says:
April 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 24, 2012 at 2:20 am
keenanroberts says:
April 24, 2012 at 2:14 am
hybridrogue1 says:
April 22, 2012 at 8:47 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 20, 2012 at 8:16 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 19, 2012 at 11:47 pm
hybridrogue1 says:
April 19, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Jim says on April 27 –
“…since the plane shown in these videos is representing as being Flight 175. THE SECOND ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. ”
Jim then says –
“(5) These videos have been PRESENTED as though they “represent Flight 175 and since Flight 175 was in western PA according to ACARS, it could not have been in NYC, therefore the videos must be fake!” By omitting that they have been PRESENTED that way, he distorts what I said.”
Mr Fetzer, how do you define “real plane”? How does that compare to a societal or FAA definition? Do you now agree that the video can represent a”real plane” other than “Flight 175”? Or do you feel the video represents a “simulated plane”? If you affirm the latter, how can you or Dennis Cimino use what you feel is a “simulation” (ie: CGI) to rule out the possibility of a modified aircraft? Where in any of the videos can you determine specifically that such videos are “representing Flight 175”? Is it because they are painted in United livery? Is it because they were uploaded as “representing United 175”? Is it because the govt told you they were United 175? Do you understand the meaning of positive identification and that hundreds of 767’s exist on this planet which can be painted in any livery at any time? And also modified for a specific task?
You may want to visit this post –
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804737
In the above link, you will find two aircraft which are virtually of the same external appearance structurally. However one clearly outperforms the other by a wide margin, is it because they are painted differently?
Furthermore, do you feel any real Aircraft Accident Investigator would use your logic and youtube videos as evidence for their claims of “fakery”, while also virtually contradicting themselves in using the same videos as proof that the aircraft were not modified?
As stated repeatedly, and sources provided to you ad nauseum, why do you refuse to acknowledge of the interview with John Lear in which he states that “Impossible Speed” does not validate “No Plane Theories”?
Source – http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804565
Finally, why have you evaded the other questions with respect to Dennis Cimino claimed experience as a “Second Officer”? Here they are again in case you missed it the first time.
“…why doesn’t the FAA Airman database have Dennis Cimino listed as holding a Flight Engineer Certificate as required for the Second Officer position claimed in his credentials posted to your articles? Why wasn’t Dennis Cimino listed as being a Second Officer when he was listed as a Core Member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth?”
In closing, are you aware that John Lear does hold a Flight Engineer Certificate qualifications for Second Officer? And that is it shown in the FAA Database? AS is every other real pilot who claims to have flown the FE panel as a “Second Officer”?
Try not to evade these questions Mr Fetzer.
“Try not to evade these questions Mr Fetzer.”~TheFActs
Hah…I think this request is analogous to asking Satan to give up his sovereignty in Hell.
I say this because I see evasion as Mr. Fetzer’s premier talent.
Thank you for giving this forum the benefit of your analysis.
ww
Hi Craig,
The solution to the length of this thread is simple in concept – however whether it is simple in the technological aspects of WordPress is another matter.
It seems to me that if you cut this thread at the point where Brian Good was shown the door, and leave that as the “Gage” thread, and repost all that comes after as a NPT thread.
Everything before the B. Good incident has bearing on the conversation to do with CIT and the Pentagon. It turns into a NPT debate just after that.
Whether this is possible is up to your abilities to deal with the limitations of the WordPress software.
ww
That’s a great idea, and that’s exactly what I’d like to do. Essentially, I haven’t because I don’t know how to shift comments from one thread to another. But I agree that this thread really needs to be split into two. Maybe someone out there who is more of an expert in WordPress than I am can suggest something.
What I might end up doing is creating a NPT page with an article and the direct all discussion on that topic there. Until I figure this out, this topic will stay on this thread.
Hi Craig,
If you wish to understand how Mr Fetzer likes to hijack threads and spin them to his agenda, just cuddle up with your favorite beverage and spend a bit of time here…
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931
It won’t take long before you observe many of the parallel’s going on here, and why the Admin there finally said enough is enough and sent Mr Fetzer packing.
“But I agree that this thread really needs to be split into two. Maybe someone out there who is more of an expert in WordPress than I am can suggest something.” ~Craig
I will take this problem to the administrator at COTO, Patrick. He seems a whiz at WordPress and has done the exact thing we contemplate on that site.
It may take a while for a response, he has a day job as well.
ww
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Jim Fetzer says:
“it has seemed to me extremely improbable that so many — 500 with reports compiled by The New York Times — would be so wrong for reasons like these that I made a point of tracking down a witness who seemed to me to be impeccable, who turned out to the Scott Forbes. Now if you can give me good reasons to discount what he has to tell us — ”
Dear Dr Fetzer, are you saying that New York Times, a _huge_ mouthpiece for the US state, no less, [probably the largest], is trustworthy for _any_ of its 9/11 reporting? If so, why, for heavens sake?
Are you suggesting that you know with absolute certainty that such a huge, important pre-planned Government psyop would _not_ include saturating the media with many NYC “eye-witnesses” handily confirming the government’s story?
[This leaves aside for the moment the fact that many possibly genuine eyewitnesses in a state of trauma will have mistakenly reported seeing live what they only actually saw on TV that day. Have you not run into anyone ,as I have, who swears up and down to have seen the 9/11 events live, yet when questioned closely it turns out that what they meant by “live” was actually “live on TV”? ].
How did you reach the conclusion that Mr Forbes was a credible witness. Did you do a thorough background check of this person?
Has a private investigator been hired to perform this type of check into his financial history, previous connections and work record etc. etc. ?
How do you know for certain that he is not either directly or indirectly working for the military or some other government agency [NSA, CIA etc.] ?
Why have you chosen to discount the “credible eye-witnesses” [according to others perceptions/ judgements, not mine], who are on record saying that they were there that day and yet saw no plane?
Mr Fetzer, only you can answer these types of questions, not I.
For myself, I find it a little “curious” that a person so highly trained in the philosophy of the scientific methodology would give so much credence to 3rd party, none-cross-examined “eye-witness testimony” , while at the same time choosing to _not_ investigate any of the specific factors/questions concerning the videos in question that I had previously listed here on 04/25; most of which, because they involve purely technical issues, are, as far as I can see, far closer to the field of science-based research than is the interviewing of none-cross-examined, none- investigated 3rd parties on your [excellent] radio show!
Regards, onebornfree.
This is a quote from Fetzer’s article on Balsamo.
Reason and Rationality by Jim Fetzer:
“As a professional philosopher and student of the theory of knowledge (also known as “epistemology”), the distinction between “rationality of belief” and “rationality of action” deserves preliminary consideration. The first involves accepting beliefs that are well-founded in relation to the available evidence…”
I think what baffles many of the commentators on this thread, is how the same person who wrote this can used the slippery tangled argumentation that we have read here.
Now there is the issue of ‘standing to reason’ and there is the issue of ‘using’ reasoning rhetorically in argumentum. Using reason in such a way is the same as “using” a beautiful woman, but disregarding her feelings in the affair.
One gets the sense that this is what Fetzer is doing with reason on this thread. this is causing much frustration to those of us who are as adept at classical reasoning in argumentation as Jim posits it in his formal works.
This is why the issue of ‘honesty in argumentation’ keeps raising its head.
ww
Anyone who takes the (mind numbing) time to read through the comments of this section will readily see that Mr Fetzer has nothing to support his claims. Physics and a real understanding of Newtonian Laws have been offered time and time again to Mr Fetzer, he has ignored every single reply in favor of a what would be equivalent to a 9th Grader who has briefly studied Newton’s Laws without any understanding or application.
There are 4 levels to Learning – Rote, Understanding, Application, and Correlation.
Mr. Fetzer is stuck in the Rote phase as it pertains to Physics. This is why he constantly repeats his diatribes of a “500,000 Ton Building” while plugging his ears to applied Physics, and is the reason that anyone who has taken a College Course in Physics understands why Fetzer literally has no support from anyone with a PhD in Physics.
Mr. Fetzer is relegated to blogs such as these (no offense Craig), for the same reason no one with real expertise and credentials wishes to waste too much time arguing with a 14-year-old who has flown Microsoft Flight Simulator and trying to tell their Instructor how to fly the airplane..
None taken, I guess.
If what you’re saying is true, why do people put so much effort into responding to Mr. Fetzer?
“why do people put so much effort into responding to Mr. Fetzer?”~Craig
The honest answer from me is that he is persuasive in rhetoric. As you can see here, many people climbed on board to support his contradictory arguments. This is because of the expertise Jim has in PR and speaking to the lowest common denominator.
Of course anyone pointing this out is immediately attacked with the spinning back kick of turning the tables and claiming that they are the one that is a “used car salesman” or “making propaganda argumentation”
I have not boasted as to my expertise in Intelligence Analysis, and the deep studies I have made into Public Relations and Propaganda. I simply apply my expertise. That these are complex issues that the layman is unlikely to comprehend is the bonus for an expert dissembler such as Fetzer.
Untwining the the tangled cords of doublespeak is simply necessary in such discussions as these. Just suppose that the members that have been countering Fetzer had not been present.
The entire thread, and eventually the entire site would have been hijacked unopposed.
The issues of 9/11 are much too important to leave them to hijackers and PR artists.
ww
The main problem with people who hijack wordpress blogs such as this, is that it bogs down the server and obfuscates the original article, not to mention the fact that it is very hard to keep up with the conversation if someone replies to a post several posts above. I have a relatively high speed connection, 15Mbps, and it takes a bit of time to load this page. When it is finally loaded, I have to scan all posts to see if there are any replies. It is cumbersome to say the least.
Compare this to regular forum software. First, page loads are quick as they are usually limited to 20-30 posts per page. Secondly, when a reply is made to a post, it is quoted and added to the end of the thread, with a link back to the post quoted. Readers do not miss out on conversation having to wade through multiple posts they already read. All they have to do is go to the last reply based on their cookie, and pick up where they left off.
I understand you like the activity here in this thread Craig, but it really is a hard discussion to follow especially for anyone with sporadic visits, which is why only 3 or 4 people are active in this thread. I guarantee if you send Fetzer packing, you will not see as much traffic. But as someone mentioned above (way above), this thread is a great example of the “Logic” offered by Mr Fetzer, combined with a great example of why the NPT hasn’t gained any real support in nearly 6 years. And in fact, is losing support, and the reason why Mr Fetzer is now attempting to change the definition of NPT.
My 2 cents.
“No planes doesn’t mean NO PLANES” – Mr Fetzer (in some post way above).
Hysterical.
“If what you’re saying is true, why do people put so much effort into responding to Mr. Fetzer?”
Who puts “so much effort”?
In short, it’s my day off, I’m watching Friends on TBS and having a few drinks with Friends. I had nothing else planned for the day. So…. why not?
How many posts do I have here?
The real question is, why does Mr Fetzer write long articles/diatribes/comments… nearly daily, using the work of Pilots For 9/11 Truth to support his claims, when it has been explained to him time and time again that such work does not validate his claims? Even by John Lear himself!
Hmmm…. is Jim Fetzer trying to equate the work of CIT and Pilots For 9/11 Truth with wacky “No Plane Theories”?
Why is Mr Fetzer now attempting to change the definition of “No Planes do not mean NO PLANES”?
Hmmm….
Perhaps he needs an audience up there in Vancouver?
Craig, you should really read through this thread if you haven’t already. You’ll see many parallels with this thread.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931
The above link only has 308 replies. Less than half of this thread. Yet has more than 6000 views.
Check it out.
When I wrote “so much effort” I clearly didn’t mean you. The best example is hybridrogue1, who is every bit as prolific as Mr. Fetzer is.
Hbrid claims to be retired Special Effects Engineer… not to mention the fact he knows Applied Physics (unlike Fetzer) and has an interest in the “Truth Movement”.
I understand Hybrid’s reasoning and his interest for debating Fetzer on your blog. He obviously has the time.
Hybrid keeps Fetzer here to expose his logical fallacies… and is doing an excellent job of it. Albeit Hybrid does get bogged down into emotional responses at times, after all, he is Human… but that is also the work of a provocateur and a textbook tactic of Truth Suppression… invoke emotional response when you cannot reply to the data, expertise… Physics.. etc. Fetzer cannot address the data, Physics, or argue the facts of video/audio with an actual expert in the field. So, he attempts to invoke emotional response.
I’m not saying Fetzer is a provocateur… but if it quacks like a duck….
I actually feel Fetzer is getting old… losing support by the day.. and getting desperate. Hence why he spends so much time on your blog to perhaps convince.. what… 10 readers?
Either way, Fetzer will never be called to testify in a new independent investigation. If he were, and you were on the Jury, would you find him credible?
The pilotsfor911truth thread that “TheFacts” mentioned above is an excellent example of Jim’s consistent use of evasion and disinformation tactics, as well as some intelligent rebuttals to his false scientific claims. One of the best comments contains this great quote from Rob Balsamo after Rob banned Jim Fetzer from his forum for dishonesty and trolling behavior:
I’ve written several posts now where I have addressed the alleged evidence for NPT and the lack of response to them, specifically the last one regarding holographic technology which Jim Fetzer’s claims to what have happened in Manhattan actually hinges upon…
A) Confuses me
Or
B) Shows that wordplay is somehow more preferable to discussing actual evidence and/or claims.
Any chance of some feedback? Especially from Jim Fetzer? Please.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4975
The fact that Jim Fetzer would come on this forum and continue repeating ad nauseum his false scientific claims (such as that the entire 500,000 tons of the WTC tower was resisting the plane’s impact, among others), in the face of legitimate counter-arguments posed by myself and other members here that Jim has consistently ignored or dismissed with faulty reasoning and ad hominems, as well as the fact that his false claims have been debunked and thoroughly disproved on so many other forums and debate venues over the years, should be more than enough proof that Jim Fetzer has an agenda far afield of being a legitimate member of a “truth” movement. I think Rob Balsamo’s description of Jim’s agenda was spot on. Jim Fetzer is attempting to disrupt, divide, and discredit the truth movement by inserting false and absurd theories, and trying to associate as many legitimate truth researchers, organization, and advocates with his disinformation as he can, in order to bring down as many of us as he can with his methodical attempted controlled demolition of the 9/11 truth movement’s credibility.
Jim Fetzer is an enemy of the truth, and enemy of logical reasoning, an enemy of science, an enemy of fair play. Jim Fetzer has taken what he has learned from his “35 years studying and teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning” and turned it against the profession and against all of the implicit purposes that such expertise is ostensibly used for. For whom or which interests he is serving and for how much pay or other compensation is as yet unknown, but there can be no doubt for those of us with open eyes and objective reasoning abilities what Jim Fetzer’s true agenda is all about, which certainly has nothing to do with the stated objectives of the real or legitimate portion of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Now the question arises, ‘Where is Jim Fetzer?’
It seems he is sitting out the storm, and will tip toe back in when it has all blown over.
I say this is cowardice, he should stand and deliver now.
Admittedly the answers would have to come in segments, but at least he should give it a shot.
I feel that if he sits this one out while the fire is hot, it is just one more indication of low-handed tactics.
I suppose we shall see…
ww
It has been exactly seven hours since Jim’s last comment. Don’t you think it’s a bit quick to be accusing him of cowardice and low-handed tactics? Maybe he just had a busy day.
lol.. Jim is “busy” trying to tame Dennis Cimino in hopes he can get replies to the above questions. Dennis is unable to respond to any of the above questions himself, Jim has to filter his colorful and off the rail replies.. .this is what makes Jim the Messenger Boy.
I know such actions for a fact as I have seen the emails from Dennis Cimino when trying to calm him down after going off the rails. Just request them from Pilots For 9/11 Truth or Dennis himself, and you can see for yourself.
Jim has been obsessed with the work of Pilots For 9/11 Truth nearly daily… Pilots For 9/11 Truth have never, ever cited the work of Jim Fetzer. You really think Jim is just “busy” at this moment and not paying very close attention to the replies over the past 10 hours? Really?
I didn’t say he was busy or not reading, I just said we don’t know with enough certainty to start calling him a coward because of an (now 8) hour absence.
I’m not trying to pile it on, though I’d like this post addressed
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-5033
I’d like people here to take note of these videos that for me personally, are the final nail in the coffin of NPT (that is, no planes) in New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DXKJTkX_3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPICd0o_kg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oprbCOup4O4
Case closed.
I may be a bit slow because I’m sick with a really bad head cold but I’m not clear on how motion proves a plane. Obviously there was a major explosion.
Craig,
You say “Obviously there was a major explosion.” But just as obviously there was a plane.
It isn’t the slow motion that proves there was a plane, it is the clear visual of the plane.
???…Maybe you can explain further. I don’t understand what you mean, when both elements are in the shot.
ww
I didn’t say anything about the plane. I didn’t suggest the plane wasn’t real. I asked how the sway proved there was as plane. Just a question. Sometimes it seems you have to be careful about even asking something you’re not clear on because people might think you “just don’t get it” and write you off.
Craig, there’s obviously forward motion that can only have been caused by impact of a solid object. Or a solid object travelling through the building.
If it were nothing more than explosives, even directional, there is nothing substantial in this steel framed building for the explosives to have countered the force that caused a sway.
So we have…
1) multiple witnesses to a plane
2) multiple videos of a plane.
3) multiple images of a plane
4) forward swaying of building from impact zone
5) the much touted hologram technology was primitive compared to what was necessary (acknowledged by Senor el once)
6) the claim that the aircraft “melted” into the building is a visual effect based on the fact that the aircraft was travelling at over 700fps. One tenth of a second from nose to wings. Just over a fifth of a second from nose to tail.
7) the claim that debris didn’t fall from the impact zone is false (watch until the end of video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPeNkZz4mmU&fmt=22
8) the claim that the aircraft couldn’t have been modified is bunk when you look at the 747 strengthened to carry the Shuttle with no noticeable exterior changes in the framework.
9) the impact hole shows markings that defy “cutter charges” claims (an indentation and slices through the facade)
I don’t know what else to tell you man.
To pick up on what I wrote above to Hybridrogue1, I was just asking the question. Your response seems a bit like you’re scolding me for asking (“I don’t know what to tell you man”). I didn’t say a word about there being explosions without planes – or about videos or witnesses. I just didn’t understand why the sway could not have resulted from explosives alone. I know you guys have been through these arguments many times before but if I’m unclear about something, I’m going to ask.
I’m sorry Craig, I just didn’t understand what you meant that is all.
It’s my fault I got you as saying ‘slow-motion’ – you said “motion”.
ww
Jeeeze Craig…why would I want to scold you?
I just didn’t understand what you were saying. I didn’t have any hidden intent. Like I said I mistook you to mean slow motion. My error.
ww
I think you misread me again. I wasn’t talking about you with the second comment. My response was to onesliceshort. You both read more into my question than was there. My question, as I said, had nothing to do with visuals or anything else other than how the sway of the building was proof of anything. The sway in the video was offered as proof, and I didn’t understand how it was.
Actually, reading over my original question, I might not have been clear. I asked how the motion proves there was a plane. I meant the motion of the building, not the plane. Did I cause all that confusion?
Craig,
Oh, I see what you were asking now.
Maybe this will help. As per the physics of this thing:
The building is what is called a frame. It is of itself, an inert object. Any forces within that frame, originating inside the building, takes place within that frame. There is no directional force applied from outside.
For the building to react to a specific application of force in that specific direction, it must come from outside of the frame. This is a vector component in physics.
I hope that I put that clear enough that I didn’t just add more confusion.
ww
Yes, your explanation was very clear. Thanks. And thanks for the recovery wishes.
Hi Craig,
No I wasn’t “scolding” you mate. Lol. Just very frustrated. I’m going to put all of the posts I made here over at Pilots for clarity.
Thing is, Dennis Cimino (and presumably Jim Fetzer) claimed that the building didn’t budge. Now that it’s been shown that it has, the goalposts will be moved again and the likes of myself will presumably have to post info or a vid on the effects of explosions on buildings when it should be the other way around.
Even the technology necessary which sounded impressive proved to be useless. And I doubt if the people pointing to it actually read it!
Peace
OSS
“I didn’t say he was busy or not reading, I just said we don’t know with enough certainty to start calling him a coward because of an (now 8) hour absence.”
Craig, I will agree with you. Jim Fetzer is not a “coward”. But I ask you again, if you were on a Jury in a new independent investigation, would you find him credible?
Again, Jim cannot answer my questions nor the questions posed to him. I would bet my bottom dollar that Jim is now trying to get Dennis to respond to some of the inquiries.
Dennis is flying off the rails, perhaps saying “I want nothing to do with the TRUTH MOVEMENT anymore!” …for the fourth time, when posed with tough questions.
Jim is trying to calm him down.
Again, this has been all done before. Just ask for the emails from either Dennis or Pilots For 9/11 Truth.
Yes Craig, you are right. Jim could have had any number of things pop up.
I have to admit, I am suspicious of everything about this guy. I think I understand his MO and his tactics. This long pause fits into that, but I won’t labor the point.
For my part I am just anxious to here Jim’s response. On the edge of my seat, as it were.
ww
Huh…as everything got scrambled together up there….I ended up answering Craig’s post to OSS..as it began with my name…and this is a time for a cooling of jets all ’round.
I apologize for my misunderstandings – this has been a long hard day for all of us. I think we’re all a bit punch-drunk by now.
‘Waiting For Godot’…another fascinating Becket play.
ww
Yes it has been a long day. I think my head cold is making me cranky.
“I think my head cold is making me cranky.”
Yea,,,I thought that, but I didn’t want to say it…{grin}
If my explanation of ‘vector’ in the physics of motion didn’t connect, just ask, and I will be happy to see what I am not saying right to get it across.
I hope you feel better soon Craig.
ww
Hey Craig,
Maybe you already know, but I just found out that Webster Tarpley and Johnathan Kay had a debate on 9/11.
The dang page wouldn’t open, I found it on the Rense site a bit ago. I clicked on it and it took me to Tarpley’s web page, which said the article I was looking for wasn’t available.
That should be an interesting discussion.
ww
Try this link. It works for me.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/305586-1
I haven’t listened to all of it yet. I can’t take Johnathan Kay for more than a few minutes at a time.
@onesliceshort: I have to laugh. I see the perps are still hard at it churning out new fakes. Now they are putting out new “improved” versions of old fake videos that now conveniently show building sway .
And with “convincing” British BBC style “authoritive” voice-overs a la Anthony Lawson [American sheeple are suckers for a good British accent apparently] for good measure to lay it on good and thick !
And like Pavlov’s dog, the sheeple suck their brand new “convincing “Hollywood creations right up!
Get a grip onesliceshort- every one of those clips is a digital forgery from start to finish :http://www.septemberclues.info/ 🙂 Regards onebornfree.
“Get a grip onesliceshort- every one of those clips is a digital forgery from start to finish :http://www.septemberclues.info/ Regards onebornfree.”
That’s the first time in the past, what, 500 posts that any NPT advocates have come out and stated this directly. Jim Fetzer flip-flops around this by claiming that “genuine witnesses” and those who caught the plane on camera or video were fooled by a hologram (the technology which we now know was physically impossible). Those that caught the sound of an aircraft, the reflection of the sun or who are heard to mention the aircraft are therefore “fake”.
Onebornfree just goes whole hog “all of the videos and images are fake”. And I’m the “sheep”?
Onebornfree, if you had an inkling of how the deep state works, you’d know that they are very uncomfortable about loose ends. There are several levels to this.
1) you’re claiming that scores of people or low level sleepers actually hold the key to what happened on 9/11
2) you’re claiming that the perps and in fact, the entire fascist, corporate and military junta are confident enough to leave their operations and very lives in the hands of these loose ends.
3) you’re claiming that the latest releases are also government manufactured “fakes”. Why release them at a time when the “truth movement” has been infiltrated and contained??
The perps are given way too much credit when in reality their signature is to do whatever they want and use money, blackmail, denial, their private army secret services/cointelpro, bought politicians and the whore media to cover up the cracks to satisfy an increasingly docile and/or gullible public.
As I said before, NPT is a theory that can morph to cover every shred of verifiable evidence that refutes it. No matter how contradictory or baseless the subplots are.
Something I will be demonstrating in detail very soon.
Let me see if I can try this one more time:
(1) Does anyone here actually believe that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville?
(2) Does anyone here actually believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
(3) Does anyone here actually believe that Flight 11 hit the North Tower?
(4) Does anyone here actually believe that Flight 175 hit the South Tower?
(5) Does anyone here not understand that, if Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh
at the time, then we cannot be observing Flight 175 in any of these videos?
(6) Does anyone here not understand that, if we are not observing Flight 175
in any of these videos, then we are dealing with some form of video fakery?
(7) Does anyone here not understand that there appear to be three ways in
which video fakery could occur: CGIs, video compositing, and a hologram?
(8) Does anyone here not understand that, if there are bona fide witnesses
who saw “a plane”, it can’t have been done be CGIs or video compositing
or, more precisely, it can’t have been done by CGIs or compositing alone?
(9) Does anyone here not understand that, if it was done with a hologram,
that the hologram could have been used to cloak cruise missile and then
“tweaked” via CGIs or video compositing to make it look more like a plane?
(10) Does anywhere here not understand that, if there were witnesses who
saw what they took to be “a plane”, then the weight of the evidence favors
one or another use of holograms over CGIs and video compositing alone?
Here’s a recording of witnesses who reported seeing a plane, which goes
beyond my interview with Scott Forbes and the 500 reports collated with
The New York Times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXX-NPN-ZC0
No doubt, there is something here for everyone, but at least it will bring
us back to a discussion of the issues and end this nauseating series of
question-begging ad hominem attacks, if such a thing is possible here.
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
You had me until you got to #6:
Yes, I do not understand.
If we are not observing Flight 175 (as defined by the govt with respect to aircraft model, passenger list, etc.), it does not by necessity follow that we are dealing with some form of video fakery. If we are not observing Flight 175, we could be observing some other aircraft or we could be observing some form of fakery.
Starting with that one illogical statement, your posting goes down hill from there. I abandon your soapbox derby.
Let me state it simply. From everything you have presented on holograms and from everything that I (and Mr. OneSliceShort) have researched on our own, holograms today (and in 2001) are incapable of producing the fakery needed to pull off 9/11.
I reserve the right for science, technology, evidence, and appropriate analysis to dupe me in favor of holograms on 9/11. But for now, all four have been woefully lacking — by you, Dr. Fetzer. It is irresponsible of you to keep harping on holograms without substantiation. [QuickTime repeatedly crashes about half way through your interview with Stephen Brown, so I haven’t had the pleasure of hearing how his one class in holography at the prestigious Cambridge elevates holography to such an operational state in 2001 to pull of 9/11.]
Changing belief systems is painful. I see the pillars of my NPT beliefs crumbling, and I don’t want to admit it.
When it comes right down to it, the fact that all of the four flights are proven not to be what the government said is enough. The velocities of the aircraft as measured by (tainted?) video and radar is glaring, as is the precision with which they hit their targets. They could not have been the alleged flights under the hands of the alleged terrorists. This is damning enough.
In my opinion, the nugget of truth that shouldn’t be discarded from September Clues [the largest perpetuator of NPT] is the active hand of the whore media in the ruse and in the run-up to wars.
Senor, while I expect trivial responses from trivial people, I expect more from you. How can I “lose you” at (6), “Does anyone here not understand that, if we are not observing Flight 175 in any of these videos, then we are dealing with some form of video fakery?”, when I have made it explicit that the form of video fakery could be a substitute plane or a simulated plane as well as by altering video tape using CGIs or video compositing? This troubles me, because it shakes my faith in your integrity and intellect. There is no reason to offer the bizarre rejection you advance in this instance, because there is no legitimate reason to do that. This is a most disappointing post.
“Begging the Question” is defined in the terms of argumentum as; asking the same question over and again to answers that are sufficient, If the answers have not been sufficient, but have been vague, incorrect, or not forthcoming – then the questions remain unanswered with the onus still upon the one asked for a sufficient answer.
As for ad hominem – Ridicule is not ad hominem when ridicule is made of that which is indeed, ridiculous.
For myself, I see no reason to play your game one more time with the list above. You will not define the rules of the game here – at least not for myself.
ww
hybridrogue1 can’t even properly define the fallacies he commits. “Begging the question” is the fallacious assumption that you are correct without offering any good reasons or evidence on your behalf. You combine that fallacy with an authoritarian approach, illustrated by your dismissal of Ace Baker’s brilliant work, which I take to be wrong in its defense of video compositing but is excellent very compelling in many other respects. You have mastered the ad hominen, the dismissal out of hand (even though it is unjustified by any argument or evidence), trading on equivocations (about the meaning of “NPT”, for example, which is completely trivial when properly defined, where even your agree with the four propositions and only disagree about how these planes were faked, where you think by substitute planes (one form of fakery) and I simulated planes (another form of fakery).
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
You asked how you could lose me at #6, which was:
I took the liberty of highlighting the troublesome word “video” being used as an adjective to modify “fakery.” Had you simply left this adjective out and used only the word “fakery,” I would not have had any issues… until I got to #7, that is.
If you can boast about all of your years teaching logic and critical thinking, I can boast about many years intimimately working with technical English. If your posting would have had your new definition of “video fakery” that you claim to be “a substitute plane or a simulated plane as well as by altering video tape using CGIs or video compositing,” maybe I would have given you a pass… until I got to #7, that is.
I apologize for not having followed closely or ridden a pogo-horse on the many spins of the merry-go-round when you might have brought forth your new definition of “video fakery.” I can assure you, that had I been along for those up-and-down pogo rides, I would have barfed all over that definition just like other in this forum are legitimately complaining about your re-definition of the “no planes theory” (NPT).
You do not have the authority to simply co-opt a word or phrase (“video” or “no planes”) that has established meanings in the English language. The manner in which you have done this, well… To repeat your own words:
Yep. It would have been quite easy to manipulate the English language by removing or adding adjectives to get your meaning across. Instead, you think you have the authority to re-define meanings? Come on!
For example, here is something I wrote at the bottom of another posting in this thread that would have served you well had you read it:
See how easy that was? By simply adding the adjective “commerical” to NPT gives you NCPT that few people will have issue with.
So, let’s assume that you had ditched the “video” adjective in favor of “[…]” in #6 and #7 to become:
To answer the revised #7, I answer: “Yes, I do not understand.”
Fakery can have many forms. (Something this ardant “no planer” is begrungingly coming to realize is that) the very real possibility exists that the WTC planes could have been specialized military aircraft that could fly those excessive velocities at sea level with precision under computer control. You don’t list this, even though it fits as a “simulated plane.”
Worse, there is that pesky word in #7 that re-appears in #9 & #10: “holograms.” Rhetorical questions: Ever had anything published in a professional journal? Ever wrote or read a PhD dissertation?
Seems to me that you know what the standards are for research, references, siting sources, and proving a hypothesis. Yet this is lacking when we ask for such and which would substantiate your promoting and selling of “holograms.” To repeat your own words again:
You wrote:
The rejection isn’t bizarre, the reasons are clearly given, and they are legitimate. This more than anything is why you wrote:
Yes, consider it karma for any time you, as a PhD dissertation advisor, ever kicked back a student’s submission and made them try again.
This is just wrong. As long as we explain what we mean by the words we use on the supposition that there might be some ambiguity, there is absolutely nothing wrong in explaining that, by the phrase “video fakery”, I mean any use of videos to convey false impressions about (in this case) the events of 9/11. I even spelled it out in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, where I explained that there are four possible combinations of planes and videos threalus:
(1) Real planes and real videos;
(2) Real planes and altered videos;
(3) Fake planes and real videos;
(4) Fake planes and altered videos.
As I explained then, I take (2), (3), and (4) to be encompassed by the phrase “video fakery” as I use it. You are welcome to spell out your position in relation to mine, if you so desire: no one has ever inhibited that course of clarification. And of course by “fake planes” I mean any planes or images of planes other than Flight 175, which we know was over Pittsburgh at the time. My position has been that we are dealing with (3) fake planes and real video, but I am open-minded about alternative (4).
Jim,
Sorry I missed some (3) of your previous comments. They have been approved now. The one that isn’t is from 12:33 yesterday. My problem was that I found it very confusing as to who was talking. The end especially left me scratching my head. Can you look it over and see if it can be made clearer?
@onesliceshort:
Dear onesliceshort, bad news I’m afraid : a higher definition [than original] version of the Hezarkhani fake footage does not make it any more real than the original.
Nothing more than a fake plane image, penetrating [without slowing or breaking up] a fake tower image, a fake sky, fake trees, plus a super fake, super impressive Hollywood style giant fireball explosion for good measure with fake plane parts coming out the other side for the benefit of all of those Hollywood movie freaks who believe that Hollywood-style explosions are how it would really have looked in the real world – all created on computers for the benefit of the naive and trusting [of which there appear to be an unending supply- especially around this forum:-) ].
Besides the sheer scientific impossibility of the planes penetration of the building as depicted [as Dr Fetzer has repeatedly pointed out] , one more clue to the fakeness of the entire sequence is the bald fact that there is absolutely no sign of any plane vortex disturbance to the nearside explosion itself – a “dead giveaway” if ever there was one :-): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krL4fkrySZ4
The perps forgot that detail [or simply assumed everyone was too stupid to notice- not a bad assumption actually!]
Now they’ve got the building sway at collision at least looking part way correct in those other [none- Herzekhani] vids you previously posted, [it was not in the original footage, only in the new “improved” updates], I expect that soon we will see the release of even newer versions of the exact same Herzekhani footage as you posted here yet again, but _this_ time re-modified to reveal- you guessed it! , the planes vortices now magically disturbing the explosion!
And true to form, like Pavlov’s dog, everyone will just conveniently forget the original versions that showed neither building sway , nor post-explosion airplane vortices. Once a sucker, always a sucker ,I guess.
You and your buddies are allowing yourself to be repeatedly, 100% duped via 100% faked footage [for whatever reason- unerring faith in your government and the media, I am guessing].
Regards, onebornfree
Wow Onebornfree,
You got the magic answer for everything here don’t you. Nothing to know, nothing to figure out, just snap your fingers and invoke the great priest of woowoo Shackacluesarack…
I see this as a shame brother. You can be lucid and reasonable in so many ways, but you got your mind soaked in poison and sold on a load of hooda because of your ignorance of the technology.
And this feeling of having special knowledge puts you above the fray. This is the type of thing that the mainstream thought police love and adore – something so easily disproven by someone with actual technical knowledge.
Had you never thought of learning the basics of video and the digital software used in the process?
There is nothing new about this video sequence. It is just a cleaner less compressed version of the cruddy gif animations your cult does the ritual chants over…
It isn’t that hard to learn the ABCs of this technology – if you are going to go with this game, it would be a good idea to check into reality and learn something of these basic. At least so knowledgeable practitioners don’t walk all over you.
Yea, yea…I know, you are ignoring me. That is the root word of ignorance.
ww
“Dear onesliceshort, bad news I’m afraid : a higher definition [than original] version of the Hezarkhani fake footage does not make it any more real than the original.”`onebornfree
Yes this is true. HE {High Definition” is just a protocol for algorithms that sharpen the image definition – it does nothing whatsoever to the image beyond that.
A more simple method are the “Smoothing” algorithms for computer images – an extrapolation of light information in the pixels – to reduce pixel size and produce a sharper image.
However onebornfree, there IS the advantage of a sharper image in each case. A sharper image containing more detail is a bonus for all the obvious reasons – More visual information – rather than Less visual information, as in the Giff animations that your crowd plays with – where everything in the image is compromised to the point of obscurity.
Urging you to learn something of these technology continues to fall on deaf ears. Being insulted by this will only lead to your own frustrations. Trying to sell a fake Rafael to an art museum can only land one in a world of trouble.
ww
“plane vortex disturbance to the nearside explosion itself..”~onebornfree
Now you are talking more nonsense about another subject you know nothing about. You speak of this vortex disturbance as if this phenomena had the force to effect the pressures involved in the explosion. The vortex disturbance that happens in no way could overwhelm these pressures in such a way as to survive that blast in any – even residual way.
Some day when you are in a pool try this; run your hand through the water creating a wake. Now have a friend do one of those palm down plunger tricks that makes the high upward splash just behind your hand making the wake. See if there is anything left of the wake in that splash.
The meteorological phenomena of these vortexes are not the powerful force you make them out to be. It is nothing more than a wake. Learn some science.
ww
A few non-random thoughts:
More garbage was dumped on this thread in a brief interval than could have filled a dozen of Waste Managements largest trucks!
I was reminded of the My Lai Massacre: indiscriminate shooting, take-no-prisoners, intellectually unjustified, morally bankrupt . . .
Some seem to confuse cowardice with intelligence, which is not really surprising when they can’t even grasp Newton’s laws.
When I was an artillery officer, we learned how to bracket rounds to isolate our target and then to unload and “Fire for effect!”
This shows how easy it is to lie and how much time and effort could be expended to sort all of this out only to have it happen again.
I was reminded of my father’s observation that the Republicans accuse the Democrats of the very practices of which they are most guilty.
Someone here is a professional mind-manipulator, who accuses me of the very practices in which he specializes, if you think about it.
This affords a nice example of what happens on a thread that has been infiltrated when you get too close to the truth, as we have done.
Very good Mr. Fetzer, a few more ‘random assertions’, amounting to nothing more than verbal flatulence.
Again, you address none of the issues that are at hand here.
This is blubbering and nothing else. I am gravely disappointed…again.
ww
Jim, you are incredibly disrespectful to the members of this forum to come on here using the same false scientific arguments that were so thoroughly dissected and debunked on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum just a few weeks ago before you were banned there, and to pretend like nobody has ever made any valid counter-arguments to yours is outrageously dishonest. To see that all of my counter-arguments regarding Kinetic Energy, the irrelevance of the entire building’s mass ratio to the plane when calculating dynamic collisions, etc., that I discussed here (and that you completely ignored/dismissed) on this forum was already debated on the pilots forum even more thoroughly than on this thread really pisses me off. Shame on you Mr. Fetzer for such a profound lack of respect for science, the scientific method, and a slap in the face to those of all of those in your life who taught you what you now claim is “your 35 years of expertise in logic and scientific reasoning”
As Rob Balsamo put it only a few weeks ago,
Then, to fraudulently attempt to use the Pilots for 9/11 Truth name to add credence to your NPT nonsense after Rob Balsamo has warned you that he may have to take action to stop you from trying to discredit the P4T name by false association with NPT shows how despicable of a human being you are and further evidence that you are working at cross purposes to the goals of the Real 9/11 Truth Movement. I will do everything I can to let people know about your dishonest tactics and to shame you out of the truth movement.
keenan says –
“Jim, you are incredibly disrespectful to the members of this forum to come on here using the same false scientific arguments that were so thoroughly dissected and debunked on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum just a few weeks ago….
To see that all of my counter-arguments regarding Kinetic Energy, the irrelevance of the entire building’s mass ratio to the plane when calculating dynamic collisions, etc., that I discussed here (and that you completely ignored/dismissed) on this forum was already debated on the pilots forum even more thoroughly than on this thread really pisses me off.”
Well said Keenan.
Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Unfortunately for Fetzer, the laws of Physics will not change to conform to his argument, no matter who he tries to convince.
This is why Jim has hit nothing but brick walls when attempting his arguments with anyone who has an understanding of Applied Physics. One would think someone allegedly trained in “Scientific Reasoning” would have changed his argument by now. I refer you to Einstein’s definition above.
This is a nice example of what happens when one confused student of 9/11 cites another. Since even hybridrogue1 has agreed that the following four propositions are true, namely:
(1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;
which do you or Rob Balsamo reject? Dare I point out that these are the four claims that define NPT, so if you accept (1) through (4), how can you in logical consistency reject NPT?
And what is inappropriate, much less fraudulent, as you maintain, about citing discoveries of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which are featured on its home page, http://pilotsfor911truth.org, about:
(a) the impossible speed (for a standard Boeing 767) of the plane shown in the videos, from which it follows that, given the laws of aerodynamics, it cannot be a standard Boeing 767;
(b) that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was purportedly crashing in Shanksville, from which it follows that Flight 93 could not possibly have crashed in Shanksville, PA; and,
(c) that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly entering the South Tower, from which it follows that, whatever we see in those videos, it cannot be Flight 175.
So tell me what I have wrong or why I–or any other serious student of 9/11–should not cite what Pilots has established–(a), (b), and (c)–as data points in their analysis of 9/11 events?
PLUS even if Balsamo wants to insist that it was a “modified” or a “special” plane, since it cannot have been Flight 175, how can he deny that these videos, which have been shown to the public as proof that Flight 175 hit the South Tower, are being used to deceive us all?
And do you not understand that, in the sense of the phrase, “video fakery”, the use of video to deceive the public is video fakery, no matter whether it is done using a modified plane, a fake plane, or by introducing those images after the fact or before the video was broadcast?
What is there about these simple points that you and Rob Balsamo do not understand? I am doing my best to explain all of this in the simplest possible terms. If Flight 175 was not in New York, it cannot have hit the South Tower and any videos that claim to show it are fakes.
keenanroberts,
You are composing some of the most misleading posts on this entire thread. It is bad enough that you attack me about the Scholars and the Truth movement when you have no idea what you are talking about, where it was the “thermite-sniffers” desire to restrict our focus to their theory alone–when I had been convinced that nano-thermite could not do the jobs that were being attributed to it, while I thought we needed to consider other theories, such as mini-nukes and DEWs, to determine which had the greater explanatory power–that led to our separation, where I have turned out to be right and they have essentially blocked serious research on what happened to the Twin Towers for five or six years now. If you are going to offer opinions about these events, where I was there and you were not, try reading
“Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-as-911-disinformation-op.html
“The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/the-debate-over-911-truth-kevin-ryan-vs-jim-fetzer/
Steve Fahrney, “Confessions of a 9/11 Truth Activist”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/22/confessions-of-a-911-truth-activist-2/
As for the mass ratio question, the mass ratio makes a difference because this was a single, highly integrated building, which was rooted to the ground via its core columns in bedrock. It is therefore analogous to a car hitting a massive tree, which is rooted to the ground. You seem to have the stack-of-coins model in mind, where if you had a stack of dimes on top of a stack of pennies on top of a stack of nickles on top of a stack of quarters on top of a stack of half-dollars, it might make sense to think of a sharp object hitting it just right and knocking out a penny or a nickle, for example. But that model is flawed because the stack would has to be welded together to represent a Twin Tower. And I would hope that, at this point, you can see why your dismissal of the mass ratio is wrong. You are simply trading in one more faulty analogy, which can sound appealing until you take it seriously. I hope you see it now.
“I haven’t listened to all of it yet. I can’t take Johnathan Kay for more than a few minutes at a time.”~hadmatter
Thanks for the link.
Posting down here cuz the page loaded basic HTML again…{sheeeeeeeze}
ww
At the risk of over posting, there is one eye-witness account relevant to this off topic thread that I haven’t seen cited anywhere, so I might as well make it part of the record.
I’m referring to the extended version of Arthur del Bianco’s hospital bed interview available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgPmmqdH1K0
Specifically, at 0:48 in the video we have:
…we started helping the elderly people and people coming down from the 40th floors, walking down the stairs…and which way to get out of the building.
When we went outside building number four, we see…plane parts all over the place…I used to work in aviation…plane parts all over the place.”
He was evacuating people from WTC2, so this would have been sometime after the explosion, but before WTC2 collapsed.
This single eye-witness account isn’t likely to sway anyone posting in this thread from their positions, but it is another factoid that has to be dealt with.
Either Arthur is lying (where have I heard that before), or this building engineer, who is apparently familiar with both building and aircraft components, is mistaken about what he thinks he saw. (Seems I’ve heard that argument somewhere else, too.)
Or of course, there could have also been a lot of little holograms projected on the ground for the benefit of people escaping out of the buildings; a many mini-hologram theory, so to speak.
Anyway, for what it’s worth there is at least one witness on record as having seen a lot plane parts in the WTC plaza before the buildings came down.
Be seein’ ya
Thank you Hadmatter,
This is a very relevant post. Yes every factoid helps to clarify.
Don’t be worried about ‘over-posting’ just yet, you have a lot of catching up to do to reach your quota.
That ‘mini-hologram’ hypothesis might have some legs. Let’s see if Professor Profound, can build on it.
ww
Most everyone is familiar with Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty Four, But Orwell was not a ‘science fiction’ writer, his forte was political commentary, and these ‘fictional’ works are an extension of that, by way of allegory.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
‘Orwell’s essential essay, unabridged, and without commentary. If you read nothing else of his non-fiction, read this.’
Perhaps my argument with Mr. Fetzer over his attempt to change the definitions of words in the English language, will be made clearer if this essay is read. Although what he is talking about in this paper is much more subtle than what Fetzer was up to.
I would invite discussion of this issue for anyone who cannot parse the parallels of the message from Orwell, to the points I made about Fetzer’s linguistic trickology.
ww
Let me get this straight. bybridrogue1 AGREES that
(1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
but REJECTS “NPT” (No Plane Theory), where I am
the one who is supposed to be indulging in “double-
speak”? Perhaps he can enlighten us as to what it is
he accepts and what it is he rejects, because I agree
that one of us is Orwellian, where the evidence speaks
eloquently for itself. How can he REJECT NPT when
he has already ACCEPTED the claims that define it?
Ridicule is not ad hominem when the argument being made is ridiculous. Remember that “professor”.
Now this is a clear example of begging the question, as I have answered this clearly several times now.
I accept this 1,2,3,4. But as stated before, no planes means NO PLANES. It does not mean none of the planes claimed by the official story. Two planes clearly crashed into the WTC towers, this is beyond rational dispute. So “no planes” fails on that head. DO YOU FOLLOW?
If you are having this much trouble grasping this simple concept, it should be apparent to anyone reading this blog that you are indeed ridiculous.
ww
Jim, you don’t get to re-define terms whenever it serves your manipulative purposes. NPT stands for “N – O P – L – A – N – E T – H – E – O – R – Y”, not ‘Plane Swapping Theory’. That would be ‘PST’.
The laws of physics will not change to conform to your bogus arguments, and the english language will not be mutilated to serve your bogus word games and evasive tactics, no matter who you try to convince.
Let us be frank here Mr. Fetzer.
You have ducked and bobbed here, evading every rational argument of physics put to you by__1. Not even answering__2. Answering your own reinterpretation of the question rather than the actual question put to you__ 3. Simply exclaiming that the questioner has no understanding of physics, attended by ridicule.
That is:
1. refusing to answer
2. strawman
3. argument from authority + ad hominem
This has been going on for weeks. Were this a court of law, you could be charged with contempt of court.
You like blurb language, how about this one:
*** FED-UP WITH FETZER ***
Kinda catchy isn’t it?
ww
Well, at least we are making some kind of progress. hybridrogue1 acknowledges that
(1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Which is now and always has been what I or any other reasonable student of 9/11 has meant by NPT. But at least we now know what he believes is the issue, namely: he contends, but I deny, that real planes hit the North and the South Towers. So far, so good. He wants to insist that NPT has to mean “no planes anywhere at any time”, which is of course obviously false, if only because a plane was flown toward the Pentagon and then swerved over it. So in his sense of “No Planes”, I would agree with him, where he has already agreed with my NPT defined by (1), (2), (3) and (4).
His hysterical attacks now make even less sense than before when they were still shrouded in ambiguity. He should, after all, concede that, since video fakery is any use of videos to present a misleading impression of the events of 9/11, that the videos that have been presented as showing Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are form of fakery and of Flight 11 hitting the North is another.
Since he wants to claim that the videos are themselves not altered but that two substitute planes were used, while I also suggest that the videos are themselves not altered but that two simulated planes were used, what justifies his many egregious, repetitions, and over-the-top attacks on me?
There is nothing “Orwellian” about our differences, which appear to be rather subtle. Since the evidence I have adduced to show that it was not a real plane but a simulation at both locations is on “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, let’s look at the evidence I offer there, beginning with the Naudet video:
(a) it does not look anything like a Boeing 767, not even remotely, when if it were one it should;
(b) there are four distinct points of impact when it hits the tower, which creates the image of a “Z”;
(c) when the smoke clears, that four-point image has turned into a three-pointed, elongated “V”.
So let’s look at the images I present there and discuss the reasons why I think this is not a 767. There are others, but these three would appear to be reasonable places to begin. Please do not reassert that the images are blurry. We all know that, but they are the ones we have to assess.
Indeed, let me revise the final paragraph here to avoid trivial differences. Let’s look at the images I present there and discuss the reasons why I think this is not a 767 or even a real plane. There are others, but these three would appear to be reasonable places to begin. It appears to me that we have the simulation of a plane that was probably done using a close formation of four UAVs. Please do not reassert that the images are blurry. We all know that, but they are the images we have to assess.
One of my favorite quotes from Rob Balsamo:
Even a layman (me) with a basic knowledge of English, engineering and physics who has spent hours and hours digesting the discussion on this thread can understand that “no planes” means no planes. These “no planes” were flights 11, 175, 93 and 77. However, 4 other flying machines were deployed on 9/11 that resemble aircraft, whether they were modified missiles or specially developed aircraft with or without missiles, and 2 of these aircraft/modified/misslies hit the WTC towers, another either flew over the Pentagon after deploying a missile or was the missile itself. Something was shot down in Shankesville. Why the irrational hologram theory? Don’t need it.
I agree with you in general. My quibble would be with the Pentagon plane flying over after deploying a missile, etc. I think the evidence is very strong that the plane indeed flew over, but without the missile. Planted explosives in the building.
Like Mr Mckee, I agree with you to a degree.
I take exception to this:
“These “no planes” were flights 11, 175, 93 and 77”.
This is true only as the term “no planes” is modified by qualifier. That there ‘were’ planes, is established for the incidents at the Pentagon, and the WTC. These craft were ‘planes’ – the point is indisputable.
The fact that they were not, flights 11, 175, 93 and 77, is indisputable as well.
The fact is these craft have all of the aerodynamic components and features to qualify ONLY as what is the established definition and term for; “plane”. Thus your qualifier collapses. We are talking to the language here, not to whether the planes were modified.
ww
“You have mastered the ad hominen, the dismissal out of hand (even though it is unjustified by any argument or evidence), trading on equivocations (about the meaning of “NPT”, for example, which is completely trivial when properly defined, where even your agree with the four propositions and only disagree about how these planes were faked, where you think by substitute planes (one form of fakery) and I simulated planes (another form of fakery).”~Fetzer
This quote is taken from above in the middle of so many other posts from the original Reply button, that I answer here:
“the dismissal out of hand (even though it is unjustified by any argument or evidence)”
>Not so, I gave a clear and distinct argument for my dismissal of your NPT definitions. As I continue to stress below. That you refer to this as trivial I have disagreed for stated reasons as well; as I have told you over and again that I refuse to answer according to your bogus definitions – but will answer only to reason and logic. The term we are discussing is NPT = No Plane Theory. We are not discussing the term FPT = Faked Planes Theory.
Again you call this trivial quibbling.
I do not consider debasing the language for “short-hand thinking” is proper or illuminating. I am growing weary of the need to make such arguments against “Blurb Talk ” and explaining how it is a tactic of the PR of ‘dumbing down’.
As far as “begging the argument” you give the rote definition, that is in no way corrupted by mine, you yourself should recognize that my definition illuminates the procedure that results in the situational moment of your memorized rote definition.
ww
“Begging the question” is the fallacious assumption that you are correct without offering any good reasons or evidence on your behalf.~Fetzer
‘Begging the Question” is defined in the terms of argumentum as; asking the same question over and again to answers that have been sufficient, with answers that have not been sufficient, but have been vague, incorrect, or not forthcoming – then the questions remain unanswered with the onus still upon the one asked for a sufficient answer.’~ww *
“without offering any good reasons or evidence on your behalf.” ~FP
‘…the answers have not been sufficient, but have been vague, incorrect , or not forthcoming”~ww
“fallacious” = ‘vague, incorrect’
In what then is there a corruption of the spirit or meaning of your classical quip? I say quip, as it gets to the kernel of my critique of your thinking. It would seem that someone who really grasps the classical definition, would recognize it stated in different terms. That you do not, seems an indicator that you do not grasp the spirit behind the meaning…thus making your interpretation lifeless, even though ‘technically correct” – this is often described by the term “rote thinking”.
* {*slight amendment for clarification}
ww
“If you are going to offer opinions about these events, where I was there and you were not, try reading:”~says Fetzer to Keenan about the dispute between Jones et al, and Fetzer’s comrades. He then offers three sources to look into the background – all self serving sites written from his own perspective. Even the wiki site has a notice at the heading that the article there has been disputed for lack of objectivity.
There are other sources of course that give a clearer – in fact point-by-point account – revealed by the emails between Fetzer and Jones:
http://blog.lege.net/content/Steven_E_Jones_And_James_Fetzer_Exchange.html
A comparison of the two perspectives leaves little doubt as to who has been honest in the recollection of these events.
ww
Fetzer says this to Keenan as well – as yet another variation of his groundless mantra:
“As for the mass ratio question, the mass ratio makes a difference because this was a single, highly integrated building, which was rooted to the ground via its core columns in bedrock.”
This is an argument against nothing I nor Keenan nor OSS have ever said.
We have never once argued that there was no significance to the mass ratio. We have argued that the significance you place on it is too large, that other variables of physics overwhelm the significance as prime and proximate.
And it is AGAIN, on this very point, that you refuse to acknowledge our real argument and argue against your reinterpretation of it. That you should be astonished that we might think you mad is an astonishment in itself.
You are in checkmate now and have been for some while. It is only your foolishness of using a pawn as a king that has kept this game going. You should take that old Haitian saw to heart and realize how exposed you are.
ww
It is difficult to believe the rash of posts by hybridrogue1, TheFacts
and keenanroberts, who are posting some of the dumbest rubbish I
have ever seen, especially in desperately trying to salvage their own
indefensible positions by playing games about the meaning of “NPT”,
when I have repeatedly explained that WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT
is “No ‘official’ planes theory” or “No ‘Big Boeings’ theory”, which are
of course worth discussing and appear to be true, by sillness such as
keenanroberts attempts to trivial it all with his own preferred version.
Well, all he has to do is spell out his version and explain why he does
not accept it, because mine is alive, well, and scientifically justifiable.
For reasons I do not understand, I see where several comments that
I have submitted some time back have yet to be posted, which puzzles
me. I regard Craig as a completely honorable man, who is doing his
level best to be even-handed and fair minded. In fact, he has bent
over backwards to allow a vicious horde to wreak havoc on this thread.
The underlying theme is that I am supposed to be some kind of “op”,
as though an op would spend his time exposing the government’s role
in the most monstrous crimes of recent history. Consider, for example,
my extensive collaborative research on the assassination of JFK, where
we have been instrumental in shattering the government and exposing
we found, which has been published in three collections of studies I’ve
edited, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY
PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).
In addition I have done extensive research on the plane crash that took
the life of the conscience of the Senate, AMERICAN ASSASSINATION:
THE STRANGE DEATH OF SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE (2004) and on
9/11, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE SCAMMING OF AMERICA (2007).
Since I have been devoting myself since my retirement from UMD to
advancing research on some of the most controversial events of our
lifetime and exposing governmental malfeasance, I am having a hard
time figuring out why my bona fides deserve to be challenged. My latest:
“Vinny Eastwood Interviews Jim Fetzer on 9/11 facts”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r-r1SXFcc6Q
“Face to Phone with Jim Fetzer — Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth”
http://vimeo.com/39592856
“US fabricated raid on bin Laden compound in Pakistan: Political analyst”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/238468.html
The only explanation that occurs to me is that TM, Senor El Once, and I,
along with a few others, are exposing the most devastating dimension of
the 9/11 plot, which was the fabrication of all four crash sites, where, for
reasons of their own, hybridrogue1, TheFacts (an absurd name for some-
one who so blatantly distorts them), and keenanroberts, do not want to
become widely known. Otherwise, their conduct here defies explanation,
because of all of those posting here, there is no reason to doubt that I’ve
been doing at least as much as anyone to expose governmental crimes.
Jim,
Again, you have only a Rote knowledge of Physics, and limited Rote knowledge at that. This is why you are not able to make any convincing argument to anyone who understands Physics, nor get any support from anyone with a Physics Degree.
You compare the WTC strike to a car hitting a tree, an “empty coke can” to hitting a 500,000lb mass.
You fail to understand effects of speed.
You fail to understand the factors of Density.
You fail to understand the results of Specific Density.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, if the WTC were one solid piece of steel measuring 208x208x1400+ feet, you may have a point with your argument.
But the fact of the matter is, the WTC is not one solid piece/brick of steel.
Let’s go back to your “car hits a tree” analogy.
What if the car was traveling 500 mph and hits a tree with a 5″ diameter Tree Trunk? What do you think will happen?
According to your logic, the Car should wrap itself around such a tree.
Now what if the car was traveling at 1000 mph at impact?
2000 mph?
5000 mph?
Again, you cannot grasp the effects of Speed on Kinetic Energy, and you have demonstrated such a failed understanding time after time.
Jim, to give you a proper apples to apples –“Keep It Simple Stupid”– scenario since it is clear you haven’t the first clue regarding Physics, the WTC impacts are similar to a Car impacting a Corn field with 47 Trees in the center. The car will crush down the Corn Stalks, and be shredded when hitting the 47 trees in the center of the field.
Since you wish to quote Newton ad nauseum. If Newtons Laws were not applied in the WTC impacts, the aircraft observed to strike the South Tower would have ended up flying past upper Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester County all the way to Canada and beyond… in one piece. .after passing “effortlessly” through the South Tower.
However, what is seen in the videos and witnessed first hand by people with their own eyes who were there, are Newtons Law’s in action.
The explosions you see…. the debris flying from the tower… yep, that is all of Netwon’s Three Laws in action.
Jim, don’t you ever get tired of losing support and fighting people who once supported you? Pilots For 9/11 Truth were perhaps the last organization in the “Truth Movement” who supported the fact you wish to explore any theory you want. Why do you think they now want nothing to do with you?
This is a very strange post for many reasons, some of which I shall address:
I was right about the OTC (“20 Reasons the official account of 9/11 is wrong”);;
I was right about nano-thermite (“Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”);
I was right about the Pentagon story (“What didn’t happen at the Pentagon?”);
I was right about “who done it?” (“Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”);
I was right about “NPT”, when it is properly understood as I have explicitly defined it:
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;
There are many complaints about my use of the phrase, “video fakery”, but, since
I have explained repeatedly what I mean by that phase, they are without foundation.
Everyone can spell out what they mean by that phrase and argue for or against it.
You seem to have swallowed rumors, hearsay, and speculation about me. If there
are those who differ from me about all these things, that’s fine; but the evidence is
on my side, including about the history of Scholars and baseless attacks upon me:
The Company You are Keeping: Comments on Hoffman and Green http://www.911scholars.org/Fetzer_9Feb2006.html
What’s the matter with Jim Hoffman? Abusing logic and language to attack Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html
“Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-as-911-disinformation-op.html
“The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/the-debate-over-911-truth-kevin-ryan-vs-jim-fetzer/
For a nice litmus test of where we stand, take a look at:
“The Science and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/28/the-science-and-politics-of-911-the-toronto-hearings/
If you want to show I have something wrong, then drop sweeping rhetorical condemnations and hysterical personal denunciations and explain what I have said and why I said it (so I can tell you have me right) and then explain what I have wrong and how you know. That you have not done.
This claim that I do not understand Newton’s laws has been refuted again and again, so I can only infer that it is being raised once more as another red herring to distract from the proof that no real plane can have performed the feats that this plane displays in the videos. This guy now maintains that,
“If Newtons Laws were not applied in the WTC impacts, the aircraft observed to strike the South Tower would have ended up flying past upper Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester County all the way to Canada and beyond… in one piece. .after passing “effortlessly” through the South Tower.”
Except of course if it has been a real plane, modified or not, it could not have entered the South Tower without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, and bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. It was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete.
The continuing state of denial about the physics of the situation displayed by keenanroberts, this guy, and hybridrouge1 are obvious indications that they are either incredibly stupid–which I do not believe–or they are deliberately peddling “junk science”–which I believe–for some reasons of their own.
The analogy with a flying empty beer can hitting a brick wall (or a car travelling very fast hitting an enormous tree) and obviously appropriate. The stack-of-loose-coins analogy is not, since the building was an intricate lattice structure that was bolted and welded together to create a single, massive whole.
Nonesense about planes and cars traveling at thousands of miles is ridiculous. We know that the effects of a plane traveling 500 mph hitting this 500,000-ton stationary building would be the same as the 500,000-ton building moving at 500 mph and hitting the stationary plane, precisely as Newton explained.
“I was right about nano-thermite (“Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”);”
> This is utter arrogance; this dispute is counterbalanced far to your disfavor in the physics end of the 9/11 community.
“I was right about the Pentagon story (“What didn’t happen at the Pentagon?”)”
> What have been some of the major points of contention on this thread? Have they not spun around the issues to do with Cimino here? Has that issue still not been resolved?
To agree to aspects of that argument is to agree with Comino at any rate, all you did was introduce his arguement. So if anyone was “right” about it, Dennis was.
“I was right about “NPT”, when it is properly understood as I have explicitly defined it:”
> As this has been such a bone of contention here, that you should pick that up as a point of your success is not merely mildly atrocious .
“There are many complaints about my use of the phrase, “video fakery””
> This is sibling to the last remark. Senor finally abandoned your case on this head. Did you not grasp his complaints?
It is NOT “video fakery” simply because something is a common part of TV propaganda…you wish to call TV propaganda in entirety “video fakery” then how are we to name the actual techniques of manipulating video as such as the Shack cult has posited, or the Ace Baker propositions, or any other actual operation involving the technology of photo manipulation?
However the main thing as per this thread, is that you have shown no understanding of applied physics, which is the most second baffling thing here – thoe most baffling is your mode of argumentation, as this is presumably your premier talent.
ww
“We know that the effects of a plane traveling 500 mph hitting this 500,000-ton stationary building would be the same as the 500,000-ton building moving at 500 mph and hitting the stationary plane, precisely as Newton explained.”~JF
YES INDEED -In-frikin-deed, bloody indeed, indeed to the power of infinity – WE ALL DO.
Good grief….how many more times Jim???
It has been pointed out so many times here why POINT OF IMPACT is prime proximate physics, superseding the the ‘mass ratio’ argument.
This is simply burlesque to dance this fandango yet again.
Thank you for referring to me as honourable, but the second half of your compliment is delightfully backhanded: “In fact, he has bent
over backwards to allow a vicious horde to wreak havoc on this thread.”
Is it a good thing to have tolerated a havoc-wreaking horde?
I would like to know how this car is able to crash into a Supermarket given the Mass ratio argument made by Fetzer.
Certainly the Supermarket has a much larger mass than the car, no?
Perhaps this is also a hologram and video fakery? lmao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h14UNm6yaWM
“playing games about the meaning of “NPT”,
when I have repeatedly explained that WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT”~Fetzer
This entire post is an appeal to authority – your own. As such it is a compound error of argumentation “appeal to authority plus hubris”.
Most of the post is simply resume’ – touching on all manner of items of absolutely no significance to the issues at hand.
Why all this bluster? Why can you not simply make a successful argument against your opponents? I would suggest it is because there is NO argument available other than this sort of dissembling you have just posted.
Your attempt to spin the wheel here yet one more time with nothing but hot air is revealing enough in itself.
Do you really take us all for fools?
Yes you have already explained what YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. And those who comprehend what that is have called you on it as nonsense.
You have STILL YET to address the specific physics point by point. Do not DARE ask these points to be stated yet one more time – damn it man, they are stated in triplicate throughout this thread.
You argument has become utter jabberwacky.
ww
Professor Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word, “ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “It means just what I choose it to mean- never more or less.”
“The question is, “ said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” Said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
ww
“..vicious horde to wreak havoc on this thread….The underlying theme is that I am supposed to be some kind of “op”, as though an op would spend his time exposing the government’s role in the most monstrous crimes of recent history.”~Fetzer
This ‘vicious horde’ has not stated with any certainty that you are an “op” Jim; It has been stated as an option between that as a possibility verses the possibility of your incompetence.
Agreed, neither is a pleasant option to accept.
Now I have addressed the possiblilty of “sheep dipping”, and this is not an outrageous argument for anyone with a knowledge of the craft of intelligence.
I have already given a short abstract of how this process works and will not revisit it.
At any rate, this is not an accusation that you are an “op”, but there is the choice to be made…as I put it in a quip here some time ago above:
‘Fetzer is either cops or fruitloop’.
This is a very harsh situation and I have sympathy for the situation – but it is one that Jim has massaged into place himself. Some of us learn from our mistakes – some of us don’t.
My only request at this time is that Jim avoid another prima donna drama-queen exit. But that he instead show some sort of grace whether leaving or staying.
ww
Jim,
Let me put it as simply as I can. Those of us with with any amount of science background and an ability to understand applied physics or an ability to reason logically are not buying what you are trying to sell. It’s not that we haven’t inspected your goods thoroughly enough and don’t understand your wares. It’s because we know your wares all too well at this point, as do most people in the movement who consider you a nincompoop or worse. From this point on, I’m not even going to bother reading any more of your verbal flatulence here or anywhere else. You haven’t changed your tune for 6 years, and the odious smell and obnoxious sound is still as unpleasant now as it was when you started this program. The Real Truth Movement has long passed you by and left you in the dust. The train has left the station several years ago and is not coming back for you no matter how loudly you yell. Farewell, Mr. Fetzer.
I know how you dread my presence here Jim. Just let me assure you that the feeling is not mutual. In fact I am delighted with your volunteering to come here and put on your show. The highlight of which is your posing of your contentions as proven facts, that is the chorus we so love to hear reprized.
But seriously my man, is there no one near to pull you back from the window ledge as you stretch for that imaginary balloon? Is there no counsel that you trust? You seem not to grasp the storm raging around your reputation. You know that it is not only here that this is the case, it is a controversy well discussed in the various partitions of the 9/11 community.
I would advise a pause for deep reflection.
ww
JF says –
“This claim that I do not understand Newton’s laws has been refuted again and again.”
I have absolutely no doubt that it has in your own mind, especially considering the fact that you make up your own definitions of language as you go along., while name calling anyone who actually understands Physics….stupid, dumb.. .etc.
….and Jim guy wonders why he was banned from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum… hmmm..
Jim, why have you evaded every single question I have asked? Specifically this one…
Where are the “documents” proving Dennis Cimino holds a Flight Engineer Certificate required for the “Second Officer” position?
(in other words, I will no longer waste my time going round and round with you on arguments/claims which you have provided for nearly 6 years and have lost support).
This new claim of Dennis Cimino being a Second Officer without holding a Flight Engineer Certificate has yet to be addressed. I imagine you will now attempt to change the definition of “Second Officer” to suit your needs?
Do you know that Dennis Cimino could have ALL of his certificates revoked by the FAA if he falsely claims experience. It’s quite clear in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Anytime you wish to address this issue, feel free.
Let’s see if this can be made clear to Jim:
He claims that “Mass ratio” is the supreme issue.
We counter, no “It is crash physics which supersedes.”
It is then put as allegory to show how a crash has taken place wherein a less massive object has penetrated a larger mass.
In every instance Jim comes back to answer that it is an absurd comparison. What does he use for argument as to why it is absurd? Answer: crash physics.
But that is OUR argument. It is NOT an argument to the supremacy of mass ratio.
And this goes round’n’round like a bloody carousel.
Then on top of this Jim explains what a circular argument is as if everyone here are dolts.
I tried to get this across to him when he balked at Keenan’s ‘bullet can not penetrate a man’ argument…he didn’t get it then and jumped up and down bellowing that it is an absurd argument.
That was the point YES it is an absurd argument, but he defended against that argument – again with ‘crash physics’.
When I pointed out that this is what he had done he accused me of using the absurd argument – but I was not, I was pointing out that he had shifted to ‘crash physics’ to claim the absurdity of the ‘bullet-man’ argument – HE STILL DIDN’T GET IT.
And he still doesn’t get it. And THAT is what blows everybody’s mind here on this thread.
ww
Craig,
You have shown impressive forbearing and patience with all of the diverse personalities and character types you have to deal with on this forum.
You have left just the right length of lease on us…and I have learned a lot from the experience here…one is that that wise cracks too often backfire.
Another is that mirroring a personality back at someone never sinks in to the one you are mirroring, because they have an ideal of themselves for a self image.
Jim reinforced my knowledge that over confidence is not the root of arrogance, but that it is indeed self-doubt – lack of confidence that breeds such border line hubris.
Of course the major lesson was to check beyond what is on the thread, before making an assumption about what the poster really said, when it seems such an obvious contradiction. This is a hard call with Jim however. As has been pointed out he is a bundle of contradictions. And those have been addressed ad nauseum. I hope it will be alright to continue too discuss this encounter, even if Jim ends up not responding again.
He left an indelible impression, with a lot of observations to be made.
ww
I’ve posted a response over at Pilotsfor911Truth
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992&view=findpost&p=10804770
Peace
OSS
“Me thinkest thou doth protest too much.”
This series of postings from the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group — Mr. HybridRogue, Mr. Keenan Roberts, and Miss TheFacts — is a fitting cap to this thread of ~865 postings (so far). All of them are top-level postings; all of them are not in response to anything; nearly all of them are flame-bait.
TheFacts says: May 2, 2012 at 12:03 pm
hybridrogue1 says: May 2, 2012 at 1:23 pm
hybridrogue1 says: May 2, 2012 at 1:53 pm
hybridrogue1 says: May 2, 2012 at 3:31 pm
keenanroberts says: May 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm
hybridrogue1 says: May 2, 2012 at 5:28 pm
TheFacts says: May 2, 2012 at 5:42 pm
hybridrogue1 says: May 2, 2012 at 8:15 pm
hybridrogue1 says: May 2, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Mr. Roberts wrote:
It is embarrassing to point out that forum is written and not verbal. But setting this aside, let us hope that Mr. Roberts doesn’t stop at not bothering to read but also not bother to respond.
Miss Facts wrote a promise that I hope he, too, will try to honor better than Mr. Roberts:
I loved Mr. HybridRogue’s final posts to this thread (so far). I’ve extracted several comments from his postings that should be considered OUT OF CONTEXT and re-directed back at the writer. Mr. HybridRogue wrote:
I’m too lazy and short on time to count the stats on this thread now at ~865 postings. I’m sure the trend from when the postings were at 751 haven’t changed much:
hybridrogue1: 30%
Jim Fetzer: 22%
Craig McKee: 8.9%
OneSliceShort: 8.5%
keenanroberts: 6%
Señor El Once: 4%
“By their fruits ye will know them.”
Momentum is a vector quantity. A vector quantity is a quantity that is fully described by both magnitude and direction. From the definition of momentum, it becomes obvious that an object has a large momentum if either its mass or its velocity is large. Both variables are of equal importance in determining the momentum of an object.
The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity.
Only at the moment and point of impact is there any momentum of any object but for the airplane.
At that moment and point of impact, the momentum is then transferred as kinetic energy to the portion of the building directly struck. At no time was the entire mass of the building in a state of momentum.
The state of the building prior to impact is one of Inertia — it means the building was at rest.
This is the first misconception that Fetzer imparts in his ‘Mass differential as prime’ argument. It is in omitting these base considerations that he is able to lead the argument in his false direction.
So Fetzer was asked time and again to simply take it from there. One object is a large mass in an inert state. A second object is in a state of momentum. At the moment and point of contact, what are the factors that must be considered?
This question was posed to him innumerable times, in many ways to try to coax him into a response. One that still has never come.
We would hope that Mr. Fetzer might have an answer readily available as he has spent so many years speaking to this event. It is baffling that he would withhold such an answer at this late date.
This may be redundant, but Mr. Fetzer seemed to indicate that he wasn’t sure what our question is. So I have restated it again is the clearest way I can think to.
ww
Jim Fetzer daid: “The continuing state of denial about the physics of the situation displayed by keenanroberts, this guy, and hybridrouge1 are obvious indications that they are either incredibly stupid–.”
Heh! Why aren’t they all off applying for their patents for solid aluminum saw blades for cutting through steel – [after all, it would far cheaper than what we have to use now now , surely]?; or for their patents for hollow, aluminum only, armor -piercing bullets?, that’s what I would like to know.
Why do they all waste their time here letting their inner secrets of Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion known to the whole wide world when they all could be millionaires with their applied “secrets of kinetic energy” ?
Or are they perhaps the latest incarnation of the 3 Stooges? [or just one stooge with three separate sign-on accounts here]:-) Who knows?
One things for sure, the old Shakespeare quote “methinks he doth protesteth too much” [or whatever it originally was] seems wholly applicable to all three , who also seem to believe that the more you post, and the more you insult, the truer your “argument” becomes. Reminds me of another old saying:” empty vessels make the most noise” 🙂
Regards, onebornfree
Well onebornfree, as you have shown yourself to be such a whiz at science {grin}, I think I will pass on any further commentary on that point.
I could reprise my commentary on your lack of visual acuity, and ignorance of video and digital photography again. But that too is such a proven point as to fall into the spinning wheels of redundancy.
To be blunt, you don’t know what you are talking about – simple as that.
ww
Mr. OneBornFree wrote:
You seemed to have skimmed over the physics lesson and what squaring of the large velocity does in the kinetic energy equation. You also missed what happened with high speed bullets hitting steel.
It isn’t that the soft lead bullet pierces the steel and comes out the other side in tact. No. The bullet often splatters but not before transferring its energy into the steel such that it breaks steel bonds and generates a hole in the plates.
The aircraft of 9/11 WTC were not commercial aircraft, as is evident by their velocities at low elevation that otherwise their structure and engines could not sustain plus their precision in hitting the towers somewhat squarely at all.
The external walls of the towers were not continuous. They were 36 cm walls on 100 cm centers, meaning they had 64 cm window slits. The floor slabs also indicate a significant amount of vertical spacing. They were designed to support localized vertical loads. Yes, they played a significant role with a horizontally impacting aircraft, but the point is that significant space exists for an aircraft to enter.
For the parts of the plane smacking solid substance, we turn to the Sandia F4 crash tests and the MythBuster videos. These demonstrate that high velocities (squared) can do a decimating number on the weaker material. BUT, like the examples of the weaker lead bullet, energies can transfer into the stronger material and cause them to fail… sliced, punched out, etc. as observed in the aftermath.
As the resident Truth & Shadows champion of NPT (no planes theory), I now concede the point and will no longer be advocating it. My heartfelt apologies to this forum and to any participants whom I may have skewered with my NPT rhetoric.
Mr. OneSliceShort’s excellent postings on Pilots For 9/11 Truth refute with evidence, science, and proper analysis everything that had duped me the last 4 years or so into believing the NPT.
My belief was primarily based on the work of September Clues. I recognized going into it and throughout my tenure in championing it that some crafty disinformation was at play, only (a) the counter-arguments to NPT were weak, non-convincing, and mostly ad hominem bluster and (b) I was needing assistance in spotting those disinformation nuggets, what with video techniques not being my forte. My direct interactions with Mr. Shack and his clues forum were easier to take apart as not being truthful of the big picture, thereby further raising my hackles that I was being duped by NPT.
This being said, September Clues should not be taken off the table. Why?
First and foremost, it needs to be held up as an excellent example of purposeful disinformation. It wasn’t cheap. A lot of money and effort were spent in making it, promoting it, and maintaining the September Clues website. It was very crafty.
Secondly and probably more importantly, nuggets of truth remain in September Clues that need to be mined, refined, and re-purposed. At the moment, I lack the time to view all episodes 1-9 and A-H again for this purpose. My comments are based on what I can recall.
A particularly glaring nugget of truth was the active role of the corporate media in the 9/11 ruse from the onset. Control of the media is a military objective, and this was evident by the amount of footage sharing between the networks. After-the-fact is one thing, but they were doing it with live shots that were cut in. They were actively framing the shock-and-awe.
Another nugget was the extremely large banners that they put under images to obscure what viewers would see (or record). And after all this time, the media hasn’t been releasing source footage without such obnoxious banners.
Manipulation of imagery did happen. To what extent? I don’t know. But to sweep September Clues off the table prematurely without a proper analysis of both technical nits as well as overarching concepts plays into the hands of disinformation. [In fact, Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree stilted and obtuse methods of arguing “all was fake; false in one, false in all” instead of more rational and defendable arguments of “some was fake” could be viewed as crafty plays to get objective readers to dismiss seriously considering the whole genre and thereby dismiss nuggets of truth that might not otherwise be recognized and known.]
Meanwhile, parallels between September Clues and Dr. Wood’s textbook (the remaining hobby-horse I ride) exist, although that pony is lame in one hoof and I know it. Before it gets put down, nuggets of truth must be preserved.
++++++
For those curious, the stats for ~865 were:
hybridrogue1: ~273 (31.5%)
Jim Fetzer: ~176 (20%)
Craig McKee: ~84 (9.7%)
OneSliceShort: ~79 (9.1%)
keenanroberts: ~58 (6.7%)
Señor El Once: ~39 (4.5%)
TheFacts says: 15 (1.7%)
When considering what got me to change my tune, it was none of Mr. HybridRogue’s 31.5%, Dr. Fetzer’s 20%, or Mr. Roberts 6.7%. Credit goes to Mr. OneSliceShorts modest 9.1%.
@Senor
“September Clues” was one of the first videos that I was hooked on when I first (literally) fell down the rabbit hole. It was so well made at a time when badly edited, amateur “truth videos” were the norm. It was professional looking and I can still hear the “scratched record” effect that permeated each new chapter. It really was a tidy, convincing package. So much so that the MSM scripted and coordinated coverage only added to the theory.
There are definitely “nuggets of truth” that have been swallowed up in this monster (including the impact and explosive signatures). The appendage (pod) and tower 1 flash come to mind.
OSS,
As per – “So much so that the MSM scripted and coordinated coverage only added to the theory..”
Being the ancient mariner that I am…65 trips around ol’Sol so far, I had a lot under my hat prior to the 9/11 event. So issues such as “MSM scripted coordination” had become one of the subjects of special attention for myself, long decades before the great “Attack On America” theater came along in September of 2001.
It was in fact just this that clued me in while driving back to San Diego from the LA area on September 11. With not another single car on the road, driving about 95 mph the whole way, listening to NPR – it was just that – “MSM scripted coordination” that convinced me on the drive that we had another PSYOP on our hands. All the “usual suspects” were on hand with commentary that was so obviously from the same ‘Handbook’, that it was entirely transparent and obvious to a veteran of the studies of ‘Propaganda and Public Relations’ that this was going to be a “really big shew”…
Almost as soon as I arrived at my place in E. S.D, got upstairs to my studio and got the old black and white portable out of the closet and up and running, the first “collapse” happened, and the visual of that was show. I literally shot out of my chair pointing at the screen shouting “IMPOSSIBLE” — there was no way in heaven or hell that the airplane and the smoky towers had ANYTHING to do what I just saw.
And of course for the rest of the day I analysed how the carousel of ‘usual suspect’ creatures were paraded across the screen. The actual title logo’s and theme music for the “Attack on America” show…the psychic jamming techniques of the visual loop of the plane crash over and over as a subconscious trauma inductance, and e then the same with the ‘collapse’ video accompanied by the mantra; “Collapsed into its own footprint”.
I recognized all of this for what it was the first day. And of course was immediately online, searching for info and reaction from the correspondents and sites I was familiar with.
The “carpet of bombs or carpet of gold” threat to Afghanistan from Kharzai – the word of an aircraft carrier getting notice to turn and head back to stateside some four or five hours prior to the first plane event, began my first threads of research the morning of 9/11.
Long comment I know…but learning about the ‘Medium is the Message’ from September Clues, seems to me such a strange place to first encounter such ideas. Please pardon my surprise in this. My perspectives have been so long honed that such simple things can surprise me.
ww
No one should apologize for defending NPT, which is well-supported by the evidence, as I show in this presentation from The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAEvw2CjAYQ
Craig,
Are we to presume that Mr. Fetzer will not be posting on this again? Or is it as big a mystery to you as the rest of us?
If you have been in contact with him perhaps you could advise the board, in any subtle means you might find appropriate
Thanks, ww.
Dear Mr. Rogue,
This thread has probably run its course. The remnant themes regarding Bernay, MSM scripted coordination, and nuggets of truth should be preserved and brought to some other thread, but probably not the Zarembka thread. Mr. McKee may have to create us one.
I’m sure that Dr. Fetzer is subscribed. He posted his email address above [April 19, 2012 at 11:21 am] and it is: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
You may contact him directly to ask him your questions (e.g., his participation, other matters.)
In case you were curious about why Dr. Fetzer wanted me to contact him, he was interested in having me as a speaker at a 9/11 event in Vancouver. He was hoping I’d speak on Dr. Wood and DEW. Alas, without knowing what my talk would have been about or any of the details, my wife said: “Absolutely not!” Her reasons for this remained somewhat valid for my considering being on his radio show. Google can be a bitch for careers and job hunting. I am a Melvin Kitzman coward: “A coward is a hero with a wife, kids and a mortgage.”
Yes Señor,
The thread has not only run it’s course, it is also at the length that it is choking the capabilities of WordPress…it took four tries to get it to load fully – being truncated until this load.
I have no interest whatsoever in communicating with Fetzer in private. I want any exchanges between us in full view in public arena.
There are those who must make the choice between public distinction and personal honor.
This choice often takes its bearings from the deeper question, of what it means to be well adjusted in a pathological society.
I know Jim’s answer to both questions.
What is yours to the last?
What does it mean to be well adjusted to a pathological society?
ww
Here are some reflections on Richard Gage, A&E911 and the failure to move the ball forward:
“On C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9/11 Truth in a ‘time-warp’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/04/on-c-span-richard-gage-leaves-911-truth-in-a-time-warp/
“Limited hangouts: Richard Gage, A&E911 and the Journal of 9/11 Studies”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/14/limited-hangouts-kevin-ryan-ae911-and-the-journal-of-911-studies/