.
Advertisement

9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about “Absurdities”


9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about “Absurdities”

Re: “9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New-York Theory”

 

Anthony,

Just for the record, you and I have gone round and round over this for years–where you have saved up every exchange we ever had so you could cull them for quotes taken out of context, exaggerate my positions, and suppress information about my actual views. As an example, you claim I have a lot of articles with similar names, but you doesn’t actually cite the most important among them,

“New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″

Moreover, you love to shade the truth. Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight. You suppress the information that the speed of the plane in the videos (of 560 mph) appears to have been a lapse by using its cruising speed at 35,000 feet as if it could be attained at 700-1,000 feet as well, where the air is three times as dense and the turbines cannot suck the air through them, which causes them to function as brakes.


Nor do you mention that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that this was an aerodynamically impossible speed for a Boeing 767, where you loves to talk about “special planes”. But no matter how “special”, no plane could have entered the building in violation of Newton’s laws. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, while seats, bodies, and luggage fell to the ground. The engines would have made it into the building, but not most of the rest of a highly fragile aluminum “flying beer can”.

Your claims are preposterous. An obvious study to have cited, were you actually an honest broker, would have been Pilots’ study,

“9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed”

You know better than you pretend, where my most recent articles were published at Veterans Today, which apparently enraged you. I do not understand your proprietary interest in all this, but it clearly exists–and his arguments, when properly understood and placed in context minus the exaggerations and distortions–are without merit. See, for example,

But most of all, “9/11 Intercepted” from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which shows that a Boeing 767 would have been unmanageable and fallen apart at the speed shown in those videos.

How many of these studies have you actually read, Anthony? Because they provide a framework and background for understanding video fakery:

Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11″

David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”

“Flight 11″ approaching the North Tower

Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”

Jim Fetzer, “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″

Killtown, What didn’t happen at Shanksville

Your article and video are full of partial evidence and half-truths, which I fear is a form of deliberate misinformation. The number of those who would have have to be “in on it” regarding the Naudet video, for example, is grossly exaggerated. Most of those involved in something like this have no idea that what they are doing is not on “the up and up”.

I notice you do not mention a study by Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”, which supports the opposite conclusion, where I have already explained to you why it was important that the shot be OUT OF FOCUS to not give away the missing plane. Something was flying by, but it does not appear to have been a Boeing 767.

Your reliance upon the Eric Salter study is especially revealing. Whether what Salter is alleged to have found is 8% or even 18% deceleration, that is not going to explain why it the plane’s velocity did not fall to zero. The plane was intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which, of course, were also filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which, at 208′ x 208′, represents an acre of concrete apiece.

As I explain in “More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity” (with a diagram), they would have created enormous horizontal resistance. The windows were only 18″ wide and the support columns were a meter apart. There were no windows between floors, so most of the facade was steel, which is far more dense than aluminum. The video is a fantasy.

As I have challenged you before without receiving any response, how would it be possible for the plane–in both Hezarkhani and Faribanks’ videos–to pass through their own length into the building in the same number of frames they pass through their own length in air? This is a perfect example of how you skip over and exclude evidence you don’t like.

That result proves that the videos are fake (because it would be impossible unless those 500,000 ton buildings provided no more resistance to the plane’s trajectory than air) but also demonstrates that there was no deceleration and that Stalter’s study is wrong. And of course you ignore that it was necessary to fake the plane

(1) to insure that it actually hit the building, which many members of Pilots were unable to accomplish with repeated trials;

(2) that it penetrate completely inside of it in order to create the false impression of a cause for the buildings’ collapse; and,

(3) only then “exploded”, which had to be precisely coordinated in time to account for the explosions in the sub-basements.

Those occurred 14 and 17 second BEFORE reverberations from those alleged impacts, as I have explained in “Seven Questions about 9/11″ and “9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”, in case you missed it, which is easily accessible and includes the following data table:

Which raises obvious questions about what you think you is doing here and why you commit so many straw man, special pleading, and ad hominem arguments. But on this point we can agree: There certainly is a lot of disinformation out there!

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer

Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.

McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. Notices

Posted by on 11:19 am, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11, Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

171 Responses to "9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about “Absurdities”"

  1. Chan Mitkowski  September 29, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    I thought this quote was really fitting “Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.” – Thomas Jefferson

  2. roger vivier  August 23, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    Do you emotions if I quotation a great offer of one’s content articles or assessments as lengthy as I offer credit score ranking and means back again even now once more for your blog? My site on the net is inside the precise exact very same spot of wish as yours and my folks would undoubtedly benefit from some making use of the particulars you offer here. be sure you permit me know if this okay with you. Thanks! w ayshe16akd u.. amersom.AUG.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 5:29 pm

      If I understand you correctly, the answer is “Yes!” You have my permission to repost my stuff. Let me know where it goes so I can keep track. Thanks!

    • Jim Fetzer  September 23, 2011 at 2:20 pm

      Joe Keith sent a link to a nice study of the fakery involved in the Hezarkhani video of the South Tower: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882537/cnn_fake_sept_11_video_pumpitout_calls_wq2rx_michael_hezarkhani/ Anyone who hasn’t taken a good look at this issue might benefit from watching it make some key points.

  3. Robin  August 17, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Children, Children take some time out and cool down.

    You’re all just speculating. Let’s look at a bullet. When it hits an object it decelerates, and when all is done, you find the whole entire intact but deformed bullet. You can’t claim it was a bullet with bullet wings and bullet rudder and bullet horizontal stabilizers and then when asked where is the bullet, you say “Well what do you expect, an airplane is mostly air and it just vaporized on impact!” You can’t have it both ways.

    Let’s instead take on the facts as we know them rather than argue over guesses and uneducated hypotheses.

    The Facts are:

    — There were explosions in the basements of those towers >BEFORE< the real or fake aircraft impacts.

    — In the history of buildings made of Concrete and Steel There has never been any buildings that self-demolished because of fire alone, much less turn almost completely into powdered dust in mid air, before even hitting the ground.

    — The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) says that fires alone were responsible for the demolition and the aircrafts hitting the buildings are responsible for the start of the fires. Since that is the OCT, by default we can be fairly certain that fires did not do it, and the alleged Boeing aircrafts did not hit the buildings, although some other aircraft might have.

    — On that very day there were Israeli agents driving parking and exploding car bombs all over the city of New York. By chance we heard of a few, so we can confidently guess that there must have been dozens more that never got reported.

    — We were told that many cell phone calls were made from the airplanes, but then six years later the FBI admitted in a court that those Cell-Phone call claims were all lies. So who made the Phone Calls? Where the phone callers fake or the phone call receivers fake, or both? The phone calls were made to prove that the alleged airplanes where in fact in the air and they did in fact hit the buildings. So we can be certain that whatever hit the buildings, if any, was not the alleged commercial Boeing aircrafts.

    — The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) says that 19 cave men trained in the desert caves of Afghanistan came to US, did a "Suicide Hijacking" and called the United States Airforce and told them to stand down for the duration of their supposed attacks. Then after having killed themselves, many of these cave men, miraculously came back to life a few weeks later! Since that is the OCT, we can be certain that the alleged 19 cave men or hijackings or the alleged airplanes were not involved in this 911 magic show.

    — Many of the High officials of the US government including those commanding the airforce, NORAD, FAA, and so on were later praised for a job well done! What job? Letting the alleged airplanes get through all the layers of US defenses and even going out of their way to help make the event take place??

    These are the Facts, everything else is guess work. We know that The Official Conspiracy Theory claims are 100% lies and at times they are the opposite of the truth. We know that Israelis where intimately involved in the entire 911 incident from planning to execution to the cover up.

    So rather than squabbling over what color airplane hit which building, why don't you all stick to the facts and stay away from the details that are at this time UNKNOWN to us all. We should demand to get some kind of real investigation done by some honest third party, such as several engineers and architects and criminal investigators from Iran. Let some group of investigators selected by an honest man such as Ahmadinejad or Chavez come to America and investigate this crime to find the fine details. Until then, lets stick to the facts and away from the speculation business. Speculation is okay, but keep reminding yourselves that you are now Speculating and stay away from believing your own speculations, as if they were proven facts.

    As a reminder the facts are:

    —- For the most part, the Israeli's and many American Jews planed and carried out the 911 attacks in the US.

    —- All of what you have been told as the official story of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust are Lies and in most cases they are the opposite of the truth. In fact the Jews were deliberately and systematically killing everyone else, and not the other way around. 911 was their 21st century way of following in that age old tradition of starting wars that only benefit them and kill and maim everyone else.

    —- Most of what has been told to you as "Historical Facts" are lies. That includes all the religions: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and all the rest of them. Don't be gullible. Religious Gullibility is the "Gateway Drug" for the population and it is used to make the people more prone to believe other Official Conspiracy Lies.

  4. Keenan Roberts  August 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    In reply to Joe:

    Joe’s Law is just your personal little sound bite, but has nothing whatsoever to do with science. If you cared at all about science, Joe, you would have discussed the effects of Kinetic Energy, which explains how a smaller less massive object can have an increasing power to penetrate a larger more massive object as its velocity is increased.

    Your and Fetzer’s little sound bite regarding the way “the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton’s first and second laws of motion,” completely omits the effect of Kinetic Energy. You guys also don’t provide any calculations to back up your claims that Newton’s laws are violated.

    You also forget to mention the fact that the tower is mostly empty air and the plane is passing through MOSTLY EMPTY AIR when it enters the tower and only a relatively tiny bit of concrete and steel.

    But people have already explained this over and over again and you guys just keep pretending that you have never heard of this little thing called Kinetic Energy.

    If you guys were at all interested in the truth, you would be taking an academic, scholarly approach and you would provide data and calculations to back up your bull shit claims. But you can’t. Because your claims are…well…bull shit.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 15, 2011 at 2:12 pm

      Keenan, I have responded to this. Do you understand Newton’s laws? The building posed massive resistance. (Take a look at the diagram showing it impacting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which represented enormous HORIZONTAL resistance.) The plane does not even slow down. You like to compare it with a bullet, when there is no basis for such a comparison. A bullet is a small, dense object. An airplane is a large, empty shell. I’ve translated this into the language of kinetic energy, which is simply energy (or mass) in motion. The plane could not possibly have passed through those eight floors without a collision taking place in which the plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, and bodies, seats, and luggage fallen to the ground. That did not happen. You not only have not refuted “Joe’s Law” but don’t even seem to understand why it is important. Go back and reread my post about kinetic energy, because your lack of understanding of classical mechanics is tedious and boring.

  5. Shallel  August 15, 2011 at 11:53 am

    (PilotsFor911Truth.org) – Since our article on WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis was written, more evidence has been gathered to reflect the research provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth and in the film “9/11: World Trade Center Attack”. A more thorough understanding and explanation of why V speeds are established based on wind tunnel tests performed by the manufacturer is also available virtually making the need to gather documents from Boeing based on wind tunnel testing, moot. We already have their results of such tests in the form of the V Speeds they have established through wind tunnel testing required by definition as outlined in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics and all other related text.

    The Argument – Reported speeds/control for the reported aircraft claimed –
    “impossible”
    “improbable”,
    “The Elephant In The Room”

    The Evidence

    Data –
    NTSB

    Boeing – Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.

    (Interviewer asks -) “So there’s no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?”

    Boeing Spokesperson – (Laughs) “Not a chance…”

    Limits set by the
    manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing

    (IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/767_V-G_Diagram_Illustrated_Guide_To_Aerodynamics.jpg)

    The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

    The speeds are based on the weight ranges in the A1NM Type Certificate data sheet which also give an altitude range.

    VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.

    The above diagram is good from sea level, up to almost 18,000 feet. Above that, the Vg diagram moves to the left. In other words, structural failure speeds are less in terms of Indicated at higher altitudes. Real pilots can see this as they climb. The Vmo indicator (Barber pole) actually moves to a lower airspeed once you climb above the crossover altitude. The reason for this is the aircraft is no longer limited by raw dynamic pressure, rather it is now becoming limited by the effects of Mach (both drag related, which is why EAS is calculated using Mach number and good to above Mach 2). A good explanation of this is shown here.

    http://www.biggles-software.com/software/7…_40_vmo_mmo.htm

    NASA Research

    Precedent –

    EA990 –

    China Air 747SP

    TWA 727

    Simulator Reconstruction

    Modified DC-8

    All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10’s of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150…. or was modified to exceed it’s manufacturer’s set limits in the case of the DC-8.

    Numerous verified experts –

    Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
    30,000+ Total Flight Time
    707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, L-1049, Learjet 24/25, L-188
    Ground Instructor, Advanced Ground Instructor, Instrument Instructor, Flight Engineer Turbojet
    Aircraft Dispatcher
    Pan Am, United
    United States Air Force (ret)
    Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
    Command time in:
    – N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
    – N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

    Captain Ross Aimer
    UAL Ret.
    CEO, My Aviation Expert LLC
    40 years and 30,000 hrs.
    BS Aero
    A&P Mech.
    B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
    Command time in:
    – N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
    – N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

    Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
    23,000 hours
    27 years in the airlines
    B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
    20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
    civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
    Command time in:
    – N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
    – N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

    John Lear
    Son of Bill Lear
    (Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
    More than 40 years of Flying
    19,000+ TT
    23 Type ratings
    Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11

    Jeff Latas
    -Over 20 years in the USAF
    –USAF Accident investigation Board President
    –Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
    –Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
    –Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
    –Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
    -Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

    Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
    3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
    F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
    Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
    USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
    NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
    USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
    Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
    All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
    Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
    MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

    Dwain Deets
    MS Physics, MS Eng
    Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
    Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
    Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
    Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
    Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
    Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
    Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
    Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
    – Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
    Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
    37 year NASA career

    Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford
    United States Marine Corps (ret)
    A-4 Skyhawk, KC-130 (10,000+ Hours)
    S-2, T-1, F9F, F-11, OV-10, T-2J
    303 Combat Missions

    Captain Paul A. Trood
    B737-800/400 Captain
    Qantas Airways
    Australia
    Experience: 18,000 flight hours

    Jim Mustanich
    ATP 20,000+ hours
    Typed in CE-500, DHC-7, EMB-110, BA-3100
    Aircraft flown include Boeing 727,737, Douglas DC-9, MD-80
    United Air Lines, American International Airlines, Air Pacific Airlines, West Air Airlines
    6-7 years corporate flying in Cessna Citations
    Factory demo pilot for Cessna Citations

    Ted Muga
    Naval Aviator – Retired Commander, USNR
    A/C experience – Grumman E-1 and E-2 ( Approx, 3800 hours )
    Pan American World Airways – Retired Dec. 1991 ( that’s when PanAM went bankrupt )
    Flight Engineer/First Officer — Boeing 707 & Boeing 727 ( approx. 7500 hours )

    Col Robert Bowman
    President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies
    Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation
    retired Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church
    101 combat missions in Vietnam
    directed all the “Star Wars” programs under Presidents Ford and Carter
    recipient of the Eisenhower Medal
    George F. Kennan Peace Prize
    President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace
    Society of Military Engineers’ ROTC Award of Merit (twice)
    Six Air Medals
    Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech
    chaired 8 major international conferences
    one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security
    independent candidate for President of the US in 2000
    http://thepatriots.us

    John Panarelli
    friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski – Capt. AA #11
    ATP: L-300, B-737, DC-10, DC-8, FE, TT=approx. 11,000 hours
    USAF-C141-IP, Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery
    Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo

    More listed here – http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

    Evidence for those who make excuse for the government story –

    Opinion
    “Because the govt told me so”
    Aircraft Forensic Evidence – N/A

    For those who make excuses for the government story –

    Please let us know when you find one verified pilot (or precedent) willing to support your claims that a standard Boeing 767 can maintain control and stability at Vmo+150, Va+220 –and pull G’s– out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G’s cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25′ margin for error – for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn’t control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than opinion or “Because the govt told me so…”.

    Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow. The need for a new investigation has never been more apparent.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

    • Gordon Duff  August 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm

      can’t we rent some simulator time?

      are we all totally broke, dependent on microsoft programs which tell us the control surfaces are not designed for such flight?

      my own list of pilots well exceeds this…along with our oft published tests on the b52

      however…..this is all an exercise in curiousity, no more

      none of it leads to prosecution, executions for Bush and his thousands of little helpers, the overthrow of Israel’s kabal and bringing the dead back to life

      g

    • Shallel  August 17, 2011 at 11:38 am

      I would gladly donate to such an effort! The Citizenry will not be immune to the effect of all this killing if they continue to go along with these horrific, murderous wars based on lies!!

      IMPEACH Obama for the murder of Osama lookalike # 6, and complicity in the coverup of 9/11. NOW!

    • Gordon Duff  August 17, 2011 at 12:14 pm

      anything as long as bush does free….i do love him so

    • Shallel  August 19, 2011 at 8:47 pm

      LOL!

  6. Keenan Roberts  August 14, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Gordon,

    You again have refused to answer any of my questions. Are you taking lessons from Fetzer?

    You make a series of incoherent insults and criticisms about me and my writing and my website without citing anything specific. You have completely lost me regarding your critique of my web site. You mentioned Oklahoma City and that I should “go back to OK City…and build from there”. Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Do you know how to make a coherent point?

    You really seem like you have been drinking heavily or something. I’m having a hard time understanding what you point is.

    Instead of answering any of my questions yet again, you instead spew a series of insults, including:

    Your writing is bizarre
    You are harder than hell to understand and communicate with….
    and are not very effective at either science or police work
    Your forte is circular rhetoric

    and provide no specific examples for any of theses insults/criticisms

    My respect for you, Gordon, just dropped a few notches here today. I seriously hope that sometime in the near future you will send me an apology and let me know that these embarrassing comments of yours today were due to your being very inebriated or something and that you are not normally this imbecile-sounding.

    • Keenan Roberts  August 14, 2011 at 8:03 pm

      Wow. The first thing that comes to mind is the disconnect between the good quality of writing of the articles I have read on VT over the last couple of years and your convoluted, inarticulate comments on this thread. Strange…

      Your post is a kind of rambling all over the place. But I’ll address a few of your points:

      “…perhaps the only professional around…me”

      Are you claiming to be the only professional in this movement?

      “Years ago, one of the top named guys, a hero to you, was identified as assigned to 9/11 truth by the DEA. He is a HUGE nanothermite supporter.”

      Sounds like you are making lots of assumptions about my beliefs regarding who my heros are and my views on nanothermite. Can’t you name names here?

      You may be surprised, then, to discover that I believe that A&E911T has been heavily infiltrated and that I am skeptical of the nanothermite promoters.

      I would like to know how do you determine someones credibility, and is fact checking and verification of claims important to you? Does the scientific method and the peer review process have any validity to you at all? When do you require people to back up their claims with data and calculations?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 14, 2011 at 8:21 pm

      Keenan, you are taking for granted that I am wrong about various points, when the evidence suggests that you are the one who is wrong. Even if you were right about Joe Keith, his argument is what matters. And you have never said a word about that, so far as I am aware. So I think you need to give more thought to “Joe’s Law”, which I have posted more than once in this thread.

  7. Keenan Roberts  August 14, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    Fetzer, you are amazingly dishonest. You respond by again asking me yet again to propose an argument, and ignore the argument I just posed to you yet again for the nth time regarding Kinetic Energy. This is getting really exhaustive, Jim.

    I am saving your quote for posterity:
    “I have refuted every argument you have produced against me. And if that is not the case, then show it by reproducing the argument you think I have not refuted. It appears to me that you are a fraud. Either put up or shut up.”

    You are too funny. How can you have refuted every argument I have produced when you have not addressed a SINGLE argument I have produced?

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    Didn’t see that Jim? Alright, here it is again:

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    KINETIC ENERGY

    What do I have to do to get you to address this principle, Jim? Do I have to offer you money? How about $100. If I give you $100 will you address the issue of KINETIC ENERGY regarding the ability of one object to penetrate another object, specifically the ability of the plane to impact the WTC tower?

    So, what will it take, Jim? $100? $1000? What is your price?

    Actually, never mind. I’m too exhausted to play this game with you, Jim. I’m done wasting my time with someone who is that stubbornly dishonest because I already know what kind of BS response you will give, and it will not include the words “kinetic energy” anywhere in the entire comment, I am sure of it. So, I’m putting you on ignore, Jim.

    At this point, if anyone here ever sees Jim actually honestly address any of my arguments that I have posed to him on this thread then please let me know. You can email me through my wordpress handle linked to my name. I will certainly not hold my breath or waste anymore time on this thread waiting for that to happen.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 14, 2011 at 6:34 pm

      How many times do I have to explain to you the design of the Twin Towers. Newton formulated three laws of motion which pertain to kinetic energy, in case you haven’t noticed. All three are violated by the image seen in the plane. I have explained this many times. I cannot imaging how anyone who has read this thread could have failed to notice that the argument about equal distance/equal times equals equal speed concerns mass in motion. That the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air proves fakery in two ways: that would be impossible unless the building provides no more resistance to the path of a plane in flight than air; and it also proves no deceleration (or loss in kinetic energy), where the velocity of the plane should have fallen to zero (for most of its mass), while some parts would have passed into the building. But there was no loss in kinetic energy: no crumpling, no loss of wings or tail, no bodies, seats, or luggage falling to the ground. It simply passes into this massive building with the same momentum it passes through air. I guess you don’t understand the relationships between mass and velocity and resistance. Go back to the diagram showing that the plane would have intersected with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete (or an acre of concrete apiece). There were eight of them. What would happen if a plane in flight were to intersect with just one of them? I am afraid you have really not thought this through. I agree it’s time for you to give it a rest. I will give you my address so you can send the check.

    • Gordon Duff  August 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm

      Oh Keenan
      REality check
      A plane compared to a WTC tower equals a baseball compared to a Humvee.
      Do the math.
      Kinetic energy?
      You are saying the buildings themselves were dropped?
      Learn the damned language.
      g

    • Keenan Roberts  August 14, 2011 at 8:13 pm

      Oh Gordon
      REality check
      A bullet to your body equals a baseball compared to a Humvee.
      Do the math.
      Kinetic energy?
      You are saying your body itself was dropped? Obviously such a small bullet could never penetrate through your body which is at least a hundred times the mass of the bullet.
      Learn the damned language.
      k

    • Jim Fetzer  August 14, 2011 at 8:19 pm

      Keenan, Gordon will respond, but I think you are making a blunder in comparing small, dense objects like bullets to large, flimsy objects like airplanes. A Boeing 767 could no more penetrate completely into a massive building of the design of a Twin Tower any more than a car could pass through a massive tree. Both would collide and break apart, as you no doubt are aware in the case of car crashes. Planes hitting buildings are about as fragile as cars hitting trees, which is a far more appropriate analogy than your comparison with small bullets.

  8. Gordon Duff  August 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Keenan,
    I have two articles today, Lawson’s piece in rense and Fetzers piece here today.
    One is self serving and whiney and the other is an intelligent discussion of conspiracy.
    Both have self publishing rights at VT, one choose to demand i remove writers from our list who disagreed with him, one did not.
    My choice is easy, i censor because someone pisses or moans or i keep alive free discussion.
    g

    • Keenan Roberts  August 14, 2011 at 5:12 pm

      Sure, I can respect that. But what happens when someone writing an article on Veterans Today states a provably false claim, and then refuses to retract it, as in the case of Fetzer’s claims about the so-called “shaker system” for Boeing aircraft? And this is not the only instance when Fetzer made a provably false claim on VT. Does it matter to you what the truth is? Responsible journalism is about verification and fact checking, and retracting false statements after they have been proven to be false.

      I’m just wondering about the standards here at VT are regarding accuracy and reliability.

      Also, Gordon, would you describe Fetzer’s arguments supporting his no-planes-in-New-York theory as scientific and fact based? Do you feel he takes a scholarly approach using evidence and proper methodology, as should be expected by an academic?

      Does it bother you when Fetzer engages in disiformation-style tactics of misdirection, ignoring and avoiding arguments and facts that dispute his claims while engaging in name-calling and subject shifting, and other similar tactics?

      Can you honestly say after reading through this thread that Jim Fetzer has behaved fairly and maturely and scholarly in they way he responded to facts and arguments other people have presented that disproved his claims, like a responsible journalist or academic would?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm

      Keenan, I know Joe Keith. He has been a very open and honest guy. His argument is good as gold, even if he were a bar tender. I am stunned that you allow yourself to be taken in by Anthony’s rubbish. I have an extensive background in scientific reasoning, in critical thinking, and in logic, subjects I taught at various universities during my 35-year career. What makes you think that anything that I have published is “psudo-scientific”? The fact that you cannot understand something I write does not show that I am wrong. I have explained that those who deny the conclusion of video fakery are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. I am formulating an hypothesis about you, Keenan. Why don’t you explain what my arguments are (so I know you understand them) and then explain what I have wrong? Kindly do that. Because otherwise you are parroting Anthony’s views, which I have refuted again and again and again.

      P.S. I have written to Joe. If he tells me I have something wrong, I will let you know. But arguments have to be assessed on their own merits, where the issue you and Anthony seem to care so much about does not turn a fake plane into a real plane! Get serious. OK?

    • Keenan Roberts  August 14, 2011 at 5:53 pm

      Jim, the fact that you have an “extensive background in scientific reasoning” only lends further support to the conclusion that an increasing number of people have that you are knowingly and willingly engaging in obfuscation and disinformation around the idea of no-planes-in-New-York. It shows that you most certainly know the difference between a scholarly approach to a scientific problem versus an illogical and obfuscatory approach. And yet you persist in the latter, no matter how many times people have exposed your false claims.

      At this point, the only people who take your false pseudo-scientific claims and arguments seriously are those who are illiterate in science and logic or can’t be bothered to understand the difference between real science and pseudo-scientific clever sound bites.

      I have already presented several arguments and facts earlier in this thread based on physics that disputes your claims, and you have steadfastly refused each time to address them, and instead engaged in subject shifting and repetition of your false claims over and over again, apparently believing that you can fool at least some people into thinking that if you repeat something over and over again it makes it true.

      Instead of addressing specifically the principle of Kinetic Energy, for example, which determines the ability of one object to penetrate another object, you instead purposely misdirect and obfuscate by citing general laws of Newton that do not address the question, and refuse to provide any data or calculations to back up your claims that the plane couldn’t have penetrated the building, as you have been asked repeatedly to do.

      And you behave this way with every fact and argument presented to you that challenges your false claims.

      “Why don’t you explain what my argument are (so I know you understand them) and then explain what I have wrong?”

      Anyone who has read this entire thread from beginning to end can clearly see that I have already done that over and over again, and each and every time you respond with the same tactics of misdirection, obfuscation, and avoidance.

      If you are sincere, you would go back and address the questions and facts and arguments I have already presented to you. Asking me to explain what you have wrong when you know I have already done that is obviously not a sincere request, it is more attempts at distraction and avoidance.

      Any honest person with a good understanding of science and logic can see right through you, Jim. Your crap arguments and methods are designed to hoodwink people who are not so good at science and logic.

      You know what to do if you want people to take you seriously. I don’t need to keep repeating it.

      Really, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    • Gordon Duff  August 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm

      Roberts?
      Were you there?
      Did you see a plane going fast as a bullet between buildings, speeds Boeing says its plane is incapable of.
      If Lawson is right and someone built special planes, super strong, a feat that took boeing 3 years on the B 52, who did it and how were they silenced?
      ..and you wonder why I think I am surrounded by morons.
      g

    • Keenan Roberts  August 14, 2011 at 5:57 pm

      Gordon, could you please address the questions I asked you? Why did you ignore them?

    • Gordon Duff  August 14, 2011 at 6:12 pm

      Your discourse is disjointed and incoherent at times. Fetzer is making a case that video was falsified. Lawson says the planes themselves were falsified.
      Which is easier, having Israeli film teams all over manhattan, a given fact, produce phony films or building impossible planes as Lawson states?
      Did you ask this question?
      This is the real question, ask it and you get an answer.
      I have seen no conclusive proof planes hit the Pentagon or anywhere else. I have seen proof that Israeli film teams were taking HD digital video from multiple locations to be released for some purpose.
      I also have seen proof that NO aircraft contributed in any way to significant damage done on 9/11.
      Why, then, do some want to talk aircraft they have never seen, video never properly vetted when scientific proof supposedly proves planes were not involved?
      Get smarter, ask the right questions, up your game.
      If Fetzer is wrong, then YOU explain how and why.
      If Lawson is right and special planes were built, prove it also.
      I am drowning in bullshit here or would if i paid any fargin attention to time wasters.
      What are the real questions, how are the guilty to be caught and punished and who is protecting the guilty?
      Thus far, the 9/11 truth movement, some aspects of it at least, are working 24 hours a day to protect those responsible for 9/11.
      My assumption, well, read the fargin article.
      I don’t see it being “debunked”
      Do your best….get some help from the other kids at your school if you need to.

    • Gordon Duff  August 14, 2011 at 6:19 pm

      OK, looked at your website.
      Where the hell do I start. Your writing is bizarre….but your own. good
      You start on solid ground, Oklahoma City. Good
      You are harder than hell to understand and communicate with….
      and are not very effective at either science or police work..something you share with both fetzer and lawson
      if you 3 are all we have, we are totally screwed.
      go back to OK City…and build from there. That was a good start or at least from what I understand.
      Analysis is a profession, not a game.
      Your forte is circular rhetoric, something all of us can play, some extremely well.
      We just aren’t so bored we care to engage in it.

  9. Jim Fetzer  August 14, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    Any why would Keenan Roberts recommend a feeble response from Anthony that I have long since refuted?

    Jim Fetzer
    August 13, 2011 – 5:51 am(Edit)

    Well, let’s see where things stand, Anthony. So far as I can tell, you have yet to refute any of my arguments. Moreover, since, as I use the phrase, video fakery covers any use of video to convey a false impression–whether the events that it presents are faked and the video was not altered, as in the case of a hologram, or the events it presents were introduced into the video, as in the case of CGIs or video compositing–one decisive way to prove that a video is fake is that it presents events that are physically impossible. Consider:

    (1) Impossible Speed: I claimed that the plane is traveling at a speed that is impossible for a standard Boeing 767. That this is the case has been confirmed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Even you, Anthony, have admitted that 560 mph, which is its cruising speed at 35,000 feet, is impossible at 700-1,000 feet. So not only am I right about this, but you have acknowledged that I am right. It is for this reason that you have talked about a “special plane”, modified to travel at a higher speed. A “special plane”, however, is still a plane, which is a physical object that cannot violate laws of physics and of engineering. Take another look at the entry and the floors that it was intersecting with.

    (2) Impossible Entry: Even a “special plane” is still a plane, however, and cannot violate laws of engineering and of physics. We know from Newton that objects remain at rest or travel in straight lines unless acted upon by other forces. We know that the effects of those other forces will be imparted in the direction in which thye are applied. We also know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The effortless entry of this “plane” into the building, given its design, intersecting eight (8) floors, is a physical impossibility. The plane should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground.

    (3) Equal Distance/Equal Times: The argument that I found decisive when I began to investigate the possibility of video fakery is that the plane makes its impossible entry by passing its whole length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. This is impossible unless a massive, steel-and-concrete building poses no more resistance to the path of a plane in flight than air. It has been confirmed in both Hezarkhani and Fairbanks videos. Covering equal distances in equal times implies equal speeds, which means that there is no diminution in velocity under conditions when its velocity should have dropped to zero.

    (4) The Planted Engine: An engine component found at Church & Murray has been claimed to have come from Flight 175. However, as even you have acknowledged, it is not from the engine of a Boeing 767. Moreover, it is obviously planted. We have footage of FBI agents unloading something heavy from a van at that location. Since the part was there later in the day, they are obviously delivering it and not picking it up. It is under a construction scaffolding and sitting on an undamaged sidewalk. If the plane had been real, then why would it have been necessary to plant an engine? Not only does this not support video authenticity, it further confirms video fakery.

    (5) Joe Keith: The equal distance/equal times argument, which implies no loss in velocity upon entry, was advanced by Joe Keith, who was a software engineer for Boeing and programmed the software for its shaker system. It is archived as, “Joe’s Law” (with a $5,000 reward for disproof) at Morgan Reynolds’ web site, http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/ Why you continue to dispute this is beyond me. You persist with the ad hominem that he wasn’t really an “aerospace engineer”, which appears to be baseless. More importantly, his argument stands on its own merits. It wouldn’t matter if he were a bar tender rather than a software engineer. I am taken aback that you can’t grasp this elementary point.

    (6) Predictable Damage: The windows were only 18″ across, the support columns one meter apart. There were no windows between floors. Far less than 40% of the facade would have been glass. Steel and concrete are far more dense than aluminum. The effects of a plane hitting a stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as the building hitting the stationary plane at 560 mph. Imagine what would occur if a plane in flight impacted with one of those sections of the external support columns–or what would happen if a plane in flight were to collide with one of those steel trusses covered with 4-8″ of concrete? I’ve asked this repeatedly, but you have no answer.

    (7) Why They Had to Fake It: They needed to coordinate the temporal sequence, so the explosions in the subbasements that drained the water from the sprinkler systems could be “explained away” as the effects of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts. But it is difficult for an experienced pilot to hit a target 208′ across, even with multiple attempts. And they needed the plane to enter the building before it would explode to have a pseudo-explanation for the building’s “collapse”. None of that would have happened with a real plane, so they had to fake it. And they were still 14 and 17 seconds late with their “hits”, as Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong explained and as I elaborated upon in “9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”. I am baffled that you seem to be unable to understand all this.

  10. Shallel  August 14, 2011 at 8:28 am

    It is hard not to resort to calling you a tattle-tale, Anthony, going crying to Jeff Rense, but I have learned much from Jim Fetzer and Gordon Duff, and one of the things I have learned is to not criticize the person, but to stick to the scientific facts. I’ll simply say your position is untenable. No 767 is capable of controlled flight at 560 MPH at sea level. No plane will perform magical feats such as going straight into a building when it is not perfectly perpendicular (which is not what we see on the videos). In a real world crash, when impacting a much stronger structure, there would be no way for a plane at any small angle of impact to straighten out and not spin and break apart. Even the Sandia F4 would have spun about the concrete barrier had it not been on a perpendicular track and been in free flight.
    Jim’s argument is not misleading, nor false.

    • Gordon Duff  August 14, 2011 at 10:01 am

      When did Jeff Rense become my mama?
      Oddly, I have never had an email from Jeff Rense, no a phone call. I am fairly certain he exists.
      What the issue here is censorship and press freedom.
      VT will not be dictated to. It isn’t just Fetzer, its Zundel and Lendman, it’s Campbell and Lindauer.
      I am not going to get rid of writers because someone doesn’t agree with what they say. (even me)
      VT would then be….well….no longer VT.
      Facists come in all colors and flavors, some wear the colors and flavors of the progressive left. Those are worst of all.
      g

    • Keenan Roberts  August 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm

      Shallel, you sure spout an awful lot of bald assertions about what “should happen” to one object impacting another object. Do you have any scientific laws or theories to back up these claims? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

      According to your crap logic, in which a less massive and strong object can never penetrate a more massive and stronger object irregardless of the velocity and kinetic energy involved, NASA can stop worrying about small pieces of space junk traveling at thousands of miles per hour into their space vehicles, the army doesn’t have to worry about anti-tank piercing shells, and aircraft don’t have to worry about tiny missiles hitting them, etc. And, according to your logic, we can protect ourselves from being shot by just holding a tin can in between us and the bullets.

      Please. You and Fetzer must have been educated at the same school of anti-science and anti-logic.

    • OS - Final  August 14, 2011 at 3:10 pm

      It actually could if shape charge was in nose.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 14, 2011 at 3:34 pm

      Take another look at the plane entering the building. There are no indications of any explosion from a shaped charge in the nose of the plane or from explosives blowing opening a “garage door” for the plane to enter. None of the above occur. The plane simply passes through its whole length in to the building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air–which is impossible unless a massive, steel-and-concrete building poses no more resistance to its trajectory than air!

    • OS - Final  August 14, 2011 at 3:48 pm

      Jim,

      I wasn’t serious, do you want me too? What ever hit the Pentagon may have had advanced guidance system, both altitude and target. The angle of approach may suggest laser guidance, because the projectile can not fly into the lasers path.

      With regards to the twin towers, waiting for correct test to be performed.

      And Jim, shapes charges don’t blow out, they blow-in, focal point. Reference Pentagon.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 14, 2011 at 4:12 pm

      Isn’t this about Flight 175 at the South Tower? Why aren’t all of your posts “serious”? Are you telling me that you believe that a plane hit the Pentagon in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary? Have you read my latest, in which I cite Major General Albert Stubblebein, who explains that he has studied the photos very carefully and has concluded that no plane hit the building? Do you know who he is?

    • Gordon Duff  August 14, 2011 at 4:28 pm

      I am with Lawson on this one, an advanced energy weapon.

    • OS - Final  August 14, 2011 at 4:21 pm

      Did I say a plane hit the Pentagon? and made some comments on other articles you wrote.

      Have you researched the information? If so you would discover it was true. Now when are you and others going to perform the appropriate testing, where answers are buried.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 14, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      I have no idea what you think you are suggesting. Why don’t you spell it out? I have given dozens of arguments as to how we know that no plane hit the Pentagon. If you think you can overcome those objections, then you have quite a task before you. Why not start with my “Seven Questions about 9/11″ or “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon” and spell out your position in relation to mine. Thanks very much.

    • OS - Final  August 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm

      And yes, I know the Major General..

    • OS - Final  August 14, 2011 at 4:58 pm

      Jim,

      I am more interested in the methods, i.e. explosives and “Thermal Energy”. When you get pass explosives 101, call your near by steel or casting facility and ask them what thermal energy does to concrete?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 14, 2011 at 5:04 pm

      I’m trying to take you seriously. You understand that I have been collaborating with a chemical engineer in research on explosives, especially the properties of nanothermite. If you have an argument that proves a plane hit the Pentagon, then produce it. You are being childish and evasive. Apparently you think you know something that others, including me, do not. Well, why don’t you tell us what that is?

  11. Jim Fetzer  August 13, 2011 at 9:34 am

    Anthony, Let’s give it a rest, OK? We have both made our positions clear. Your incapacity to differentiate between lying and making claims that might be false continues to astound me. I am disposed to infer that you simply do not understand the English language. You think I have made claims that are false, which is fine. But since I believe everything I am saying and have no intention to mislead anyone, I am not lying. We all know that I am talking about a standard 767 and that you are talking about a “special” plane. And you have made so many misrepresentations for so long that, by your own standard, all of us could conclude the same about you. So let’s cease this nonsense. Everyone knows your views and also knows mine. Gordon is right. Enough is enough! Thanks for the memories!

  12. Brett from Broome  August 9, 2011 at 4:12 am

    Jim! Why are you bothering. These guys are just trying to “wind you up”. Forget about them.
    I have learnt so much about 9/11 & JFK from your videos & papers. To paraphrase a wise man “I may not be a smart man, but I know what #$@!*& is!” The 9/11 Commission Report is #$@!*& !!!!
    We may never know the truth, but I appreciate your efforts in trying to find it.
    You haven’t been doing as many Real Deal shows. Please do some more of them so I can download & listen on my long drives. Take care!

  13. Denny Cautrell  August 5, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    I am dumbfounded by the ignorant trolls commenting here. The CGI rendered 9/11 with media complicity is apparent. Give it a rest. You not only insult our intelligence, but make it obvious who you are paid by. You know who you are. You are such obvious tools.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 6, 2011 at 8:28 am

      Denny, My best guess is that it was a sophisticated hologram, for reasons I have explained. Some think it may have been done with CGis or video compositing, but the hologram hypothesis appears more likely.

  14. peter  August 5, 2011 at 8:25 am

    The bottom line is this – anyone who believes 19 ragheads from a cave in Aghan brought down 3 buildings with 2 commercial aircraft in their own footstep, needs a shrink…

    • Jim Fetzer  August 6, 2011 at 6:42 pm

      Anthony specializes in special pleading, which is citing only evidence favorable to your side. In this video, it discusses the construction of the Twin Towers and attempts to trivialize the strength of the external support columns. Anthony wants you to think that the steel would be flimsy in comparison to the plane, which has a thin skin of aluminum. The towers had open office space, but the plane was an flying empty beer can.

      More importantly, he doesn’t want you to think about what would happen to a plane were it to encounter just one of those sections of the external support columns in space. We know the damage done by a tiny bird when hit in flight. Remember that the force of a plane hitting one of those stationary sections at 560 mph is the same as one of those sections hitting a stationary plane at 560 mph. The damage would be catastrophic.

      Not only that, but the video actually suggests that the plane hitting the building was analogous to a truck hitting a gate! I can hardly believe that Anthony thinks anyone here is going to be taken in by such ludicrous claims. Take another look: the plane was encountering the building at an angle that meant it impacts with eight (8) of those floors, which represented enormous horizontal resistance. It would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, and all the rest.

      Most tellingly, Anthony continues to ignore the most important proof of fakery, which is “Joe’s Law”. The plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air! Unless that massive building poses no more resistance to its flight path than air, we not only have definitive proof of fakey but also definitive proof of the absence of any deceleration. Equal distance in equal time implies equal speed. QED

  15. Keenan Roberts  August 5, 2011 at 7:35 am

    For those who are content with Prof. Jim Fetzer’s pseudo-scientific non-acedemic approach to the evidence of the 9/11 crime and the contempt he shows for the scientific method, and don’t care one whit about all the many errors to his approach that completely destroys his credibility as a researcher, you will continue to allow yourselves to be made fools of.

    For those who prefer a more legitimate and credible approach to studying the issue and getting to the actual verifiable truth, proper methodology and evidentiary analysis becomes necessary.

    Jim Fetzer is a fraud. Pure and simple. He has been shown over and over again why his pseudo-scientific analysis he uses to support his no-planes-in-New-York theory is completely invalid, and yet he steadfastly refuses to address these blatant errors and falsehoods, preferring to discredit himself and those who rally around him.

    One of the most blatant errors in his approach is the method he uses in measuring the deceleration of UA175 flying into WTC-2, using the tail-end motion rather than the center of mass. It has been shown over and over again that a long tubular shaped aircraft flying at high speed suddenly and violently impacting a massive object will not show any noticeable deceleration with respect to the tail-end motion, even while the front of the plane’s motion has completely halted and is being destroyed. The best illustration of this phenomena is the Sandia National Laboratories crash test of an F-4 Phantom jet impacting a massive concrete block in 1988.

    The following video shows the crash first at regular speed, Then at slow motion to better observe the way in which the tail end of the plane continues with no detectable deceleration while the front of the plane is being violently crushed. The velocity upon impact of the F-4 was 480 mph, as compared to the velocity of UA175 of around 540 mph when it impacted WTC-2: http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx

    An analysis of a crash test of the F-4 Phantom jet aircraft showed no appreciable deceleration of the tail end during impact with a massive concrete slab demonstrating that little deceleration is expected from the tail end of a Boeing-767 during impact with a WTC tower. Even more to the point, The F-4 Phantom jet was being completely crushed against the massive concrete block with no penetration, whereas the UA175 Boeing 767 did penetrate the building upon impact, so more deceleration would have been expected in the F-4 case compared with the UA175 scenario. And yet, even in the F-4 case the tail-end showed no deceleration.

    This shows why it is so important to measure the planes motion at the center of gravity, rather than the tail-end of the plane in determining whether any deceleration was taking place.

    There are many other problems with Jim Fetzer’s analysis beyond the faulty methodology of measuring deceleration at the tail-end of the plane, such as his specious claims regarding how the floors of the building would not be expected to give way to the impacting jumbo jet by ignoring the power of kinetic energy, among other issues that I have already discussed.

    Essentially, Jim Fetzer’s embarrassingly shoddy pseudo-scientific approach is designed to appeal to those who are either illiterate in basic science and logic, or can’t be bothered with the science and facts. His absurd and easily-debunkable claims are extremely damaging to the 9/11 truth movement and set up perfect straw men for the enemies of truth to use against all of us.

    Professor Jim Fetzer, you should be ashamed of yourself. You can try as you may (and I’m sure you will) to turn it back on me and accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, but people who are paying attention can see right through you. You are hurting the cause of truth just as much as our professed enemies. As a professor of many years, you know certainly well the difference between a scholarly approach utilizing the scientific method based on verifiable facts and valid methodology, versus one that is based on shoddy methodology, sound bites, and unscientific claims. The fact that you continue to choose the latter, no matter how many times you are exposed, illustrates to people what your agenda is quite clearly. I’m done with you. You have been exposed.

    • Shallel  August 5, 2011 at 5:05 pm

      Fail.

      If you will notice, the Sandia F-4 is propelled thru the collision by a ROCKET. It is also filled with water, therefore having more mass than an air-filled jet, but not much more structural integrity. So what we see is the splash of the water, the F-4 shell propelled outward by the spray.

      Damn it, Jim, where are all the critical thinkers?

    • Gordon Duff  August 6, 2011 at 12:23 am

      a real modeling would show the pentagon plane bounce off like a handball, much of it landing in the potomac river…

      the luggage and interior would have formed a cloud that covered 3 acres

      undies would have been everywhere…and…much of the clothing is totally fireproof as is much of a plane…

      g

    • Gordon Duff  August 6, 2011 at 12:07 am

      Tony,

      Review the 5 52 stuff. lets do this back channel.

      this is a wrong direction.

      Khalil Nouri, one of our editors, was an engineer on the 757 and is currently with boeing.

      he can get you the test figures.

      g

    • Jim Fetzer  August 6, 2011 at 8:03 am

      Why do you continue to focus on the impossible speed and ignore the impossible entry and the fact that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air–which is not only impossible for a standard 767 but also demonstrates that there was NO DECELERATION, as I have explained above MANY TIMES. And you continue to misuse the word “lie”! Since I believe everything I have posted here, I obviously do not think it is false–and, indeed, you have offered no good reason for supposing any of my claims ARE false! If we want proof that you don’t know what you are talking about, your misuse of that term demonstrates it. Give it a break, Anthony. You are simply wrong.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 6:18 am

      Anthony, I have explained these things to you so many times that I am now forced to infer that you may be losing your mind to Alzheimers. No one who believes what they are saying can be committing a LIE. You have to know what you are saying is false AND SAY IT ANYWAY. You really need to get a grip on language, Anthony, because you are making a fool of yourself here–and I detect no signs that you are going to relinquish that role anytime soon!

      As for “deceleration”, you seem to think that some subtle, barely-perceptible degree of loss of velocity will save the day for your “special plane” theory. But as I have explained OVER AND OVER, that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air DEMONSTRATES (a) that we are witnessing IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS and (b) that the plane displays NO DECELERATION.

      Not only do you appear to be losing your mental faculties, but it becomes increasinly apparent that you have no knowledge of physics–not even the most elementary! I would have thought that even an accomplished film producer would know that distance equals rate time time (or, d = r x t), where traveling equal distances (its whole length) in equal times (the same number of frames) entails equal speeds (no deceleration). Give it a rest, Anthony! You are done.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 8:49 pm

      Anthony, Something is seriously wrong with you. I have presented definitive arguments demonstrating that these videos show impossible events and prove that there was no deceleration. You continue to push the fantasy of a “special plane”, which could no more have passed through its own length into a massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air than a standard plane. Instead, you continue to lash out with one ad hominem after another. I am sure no one on this thread cares about anything you say any more, Anthony. You have worn out your welcome. If you had a real argument, you would have presented it by now. You have certainly had ample opportunity. Admit your defeat and bow out gracefully. I really encourage you to take my advice, because you are now coming across as a complete loon.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 13, 2011 at 5:51 am

      Well, let’s see where things stand, Anthony. So far as I can tell, you have yet to refute any of my arguments. Moreover, since, as I use the phrase, video fakery covers any use of video to convey a false impression–whether the events that it presents are faked and the video was not altered, as in the case of a hologram, or the events it presents were introduced into the video, as in the case of CGIs or video compositing–one decisive way to prove that a video is fake is that it presents events that are physically impossible. Consider:

      (1) Impossible Speed: I claimed that the plane is traveling at a speed that is impossible for a standard Boeing 767. That this is the case has been confirmed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Even you, Anthony, have admitted that 560 mph, which is its cruising speed at 35,000 feet, is impossible at 700-1,000 feet. So not only am I right about this, but you have acknowledged that I am right. It is for this reason that you have talked about a “special plane”, modified to travel at a higher speed. A “special plane”, however, is still a plane, which is a physical object that cannot violate laws of physics and of engineering. Take another look at the entry and the floors that it was intersecting with.

      (2) Impossible Entry: Even a “special plane” is still a plane, however, and cannot violate laws of engineering and of physics. We know from Newton that objects remain at rest or travel in straight lines unless acted upon by other forces. We know that the effects of those other forces will be imparted in the direction in which thye are applied. We also know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The effortless entry of this “plane” into the building, given its design, intersecting eight (8) floors, is a physical impossibility. The plane should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground.

      (3) Equal Distance/Equal Times: The argument that I found decisive when I began to investigate the possibility of video fakery is that the plane makes its impossible entry by passing its whole length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. This is impossible unless a massive, steel-and-concrete building poses no more resistance to the path of a plane in flight than air. It has been confirmed in both Hezarkhani and Fairbanks videos. Covering equal distances in equal times implies equal speeds, which means that there is no diminution in velocity under conditions when its velocity should have dropped to zero.

      (4) The Planted Engine: An engine component found at Church & Murray has been claimed to have come from Flight 175. However, as even you have acknowledged, it is not from the engine of a Boeing 767. Moreover, it is obviously planted. We have footage of FBI agents unloading something heavy from a van at that location. Since the part was there later in the day, they are obviously delivering it and not picking it up. It is under a construction scaffolding and sitting on an undamaged sidewalk. If the plane had been real, then why would it have been necessary to plant an engine? Not only does this not support video authenticity, it further confirms video fakery.

      (5) Joe Keith: The equal distance/equal times argument, which implies no loss in velocity upon entry, was advanced by Joe Keith, who was a software engineer for Boeing and programmed the software for its shaker system. It is archived as, “Joe’s Law” (with a $5,000 reward for disproof) at Morgan Reynolds’ web site, http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/ Why you continue to dispute this is beyond me. You persist with the ad hominem that he wasn’t really an “aerospace engineer”, which appears to be baseless. More importantly, his argument stands on its own merits. It wouldn’t matter if he were a bar tender rather than a software engineer. I am taken aback that you can’t grasp this elementary point.

      (6) Predictable Damage: The windows were only 18″ across, the support columns one meter apart. There were no windows between floors. Far less than 40% of the facade would have been glass. Steel and concrete are far more dense than aluminum. The effects of a plane hitting a stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as the building hitting the stationary plane at 560 mph. Imagine what would occur if a plane in flight impacted with one of those sections of the external support columns–or what would happen if a plane in flight were to collide with one of those steel trusses covered with 4-8″ of concrete? I’ve asked this repeatedly, but you have no answer.

      (7) Why They Had to Fake It: They needed to coordinate the temporal sequence, so the explosions in the subbasements that drained the water from the sprinkler systems could be “explained away” as the effects of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts. But it is difficult for an experienced pilot to hit a target 208′ across, even with multiple attempts. And they needed the plane to enter the building before it would explode to have a pseudo-explanation for the building’s “collapse”. None of that would have happened with a real plane, so they had to fake it. And they were still 14 and 17 seconds late with their “hits”, as Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong explained and as I elaborated upon in “9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”. I am baffled that you seem to be unable to understand all this.

    • Gordon Duff  August 13, 2011 at 7:08 am

      Jim
      Eventually, you and tony will have to let go of each other’s throats.
      It fills my email box every day.
      g

  16. Terry  August 5, 2011 at 4:01 am

    There are enough discrepencies within the archive footage of 911 that I consider the NPT to be accurate. September clues does an excellent job of pointing these discrepacies out.

    My concern is that as long as these corporate news services remain they serve no use other than for propaganda against the people of the world. WE CANNOT TRUST THEM AS THEY ARE and even plane huggers must admit that comment from these services during the attack was pure programming and abolutely essential to selling the 911 lies to the public.

    Despite the animosity of the plane huggers the NPTheory remains the most compelling recruiter of new minds to the truth of 911. Moreover these converts to the NPT are fully awake to the facts of controlled media and no longer available to be dupes of media mind control. This awareness has changed the world and is driving the awakening of the general population concerning our political predicament. The machiavallian use of the mainstream media was a huge mistake and has destroyed the world order and future plans of the elite. The silent majority sits fuming in their armchairs sipping beer and watching the great institutions crumble cheering privately at every slip of the eltes hold on power. The people know they dont need to do anything but sit quietly as it all falls down. What else can they do?

    Many 911 researchers will never align themselves to the NPT as they consider overcoming trust in the mainstream media to be a hurdle too high to overcome. Many have stated as much as reason for thier opposition to the NPT.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 5, 2011 at 8:20 am

      Excellent post, Terry. I think those 9/11 researchers are underestimating the intelligence of the American people. The movement is largely dormant, with piecemeal progress here and there. If the use of video fakery were to become widely known, however, it would be OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE that 9/11 was not the work of 19 Islamic terrorists but a high-tech and very sophisticated psy-op involving elements at the highest levels of the American government with complicity from their allies in the mass media. We live in such a visually-oriented society that proof of video fakery is the most direct and convincing means for reaching the public and exposing 9/11 as a fabricated political event. But my impression is that most 9/11 researchers are afraid to confront the evidence.

  17. francfist  August 4, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    I think , first. real men live in Libya, while American men have conversations like this. I’m no scientist but one of these guys reminds me of my snarky, sociopathic ex. Arrogance.

  18. Stanley  August 4, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    Many examples exist of a piece of straw or a bird feather forced through telephone poles by the high winds of a tornado.
    The other problem is, if you accept that the 3 videos were tampered with, then you can’t say with any certainty that they were only tampered with once. Unless reliable witnesses saw the 3 videographers take their casettes out and hand them over for examination immediately, then nobody can draw any conclusions from the videos at all.
    There are enough things that we can all easily agree upon, that this video-proof issue should be ignored. Move on!

    • Jim Fetzer  August 4, 2011 at 8:05 pm

      Stanley, Your post is on a par with those who cite the Sandia plane crash as evidence that the plane hitting the South Tower would have simply disappeared. The Sandia plane DID NOT disappear but was shattered into millions of tiny pieces, where I suspect that the plane was made of synthetic material and otherwise would not have blow apart like that. That, of course, did not happen at the South Tower, where the plane simply disappeared into the building. Your citation of the pieces of straw that penetrated telephone poles or trees during tornadoes is similarly flawed. What you describe is simply not possible, but occurs in a different fashion. The force of the winds twists these wooden objects in such ways that cracks are opened in them that allow piece of straw or feathers from birds to be caught. When the force subsides, the feathers and straw remain, but it is not because they have PENETRATED those things, which did not and could not happen. I appreciate (what I take to be) your sincerity, but exposing how it was done–especially in relation to the parts that were faked, such as the use of enormous dumpsters to create enormous clouds of billowing smoke to intimidate the members of Congress, as I explain in “Seven Questions about 9/11″–has to be the most straightforward way to convey to the American people that 9/11 was an enormous hoax.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS WEEK