FACEBOOK
TWITTER
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.
"Fight 175" entering the South Tower
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
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=127803
Posted by Jim Fetzer on Aug 3 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
This infighting is exactly what those who contrived 911 want. All that has to be proven is that the Official Government story was impossible, then we put those who contrived the story in congressional hearings and make them tell us how it was done.
You will never get the truth as long as the 911 truth movement is arguing how it was done.
Planes no planes who cares… plane fuel cannot melt steal end of story!
If we can’t sort this out among ourselves, how are we going to convince the rest of the world?
Much of the rest of the world knows 911 was scam. All that they have to do is observe the police state that is being created in its name. Also, why play the game of endless argument of how it was done? This is exactly why JFK was never solved or forced back into investigation. If the public was simply educated on the falsity of the Official Story, a consensus would/will have/be gathered and the government would have to eventually respond.
This is exactly why Italian 911 researcher Massimo Mazzucco will not be sucked into the game of explaining how it was done. He doesn’t want to be marginalized by the media, the government or the supporters of the official story.
He says in his documentaries he tries to just show the facts. He says why should the public be responsible for explain how it was done, they do not have the resources and tools necessary, that should be up to the authorities or the Bush Administration and their cohorts to explain. He further states that 911 Commission Report and the JFK Warren Reports have a lot in common in that they are reports design to conceal than to revile. They expect the public to buy a totally fictitious story and those who question it are conspiracy nuts.
He feels all the public needs to do is prove that the Official Government story is false or a lie. He explains that all wars since the 1800’s have been under false pretenses and 911 is no exception. He asks the question…, is it more patriotic to challenge the official story when we know it is a lie or to turn a blind eye, especially if you know there are rouge elements in the US Government?
Interesting points he made during this interview were:
1) No Arabs (supposed 19 hijackers) were ever filmed moving through the International Airports in Newark, Boston or Dallas with security cameras everywhere. In these highly secured airports, the Government could not supply the American Public with any video footage of Arabs in US airports on 911.
The video footage you have been shown are of some of the alleged hijackers (4) from Portland Maine to Boston prior, not in Boston International on 911.
2) On this momentous day, the hijackers drive to Portland Maine a risk possible missing their connecting flight and was shown to the public as a cover story for the lost luggage was found with all the planted evidence. Why luggage? Why a “will that would burn up” and all that strange evidence?
3) Passport page is found 4 blocks away by the FBI with a picture and name, when the plane is demolished.
4) If that wasn’t a miracle, in Shanksville, in the hole where no plane is seen you have 4 indentify documents of 4 separate hijackers, yet none of the passengers identities were found or shown. Of this evidence is a bandana and will of one of the passengers.
5) It should be plain as day with the neocons Project of a New American Century what their motive is about gaining control of the world while the Russians are still economically inferior.
6) Rodriguez 911 testimony about the expositions at the Trade Center on 911, before the first plane ever hit the first tower. Massimo said that just like the Warren Commission, the 911 commission chose on the evidence that fit the solution or story they had chosen for the public, not all the facts.
7) Flight 77 and Dick Cheney, where Cheney is caught lying about his whereabouts, the plane headed to Washington and the stand down of fighter jets via testimony from Norman Mineta under oath.
Rumsfeld, in June of 2001, changed an important intercept procedures for hijacked planes after 25 years of no hijacked American Planes, that made him the only direct contact on 911 and after the controllers from Dallas and Boston could not supposedly find Rumsfeld that day and on 9/12/01 the procedures were reversed.
The rest of the facts are discussed in his documentary “The Project for a New American Century” or a article posted recently:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5550
Jim,
I think that’s the wrong question. The real issue is a quote from somewhere that “the first step on the road to revolution is to discredit the existing system.”
Put in context of JFK, 911, the Gulf of Tonkin or any other offical flim flam, the first and most important step is to discredit beyond doubt that it’s impossible for an event to have happened the govnerment claimed. Period. That being so, you’re lying. You also have an ulterior purpose for doing so, and those are the purpose you are seeking to achieve based on the lies you are telling. We will not be taken in and shall, instead, oppose both your lies and your purposes.
Since the government that propounds the lie controls the physical parameters under which the supposed event occurred as they claim, they can create an infinite number of false trails to mislead people about what happened.
There are two books on the Kennedy assassination that pointed the way to unravelling what happened and why. First, James Lifton’s account proving beyond question the body had been altered before the official autopsy that purportedly pointed to how he was killed was performed. That proved beyod doubt the government was not only lying,but was in on the assassination. The other was JFK and the Unspeakable which laid out why he was killed, that pointed to the intests that were involved in making it happen.
That’s all anyone really needs to know about the event to reach the proper conclusiopns about what needs to be done to clean it up.
Prien
Prien,
I don’t get you. Sometime you make such intelligent and subtle observations, other times nonsense like this. PRECISELY WHAT WE ARE DOING IS DEMONSTRATING THAT THE EVENTS OF 9/11 CANNOT HAVE OCCURRED AS THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS–BECAUSE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS IS NOT EVEN PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. Unless you believe that the laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics were suspended on 9/11, you really should be on my side. I can’t believe the copious quantity of muddled thought here at VT.
And your remarks about JFK are equally unfounded. His name is “David Lifton”, by the way, not “James”, which is my name. But some of us in that case, too, want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Have you ever read any of my books on JFK, where I have brought together experts on different aspects of the case? ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)? Or visit my web site at http://assassinationscience.com or the on-line journal that I co-edit with John P. Costella, Ph.D., at http://assassinationresearch.com? Check ‘em out. Thanks.
Jim
You’re right, it’s David Lifton, I should have checked book before I responded. Long time since I read it.
Actually, I was responding to your answer asking if we can’t sort it out, how are we going to explain it.
Truth seeker’s response expressed my sentiments in the first paragraph. That was the only real point I was making. All this arguing about details and trying toprove this or that about how it was done is worthless. It’s exactly the same with the JFK assassination The cardinal point is that they were trying to “solve” the murder which cannot be done weithout the necessary respuces and legal powers to conduct an effective investigation. No reasearcher can possibly do that, and all they end up with is lots of conjectures like tghis or that goup did it this way or that.
The key point about Lifton was he zeroed in on the EVIDENCE the government provided and instead of trying to decide who to, he focused on where and when it was produced and what the evidence in fact established. Among his most compelling points (aside from the autopsy findings and casket entries, etc) was that if any bullet evidence was fabricated, it all had to be fabrticated because the copnspirators could not afford to have any genuine evidence from the shooting that would contradict the planted evidence.
That thus meant that all the genuine evidence from the shooting had to be suppressed and fake evidence substituted for it. Only the govt could have done that. What buttresses his position is that there in fact was very little physcial evidence of bullets that was recovered, making it quite easy to plant all the fragments.
It’s exactly what was done to frame Simpson with blood evidence. They dumped the real swatches that were used to collect, and substituted fake ones with the blood that incriminatedd Simpson. The proof this was done is that although the LAPD procedures called for the criminalist to identify the number of swatches collected from each stain, Fung and mazzola did not lidentify the quantity of swatches for a single stain. That failure by itself destroys the necessary chain of custody reqwuirted to authenticate evidence because, among other things, it is necessary to account for and prove any change in the evidence as ity was orinigally collected. So if the original number os swatches is not identified, there is no way to account for the swatches they ended up with. Not accountuing for the exact number of swatches collected was the only way it was possible to make the undetected switches becayse had the number been noted for each stain, it’s next to impossible for those who made up the substitutes to know how many to make up for each stain to match the actual number that was collected.
The fact is the plane no plane issue is a distraction from the major and only point – the towers did not come down because planes crashed into them and started mini fires. They were collapsed by explosive devices. Bin Laden could not do that. Nor doesd the argument about no planes even refute the event could not have occurred as the govt claims. Indeed, the planes crashing into the buildings or merely the appearance of planes crashing into the building would serve the govts claims equally well, although crashing the actual planes would have been a lot easier than faking it. It is blowing up the building that makes it an inside job FOR CERTAIN. Once the public widely acknowledges that key point, then the demand for investigations to identify and punish the perpetrators can begin. For the bottom line is that if the public is not ready to buy the basic truth it had to be an inside job, it will simply fall asleep over th esoteric argument of holograms, no planes and video fakes and all manner of other side issues that will lead nowhwere.
Sorry, but aside from getting Lifton’s first name wrong, my remaining comments about JFK are right on as to the significance of those two books identifying the keys to the assassination..
Prien
I am sorry, Prien, but your obvious disvalue of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is very disheartening to me. I am afraid your values and mine have long since diverged. I am not about to settle for half-truths and incomplete analyses. That may be enough to satisfy you, but it is not enough for me.
We are accusing the government of murder. Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on us?
Well, first turn that around. Isn’t the government accusing bin Laden of the murders? Wasn’t the burden of proving on them? Don’t they have the burden of proving that the murders that occurred were committed as they claimed? Don’t they even have to prove that the airline flights that crashed were actually the planesd that took off as those flights by providing a list of sderially numbered parts that are documentd by maintnance records to have been installed on the crashed planes on the day they crashed? Indeed, all the Taliban asked for was proof that bin Laden did it, and they were ready to turn him over. The US spurned their offer.
No, all we have to do to accuse the govet is to pove their claims are bogus. Just like any accused does not have to prove who actuall committed the crime, only that the govts case has failed to prove he did it beyiond a reasonable doubt.
There is no doubt whatsoever the govt lied about 911 and how the towers came down.
And nobody lies like that unless they are covering up the truth that points straight back to them.
Prien
http://tinyurl.com/3trgtxd
Jim Fetzer
“If we can’t sort this out among ourselves,
how are we going to convince the rest of the world?”
Sort WHAT out, Mr. Fetzer?
more ‘divisive disinfo misdirection routines’?
We don’t have to prove Mr. Fetzer’s Official No-Plane Theory wrong!
Please Stop trying to insist that we do!
Discontinue divisive disinfo misdirection routines, please.
====
“The scam would be to misrepresent to misdirect us from what We are trying to do.”
Dear Mr. Fetzer, I hope this helps to clarify…
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClearCog/message/18
======/
Fetzer wrote:
“If we cannot prove that 19 Islamic terrorists were NOT responsible for 9/11, how can we prove who was?”
http://tinyurl.com/453pqz8
Alert! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! ‘Bogus Conclusions’ / ‘False Theory’!
http://tinyurl.com/3waxtpm
Please consider:
‘Appropriate Conclusions’
VS
Bogus ‘Authority’ of ( inferior-positions / bogus-conclusions / False Theory) Hypocrisy / nonsense
divisive cogdis noise against the simple solution sanctuary of the due-process Accountability WE Seek
Consider: Obstruction of the proper requisite due-processing Accountability / Justice WE Seek!
#########################//
Smacko
August 3, 2011 – 7:09 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-261591
note:
what I posted did Not include the ‘/ False Theory’ inclusion in the following part:
Please, re-consider your following position
(especially regarding inferior-positions / bogus-conclusions:
I should have included such
——-
http://tinyurl.com/3jrxfun
Mr. Fetzer,
rather than misdirected; let us re-consider:
‘Bogus CONCLUSIONS’
regardinging:
‘Appropriate Conclusions VS bogus conclusions’
Mr. Fetzer,
Apparently now that you’ve distilled the thermite find down to its essential integrity / utility;
you have demonstrated its superiority to your no-plane-theory ‘utility’;
especially regarding ‘Appropriate Conclusions VS bogus conclusions’
Commensurately, as documented prime proponent of ‘Appropriate Conclusions’;
and author of the following article title:
Is “9/11 Truth” Based Upon a False Theory?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/
Please, re-consider your following position
(especially regarding inferior-positions / bogus-conclusions / False Theory):
Fetzer wrote:
“If we cannot prove that 19 Islamic terrorists were NOT responsible for 9/11, how can we prove who was?”
http://tinyurl.com/453pqz8
—
Regarding ‘bogus conclusions’:
Alert! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
http://tinyurl.com/3waxtpm
===
which brings to mind:
What IS “9/11 Truth” ‘Based Upon’?
&
What SHOULD “9/11 Truth” Be Based Upon?
&
What Should ‘CONSTITUTE’ “9/11 Truth”?
What Are WE “911 Truthers” Trying To Achieve?
Dear Mr. Fetzer, I hope this helps to clarify…
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClearCog/message/18
=====
Yes,
ALL ‘Bogus Conclusions’
Misdirect / Marginalize / Sabotage
Our Primary Position Of Seeking ‘Appropriate Conclusions’
(‘Appropriate Conclusions’ via Due-Processing Accountability)
http://tinyurl.com/3svu5lf
9/11 thermite evidence haunts US liars
http://tinyurl.com/4xz66vo
also see:
http://tinyurl.com/4x5rw3z
http://tinyurl.com/3pqvr27
You’ve clarified everything. Mr. Fetzer is a Popperist who has adopted the notion that the true test of science is falsifiability. That is, one makes up statemnts that are falsifiable, and only such statements advance science. Now I know his cohorts refuse to accept the real meaning of Popper’s science, but the example he gives of practicing his method is we make up a statement that all swans are white. No good, because we will indeed see only white swans, so that statements isn’t falsified, nor falsifiable. But a statement that all swans are black is, of course, instantly falsified and falsifiable by the first white swan we see. So to carry on with this falsifiability, we make up statements like “all swans are green,.” or allswans are purple,” and an infinite number of such nonsense statements, and we will be doing science by falsifying them all.
Of course, Popper has sort of sought to save his nonsense falsifiability system by claiming that statements count as part of the system of science that is demarcated from mysticism if the statement is potentially falsifiable. Once you go down that road, however, any statement, even mystical ones, can always be potentially falsified. The hitch is that nothing can ever be VERIFIED in science, or be absolute.
The entire game hinges on the issue of the impossibibilty of deriving a universal from a particular. As Popper would have it, verification can only involve a particular, thus it can never produce universal and absolute truth. Thus his notion of falsifiability. It gets you nowhere because falsifying a proposotion never gets you any positive answwer abouyt the external wworld. It only produces negative ones.
The other issue is that Popper was a two sided philosophical idealist who denounced materialist philosophy. He, however, had his feet in both of the major camps of idealism – the subjective ideaslist to whom only the beliefs of the subject count, and the objective idealist who accepts that ideas of things are independent of the subject. His method was simple. When his objective idealist brethren attacked him for his subjective idealism, he would pounce and point to all the ways he affirmed objective idealism. Wheh the objective idealist attacked him for his subjective idealism, he denounced them for failing to his his dedication to objective idealism.
Anyone wanting to understand real science needs to get a grip on dialectical materialism. The key here is the unity of opposites and the oposition of unities. We cognize everything subjectively, without, of course, ever being the external. The subjective cognition is of external real object that we can only perceive internally. So the two are exact opposites. Since we are both in the same material world, there is the unity of these opposites within us. There is, however, also an opposition within this unity because the external is never internalized as such. This dialectical involvment in the world is played out by practice – our acting within this world, and cognizing this action.
The way we find out about the whiteness of swans is by establushing the DNA structure that generrates it. And this indeed may not be a universal truth for all eternity because the genes could change to create different colored swans. In that sense, any scientific or other finding must be tentative.
What all this boils down to is that truth is always absolute in time, but relative over time. Dialectics in motion.
Prien
Egad! You think that the hypothesis, “All swans are white”, is not falsifiable because we only observe white swans? But that the hypothesis, “All swans are black”, is falsifiable, because it is falsified by the first black swan we observe? I am dumbfounded. I thought that you were an intelligent fellow, but obviously I have overestimated you. The hypothesis, “All swans are white”, is also falsified by the observation of a non-white swan. How could you not understand that? And your other remarks about Popper are similarly misguided. He was a “critical rationalist” who believed that science and reason are our most reliable guides to the discover of truth about the world and ourselves. DNA may determine the color of swans, but if swans can have different genes for color, then there can be more than one color for swans. Do you also believe, by the way, that it is impossible to prove a negative? Because we can prove that it is not the case that there is an elephant in the living room by going there and taking a look. The absence of evidence of the presence of an elephant, in that case, is proof that no elephant is present. Just as the discovery of a single non-white swan is proof that it is not the case that all swans are white, which, in case you haven’t noticed, is also a negative. I am afraid that you need to go back to school and take some courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, because you obviously need them. I find this very disappointing.
Not all “jews” are terrorists. Just most “Jews”, do a DNA test. When Prien did “Jewish” terrorists become “Government” for Americans. Exactly where in the “Constitution/Declaration of Independence” do you read the words Talmudic terrorists/Jewish Terrorists/Economic Terrorists. Ipso facto Jewish Economic “Talmudic terrorists” are not “Government”, just Terrorists, THE ONLY TERRORISTS on Earth, and please see the Emet group…below. Wasting time on chasing your arse in reverse to the bottom of the pit, prevents you from being able to climb the mountain of true information{scientifically verifiable using logic} for a clear view of REALITY, THE JEWISH TERRORISTS printing currency & Owning the Media and Running a Crack whorehouse called Congress, and a Talmudic terrorist “jewish” state in Palestine…among other criminal syndicate activities..
I keep losing my replies, so I’ll make it short.
If your misrepresentations of my position is your notion of going for the truth and nothing but the trtuh, then yiou are lost in space.
Your opening statement asking wehter I realize that “all swans are white” is falsifiable is entirely refuted by my asctual comment which was that it is FALSIFIED by the first black swan we see, to which I added, NOR FALSIFIABLE.” It should have been made clear by the following commets about faslsifiability that I should have added “nor FASLFIABLE by currnet observation of all swans” The point is that if the demarcation criterion includes any”theory” (.ie some form of univeral hypothesis) that is poentially faslfiable,it excludes nothing.
But Popper makes this prety clear by alleging that for a theory to be ‘empirical’ or ‘falsifiable’ if it divides all possible basis statements unambiguously into the following two non-empty classes:” these being basic statements that are inconsistent with it (which it prohibits) and those that are consistent (which it permits) such that “a theory is falsifiable if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty.”
All this then gets us is “that a theory makes assertions only about its potyentisl falsifiers. (It assserts teir falsity. About the ‘permitted’ basic statements it says nothing. In particular, it does not say that they are true.”
If you want to really understand where this muck takes science, read Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio Criticism where he takes apart the Machian forerunners of Popper. Their whole shtick is to declare materialism to be metaphysics, and to enthone idealism in the halls of sceince. That is exactly what Popper does. except he uses his various forms of statements rather than the pinciples of coordination the Machian adopted as noted below..
To understand the flavor of this sceince, it is founded on the distinction between thought at being. It is the contradiction betweem their idealist theories and natural science that this crowd seeks to eliminate. Avenarius tried to do it “by means of the ‘potential’ central term in the coordination” that “is the ‘indissoluble’ connection betwen self and environemnt.” And “to eliminate the obvious absurdity of this theory the concept of potential central terms is introduced For instance, what about man’s development from the embryo? Does the environment (the ‘counter-term’) exist if the central term is represented by an embryo?”
This crowd, of course, rejects the materialist princple stated by Engles “‘that matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter. and adopt instead the standpoint of Avenarius that ‘”‘the thinking brain is a fetish of natural science.’”
All this muck finally leads to Willy repudiating “the school of philosphy of experience in order to replace it by the philosophy of basic experience, which is confusion thrice confounded.” This eventually leads Willy to ask”what about the world prior to man? He first answers it according to Avenarius by claiming “‘we project ourselves mentally into the past,’” but then claims we are not bound to regard experience as only human experience. By no means. We must, instead “‘simply regard the animal kingdom-be it the most insignificant worm-as primitive fellow-men.” When Willy returns to this question in 1905, “the worm was removed.” Instead we get “What does millions of years without life mean?…Is time perhaps a thing in itself? Of course not. And that means that things outside men are only IMPRESSIONS, bits of fantasy fabricated by men with the help of a few fragments we find about us…Need philophers fear the stream of life?…And so I say to myself: abandon all this love of systems and grasp the moment you are living in, the moment which alone brings happiness.’” And thus did this philosphy of science collapse into a world of pure existentialism, exactly as Popper plunged into his World 3 nonsense.
You want this science. You an have it.
Your misrepresentations of my comments already speak for themslves.
Prien
What can I say to these distorted remarks? Popper emphasized falsifiability because scientific hypotheses–laws and theories about what happens in every space/time point of the universe under specified conditions–are universal hypotheses. They are falsifiable but are not verifiable. His genius was in recognizing that they have the force of prohibitions that preclude certain events from not happening under the conditions specified. Pure water below 32*F, for example, will freeze. You can test that proposition by attempting to arrange some set of conditions under which it might be falsified, such as summer days or holidays. Those, we know, are causally irrelevant conditions, but if there are any relevant conditions that are not encompassed by those specified, then the law is incomplete and the outcome may or may not occur, depending upon the presence or absence of those additional conditions. You committed a simple mistake but claiming that the hypothesis, “All swans are white”, is not falsifiable, when it would be falsified by the discovery of even one non-white swan. And that, of course, is the definition of falsifiability: are there any conditions under which the hypothesis or theory would be shown to be false? If so, then it is testable and scientific; if not, then not. Hypotheses about the course of history reflecting God’s will, for example, are unfalsifiable because, no matter what the course of history, it could be said to be consistent with God’s will. It would be necessary to have independent access to God’s will for the course of history to determine whether or not it is in accordance with it. There are many who make such claims, of course, as religious leaders or zealots, including many “end times” fundamentalists. But, even though they may hold their beliefs with great intensity, there is no specifiable set of conditions under which they could be shown to be false, which makes them, not meaningless, but unscientific. I hope this helps. I discuss these issues many places, including, for example, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (1993).
I made no mistake about the falsifiability as a criterion for demarcating science from metaphysics if all it means is that any statement qualifies providing contrary statements can be conructed. In that case, any so called universal is falsifiable by its contrary.
Rather than deal with various specifics that make up falsification and falsifiability in Popper’s system, let’s cut to the chase by noting how this man of empirical science actually views the role of expereince in science. The starting point is his self-described “problem of the ‘Empirical Basis.” This “problem” of course concerns the relationship between perceptual experience and basic statements. (Does the Machian claptrap about principles of coordination” between the subject and the wold start to ring bells?) He concedes that “perceptual experiences have often been regarded as providing a KIND OF justification for basic statements [truly big of him to concede this.)…Yet it was also felt that statements can be logically justified only by statements.” That, of course reads experience right out of the equation (Machianism supreme). And then he declares that “the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be intersubjectively tested.” thereby founding emprical science and nothing but subjective idealism. This leads to his conclusion that fully confirms my points about falsifiability when he declares: “I do not demand that every scientific statement must HAVE IN FACT BEEN TESTED before it is accepted. I only demand that every statement must be CAPABLE of being tested; or in other words, I refuse to accept the view that there are statements in science which we have, resignedly, to accept as true merely because it does not seem possible, for logical reasons, to test them.” (I am not going to go into the distinction betwen logical and empirical basis for testing, which merely returns matters to the problem of the empirical basis and Popper in effect denying that experience can be the basis for jsutifying such statements.)
And what universal statement (which is what he means by scientifc statements is not potentially capable of being tested AT SOME POINT IN ETERNITY once we obtain the technical means to conduct the test. when staements can also be constructed that makes them logically testable).
His whole theory is but a restatement of the Machian nonsense of pholisophical idealism that went from the principle of coordination to Willys worm to living for the moment once all else failed. And that’s exactly where *Popper’s nonses end up with hisWorld 3.
If you want to do real science, become familiar with dialectical materialism, but particularly MATERIALISM as opposed to Popper’s various forms of idealis which lands you in nothing but muck.
The real contribution Popper made to the “philosophy of science” is to denounce marx without in the slguihtest refuting him The ruling class loved it because it gave them a purportedly scientific basis for denouncing Marx’s theory of the matrial foundations of society, capitalism and change with having to confront them.
My cherished view of Popper is his response to Platonic pilosophers who denounced him for misrepresenting Plato’s philosphy in his diatribe against him. His explanation was that his critics should have cut him some slack and realized that his arguments were part of his war effort. This while he was in Australia. The Wehrmacht obviously trembled from the force of his attacks. In actuallity, as the idealist he was, he might as well have imagined he was hurling fleets of paper airplanes at Germany for all the good his denunciation of Plato did to bring on Hitler’s downfall.
Prien
Dear Prien,
IT is a more precise problem,
than merely the spinning of such into as if about ‘Fetzer as Possible Popperist?’!
Please peruse again
(please notice the blatant contradictions/hypocrisy/disinfo)
http://tinyurl.com/3jaquxt
Then please consider:
Jim Fetzer
August 3, 2011 – 9:45 pm
http://tinyurl.com/3zf87mc
“your obvious disvalue of the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth is very disheartening to me”
Now, considering the extent of Mr. Fetzer’s:
”False Theory Hypocrisy’ / UN-truthfulness / ‘bogus conclusive Authority’ schtick
http://tinyurl.com/3jaquxt
‘Popperist’ or not, what are we to think of such hypocrisy schlock posturing?
Mr. Fetzer presents broken / highly hypocritical, to such a degree as presenting hysterical.
Now, The Question Is, is Mr. Fetzer doing such on ‘purpose’, or is Mr. Fetzer a bit or more crazy?
Although, remember, as confessed, Mr. Fetzer is extremely rational, even sporting superior powers of reasoning.
But than Why, … what would be Mr. Fetzer’s motive to continue to perpetrate such divisive disinfo against us?
–
As witnesses not of our intentions but of our conduct,
we can be true or false, and the hypocrite’s crime is that he bears
false witness against himself… Only crime and the criminal, it is
true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the
hypocrite is really rotten to the core.” ~ Hannah Arendt
CrossTalk on 9/11: Whodunit? etc
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GovernmentShadow/message/34396
We need to stop chasing fiction & dancing with obstructionists, so to
instead better embrace the Accountability we seek to resolve the salient 911
issue/question:
WhoDid911? We Need To Know!
The Accountability We Seek,
rather than conspiracy fiction misdirection, heckled marginalization routines
http://tinyurl.com/3waxtpm
http://tinyurl.com/4x5rw3z
http://tinyurl.com/3pqvr27
Oh well, for sake of utter redundancy- http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/03/911-no-planes-v-planes-and-controlled-demolition/comment-page-1/#comment-261255 Please do yourself the favor.
Video fakery on 9/11 is a fact.
Why Lawson is belabouring the fact is unknown.
Good work Sir.
P.S. Say away from all the Judy’s of this world – they drag your name into the muck of disbelief and tarnish your credibility.
In your cups again tonight, Peter?
If this is the quality of your thought re subjects like this, I can’t imagine anyone taking you seriously.
Why should anyone care what you think about me–or what I think about you, for that matter? You are making one ad hominem post after another, which demonstrates to me that you haven’t a clue when it comes to the scientific questions that are involved here. Have you read “Joe’s Law” yet?
Joe Keith is a retired aerospace software engineer, who created the software for Boeing’s “shaker” system to determine when airplanes will fall apart. His article “Joe’s Law” is archived at http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/ Give it a shot. Show us that you actually still have a functional brain, if you can.
We can see in your text why your Anonymous. Tell that to the people on the streets that day who watched the Planes. Thats not to say that the buildings did not FREE FALL from exactly timed demolitions… Also building 7.. the evidence all dissapearing. The impossible Flight paths for a learner Pilot.. Planes having been flown by wire and computers for 20 years +. Leave Anthony alone Jerk. You Americans need him more than you know.. From him Doth the Truth mostly Flow.
I am overwhelmed, except, perhaps, for the word “mostly”. Can we say: I doth not knowingly pass on untruths. Thank you, Paul.
“Official Government” story…FOR THE RECORD : the “Official Government” for the inhabitants of the North American Continent = CONUS= …CEASED TO EXIST in 1860…Since then the Captives of the Economic Terrorists {Class A Stockholders of the Federal Reserve} have had a “Zionazi” Economic Terrorist CABAL, AKA “Zionist Occupied Government” = ZOG !!…completely inconsistent with the So-called “Constitution”, and or any semblance of common sense, mainly attributable to TALMUDVISION…and the braindead gullible goy{s} penchant for avoiding responsibility and NOT BEING ABLE TO “THINK”..or study history & economics..{see 3AUG11- price of gold in FRN’s}…which is why the hard sciences always convict the Economic Terrorist{s} of their CRIMES…Like JFK, WACO, OKC, 9/11..and the “Jewish” State.*Talmudia*..where no turko-mongolian proselytes to talmudic Judaism ever lived…apparently the noose is tightening in cyberspace.. and the psychopaths are gittin’ the heebie jeebies..[http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/norway-changing-role-of-jew.html]….90% of “Jews” don’t have to be !! [http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-israel-supreme-court] If I had Bob De Niro’s phone number I’d call him up and tell him what I think about his covinous complicity with the Talmudic terorists and their NARRATIVE/Myth..which resulted in many many innocent people being murdered for economic terrorists “hegemony”…aren’t you glad the Zionazi porch munkey and the Crack whores raised the debt limit ? ? [http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Dov_zakheim.htm] ..where did the “money” go ? ? [http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Zakheim_surplus.htm] How can Americans be so blind and stupid ? [http://blackexile.net/zakheim.htm]…???
How many believe that Obama or any of the democrats would ever reopen the 911 Commission. I have read so much information about “what has been left out of this charade”, starting with the Head Janitor who heard explosions before the plane hit. Or the police officers who said the same thing. Does anyone actually believe Guilani and his in prison side kick Bernard Kerik werent part of this tragedy. Why did John Oneil the FBI guy run around DC two months before 911 trying to find someone to listen to him and no one would. Oneill ended up as the Head of Security at the WTC and died on that day. If you polled the american people, the majority would state they dont believe the official version, they believe it was an inside job….but NONE of our legislators state or federal would ever agree to start a new investigation because they believe the costs would be too high. TOO high for Israel to be sure. Those young “movers” caught on King Street with their van permitted to leave the country for Israel the day after 911…why did Bush permit the Bin Laden family to fly on 911, when no one was permitted to fly, not even medical people carrying live hearts….there is no doubt according to the Head Janitor (never questioned by the 911 Commission that he had too much information about what happened for 3 months prior to 911. He witnessed men coming into the building at all hours of the night, and as head janitor was curious as to why HE wasnt told what the hell they were doing there and why! Look at zionist Larry silverman who made billions off the insurance money from AIG, he had only bought the bldgs a few months before they went down. How did the “terrorists” passports end up on top of all that burning debri….too many questions and no answers from the “insiders”. Why did Panetta state he was in the bunker with Cheney when the plane was headed for the Pentagon, and was told to STAND down! Why were there military jets all over the east coast on “training missions” at the same time as the attack, why didnt cheney order those jets to take down those planes…cuz HE was part of it….they needed a reason to attack Iraq….they needed the american people behind them…and they used 911 as the pretext to attack the muslims, villify the Iraqis, steal their oil and leave their country in ruins….
Anthony: I tried to get some of the sites you mentioned and they wouldnt come up on google or yahoo…can you paste them for us all to see. I am most interested in the Dov Zakheim piece. I saw that rat bastard on Cspan the other day as part of a committee, and wondered why he hasnt been arrested for the $3.9 trillion missing from the Pentagon? We know that he immediately went to Israel after he left the Pentagon…with all that money in tow. Building all those illegal settlements must be costing Israhell a fortune, unless of course they are using our money.
spktruth
I’m sorry I missed this. Can you be more specific?
In any event I have never linked to a piece about Dov Zakheim
I can only check the links and place them in a comment, as links rather than hyperlinks.
Joe Keith is a retired aerospace software engineer, who created the software for Boeing’s “shaker” system to determine when airplanes will fall apart. This article is archived at http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/
JOE’S LAW
Posted on June 13, 2008 by Morgan Reynolds
“Joe’s Law”
Joseph Keith
Retired Aerospace Engineer
June 13, 2008
Revised and updated on July 24, 2008
Joe’s Law. It’s immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren’t immutable, I wouldn’t have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: “Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected.” The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: “Truth goes through three stages; first it’s violently opposed, then it’s highly ridiculed, and finally it’s accepted as an obvious fact.” Adolph Hitler once wrote: “Little people tell only little lies. They don’t dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth.”
At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force’s NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.
Now, let me get on by explaining Joe’s Law. Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: “AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!” By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe’s Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here’s how to apply Joe’s Law in order to find the truth: Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do.
However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don’t have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane’s nose and then use your remote’s single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of!
You will learn that 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. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton’s third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe’s Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!
Now, you may ask: “What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job.” Well, here’s what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers(2) are: Michael Hezarkhani, Evan Fairbanks, and Luc Couchesne. The Media’s defense will be: “We didn’t fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!” The question now is: When this fakery is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?
For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.
(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI
A video showing that Joe’s Law is immutable.
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt4XGnqtm-E
Freelancer’s videos in real time and slow motion
- http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Dov_zakheim.htm – http://blackexile.net/zakheim.htm – http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Zakheim_surplus.htm- Try w/o brackets..I was in California, in late August of 01, in a building of ONI CID, {not public} pulled this up.. “A group of “American” business and political leaders are building a pro-Israel media “war room” in Washington, D.C. The group will be called “Emet” —which in Hebrew means “truth.” Emet will try to address biased media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also make the case that the conflict, while serious and important, pales in comparison to the larger geo-strategic threat posed to the United States and the West by Iran and Iraq, both of whom are trying to build and/or acquire weapons of mass destruction. Funding Emet is Leonard Abramson; he sold U.S. Healthcare to Aetna in the mid-1990s for $8.9 billion. Abramson has recruited a powerful board of directors, including Bernie Marcus, founder of Home Depot; Les Wexner, founder of The Limited; Edgar Bronfman Sr., who once owned Seagram’s; and Lou Ranieri, a major Wall Street player who now co-owns one of Israel’s largest banks. Also joining the board are Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and Jack Kemp. {18Aug01}…reported by Joel C. Rosenberg, in Worldmag.com – http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-07-04/discussion.cgi.150.html – * Friday 7 Sept, There was an Incident East of LA, as I passed by, an Individual was in a house, claimed to be a US Marshal, Helicopters were all around, there were houses full of Bullets fired by “FEDS” & “LAW ENFORCEMENT”..by the time I got to Simi Valley, the House was burned down and the lot bulldozed flat, before sundown. …saw it. somewheah…is a copy of the episode…seemed to remind me of Waco. Hope those links work…don’t google, bing..try again. {use judicial inc & Zakheim}, Joe Vialls, had also Fortress America & Operation Shekinah {Shock & awe}…someone might have saved his stuff…Thanks Jim, for the Physics, There were explosions down below, also..there are photo’s of the subway nearby with damage on the support structures, {see also Die Hard With a Vengeance} & Independence Day…Very “Khazarian”..but the special effects..CGI is there, and of course in case you missed it the “Stephenville lights”..[http://www.stephenvillelights.com/]…
Stop the infighting and focus on getting the truth out there!
We can’t get the truth “out there” until we know what the truth is. I am far from the only one who has concluded that we were subjected to video fakery in New York on 9/11. Here’s an analysis by Richard Hall. So if you think I have something wrong, give some thought to the prospect that he might be right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4VQs57m4So&list=FLeSyPop-KciE&index=2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1650zz-2EA&list=FLeSyPop-KciE&index=1
You can’t focus on the truth, until people stop telling lies. For example:
Fetzer wrote: “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.?
There is no such system. Joseph Keith worked on the software for ground-based stress testing devices know as shakers. He didn’t develop a shaker, they have been around for years. I have an e-mail from him which explains that:
“Other than the big shaker system, I don’t claim to know airplanes.”
James Fetzer is the one telling lies, but you can’t stop him.
Anthony, Have you read “Joe’s Law” here? Because he makes more contributions to understanding what happened on 9/11 in that single piece than you have with your collective works. I like “This is an orange”, but we knew that already. What you did was present familiar information in an engaging style. And “9/11: The Towers of Dust”, was simply your voice on someone else’s work. Joe developed the software. He was a software engineer. More importantly, he has dealt with video fakery in a far more candid and honest fashion than have you. When, after all, are you going to answer my question: Do you believe that a real plane could pass its own length into a massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames that is passes through its own length in air? Because, as Joe explains, that’s what we have in these videos. And your obsession with disproving something that has been proven is embarrassing.
To put it most kindly, this is not your best work. I am sorry to say it, Anthony, but you really need to get a grip. You don’t even understand the meaning of the world “lie”, which you love to toss around like popcorn in a theater. As I have explained to you at least a half-dozen times before, to commit a lie, someone must be (a) making an assertion (b) that is not only false, but (c) that they know to be false (d) with the intention to mislead. I am making assertions, Anthony, but you have not shown that they are false, where I am convinced they are true. I have no interest in misleading anybody. But I do not believe the same can be said of you, including, for example, your perverted use of the term “lie”. It is a shame, Tony, but you really are creating a scene here and embarrassing yourself. Why don’t you calm down, use language as it is meant to be used, and come to grips with the consequence that you are not only wrong but that I have proven it over and over again?
Dr. Fetzer: YOU HAVE LIED! Do you understand that?
There is no such system that you claim Joe Keith developed.
Fetzer wrote in the second paragraph of his article aimed at debunking me:
“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.”
I repeat: There is no such system.
Joseph Keith worked on the software for ground-based stress testing devices know as shakers. He didn’t develop a shaker, they have been around for years. I have an e-mail from him addressed to both YOU and ME which explains that:
Respond to that, don’t start singing the praises of someone who did not do what you have claimed he did.
STOP TELLING LIES about me and other people.
wow. This is still unclear? (or is it? Mr. lawson seems much too logical to fall for this elementary deception)
Jims right. Also Like an archeologist, I dust off the dry bones for data. 1) People @wtc, reporting live on the phone had to be told by media figures that planes had hit bldgs? .Really? Maybe b/c.. 2)No sound of aircraft (a BOEING FCS!) approach (over phone, videos)
Plane would have been heard well before seen. Ask anyone living near an airport.
FYI David handschuh nypost snapped a pic of the 2nd “impact..” Google it! TGF jimfetzer! Thanks.
While speaking of absurdities….
What in hell does it matter whether there were or were not airplanes used in New York on that day.? Does it really matter how it was done? What did it? Where the planes went if there were planes? What it was done with if there were no airplanes? What happened and where the people went if there were airplanes?
All of that is bullshit and distracting detail, arguments which are being used and intended to be used to distract from the key and only issue, who in hell did it? The names, faces and actual roles they each of them played, questions which have become the focus in so many other issues lately.
We know that the buildings were wired. We know that it was a long-time pre-planned project. We have a pretty good idea of who was behind it all , and why it was done. All that is left is to inform the rest of the ignorant of the truth, and get them to ask an insist on answers of how and why the perpetrators (new spelling “perpetraitors”) are being allowed to get away with it.
THAT IS ALL WHICH MATTERS, AND THIS PISSING CONTEST BETWEEN ANTHONY AND FETZER IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ADOLESCENT PISSING CONTEST… A WASTE OF TIME, BRILLIANT MINDS AND ENERGY,
I admire both of these men for their acute vision and their bravery for standing and trying to bring to light this crime and its criminals, but they are both rapidly losing esteem in my book for this petty pissy issue.
Let us put these what and how questions aside for the moment and concentrate on getting the who and whom into court or before a public tribunal and perhaps we will find the conclusive answer to the details of what and how.
Now, goddammit, Tony, and you too, Fetzer, get back on he goddamned wagon and lets get this train moving again!
Both you guys are losing momentum in your arguments and, to use a nautical metaphor, riding well above your Summer Load Line Plimsoll marks, while the season is changing into winter. Not a good way to put to sea in foundering boats already carrying too much top-hamper.
Earlaiman.
–
Well, as I have explained, the evidence is on my side. Unless you believe that a real plane could pass through its own length into a massive building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, which occurs in this film, we are witnessing video fakery. You sort it out. If you don’t care about how it was done, why it was done, and by whom, I don’t understand why you are posting here. I suggest you steer Anthony away from these rocky shoals–where his boat has crashed!–and move on.
Free fall collapse speed through undamaged steel structure is impossible.
Therefore 9/11 was an inside job.
Whatever else “Jimmy” is trying to sell is irrelevant to the problem.
I guess they call it “disinfo”
Gord ? WTF ?
This is bizarre. Some of us want to know how it was done. Yes, we have enough to disprove the official account, which can be found many places, such as “Why doubt 9/11?’, http://911scholars.org.
Have you ever heard the phrase, “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? That’s what this is about. The use of video fakery implies complicity by the media and the government at the highest levels.
On a personal level, it’s very simple. If I am right, then Anthony is wrong–and even though the evidence is on my side, for reasons about which I can only speculate, he does not want to admit that he is wrong.
Unless you think that a real plane can pass its whole length through a massive steel and concrete building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length through air, he is wrong and I am right. It’s that simple.
Ya, what’s up with VT as Vehicle for Disinfo?
Why?
Jim – As David Niven said – ‘the moon’s a balloon.’
It doesn’t really matter what your TV fantasies are.
The truth speaks in physics.
Oh – by the way – I’m not entirely familiar with your ‘studies.’
Have you ever googled “Urban Moving Systems” or “the Dancing Israelis” ?
What’s with that ?
Do you think this Dominc Suter guy who disappeared and abandoned his business shortly after 9/11 was just some sort of ‘video – techie guy’ ? Adobe AfterEffects – type guy ?
What’s the overall point exactly ?
To feed the morons ?
Bink,
Has it ever occurred to you that video fakery on 9/11 not only exonerates 19 Islamic terrorists and Osama bin Laden from responsibility but points the finger at the US government and the media? Do you have any idea how the American people, who exist in a film/video visual culture, would react to the discovery that they had been bamboozled by video fakery? I really think you haven’t given this much thought. And try my “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” or “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, not to mention my “Seven Questions about 9/11″, which was published as my first column here on Veterans Today. The truth may not set us free, but it can certainly help.
Jim
Jim – Who Cares ?
Prove it in a court of law.
(Well. ok. The hard part seems to be the supposed ‘Court of Law’ part because of the oligarchy.)
Ok, Jim, let’s face it – I believed in Santa for a time….in retrospect…I can’t say I’m proud of that..
So.Prove it. Do you need an inquiry ? To prove you’re not a shill ?
You didn’t really answer any questions about those ‘Urban Moving System ‘ guys and how they – like -what ?
- faked planes going into the two towers and brought down three buildings.
= Got NORAD to stand down.
Produced Nano thermite and molten metal in the ruins…etc…
Where do the ‘Urban Moving System’ boys exactly work into your scenario ?
ETC…
Inside job ?
I think Jim could be consulting back to ‘headquarters’ Bink.
Are you and Bink so intellectually impoverished that you can spew ad hominems for which you have no evidence but are incapable of challenging even one of the arguments for which I have abundant proof? I really did not expect this degree of childishness here at Veterans Today. But the two of you show I was obviously mistaken.
And now you impersonate a psychiatrist? In my experience, persons who make posts like these turn out to have the kinds of inadequacies they project onto others. You have not shown that any of my research is mistaken–in fact, you haven’t even discussed it! That is quite remarkable, all things considered. I believe you are going to change more minds about you than you will about me! Now THAT is ironic.
Peter Wakefiled Sault, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. Enough is enough! Your posts are convincing evidence that you deserve the title of the most superficial and inane contributor of vacuous posts in VT’s history, which, I have no doubt, you are going to continue to demonstrate here!
Jim – Sorry.
i believe in gravity.
I believe in resistance.
I believe mass murder has occurred.
Fake planes ? Who cares ?
Inside jOB ? Ever heard of Richard Gage Jim ?
And – You seem to avoid – much like all those ‘Loose Change’ Movies – the “dancing Israelis ”
questions etc.
U Merican ?
You are so ignorant I can’t believe it. I discuss the “dancing Israelis” in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, and even–by implication–in “Seven Questions about 9/11″. If you are going to continue with this drivel, why don’t you actually study some of my work. For an easy introduction, try “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621 and report back what I say about them.
Well – Ok Jim. You unfortunately seem to be defined by the ‘no planes’ thing .
I’m a bit of a NewBee. But.
If I were you would lose the “no planes” thing for a while. Maybe save it , for say 2014, or so.
It doesn’t seem to be working currently (Like – no one with an IQ over 12 is going to read your crap any further type thing)
To an outside observer -you’re completely useless disinfo. Are you happy with that ?
Are you supporting the Building Seven group on my link ?
So Sault. Don’t really get what you saying…
u Merican ?
Inside job?
I am quite sure everyone on this thread will swoon when you actually produce an argument in lieu of ad hominems. Who cares what you think? You haven’t given any good reason to doubt my research at all. When logic and the evidence are against you, call your target names! I had no idea you were this intellectually inept. Pathetic!
You clearly have no arguments, as I thought. What more blatant confirmation could we have expected?
Jim Fetzer does not understand basic physics, despite his claims to the contrary. For example, he apparently does not understand the effects of velocity on penetrating power of one object into another object. For example. if you take a bullet in your hand and throw it at someone, the bullet will bounce off the other person without any penetration. Now, if you take a sling shot and accelerate the bullet to 300 feet per second,, the bullet will penetrate a little further and possibly barely break the skin and draw some blood. Now, of you put the bullet in a gun that accelerates it to 2000 feet per second, the bullet sill be able to penetrate not only into anyone’s soft tissue, but also into certain hard bone structures as well in some cases (you would think that with Jim Fetzer’s extensive research on the JFK assassination and analysis of the bullet wounds in JFK’s body, that he would understand this concept). The same concept is at work when a hollow airplane flies into the side of a hollow steel building at 500 mph. At that velocity, the relatively light weight airplane acts like a much more massive and hardened object, like a bullet, and the inertia will propel it into the building with very little deceleration on the outside, allowing it to penetrate well into the structure before significant deceleration takes place.
The problem with Jim’s pseudo-scientific arguments along the lines of, “there was not enough deceleration observed when the plane impacted the tower”, is that he fails to take into account the effects of velocity and inertia in relation to the shape of the objects and where the mass is distributed at the point of impact. When the plane is traveling at a relatively slow speed, it will largely bounce off the steel structure and decelerate before penetrating. However, as the plane is accelerated to very high velocity, the plane behaves like it is a much heavier and hardened object in relation to the steel structure, which is designed to resist primarily vertical forces, not horizontal forces. The relatively thin steel perimeter columns will give way when a heavy object pushes against it horizontally. Compared to a 100 ton airplane flying into the steel columns from the side with only 20 feet or so diameter to distribute the mass, and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, the relatively thin steel perimeter columns will give way fairly easily to the much more massive high velocity object. The rate of deceleration of the plane as it impacts the steel structure at the point of impact and penetration will be less and less as the velocity of the plane increases.
So, the long and short of it is that what seems “right” or “intuitive” as far as the behavior of two objects impacting each other as relatively low velocities suddenly cannot be relied upon when high velocities and high inertia is involved, at which point people need to take into account the physics calculations of mass distribution and inertia to understand what to expect in those situations, because the behavior of objects impacting at very high velocities often seem to defy intuitive expectations. Just think about the issue of the danger of space dust to astronauts and the space station and why it is such a concern to NASA. Even tiny tiny particles can be deadly to astronauts when traveling at thousands of miles an hour in relation to the astronauts. Likewise, even small space debris only an inch across can severely threatn the space station at those velocities, even though one would think that such a small piece of debris would just bounce off the space station.
I hope this helps people understand why the videos of the planes impacting the towers slowed down to a frame by frame analysis may seem impossible and non-intuitive, with seemingly inadequate crumpling and deceleration, even though basic physics can account for the phenomena when taking into account mass distribution and inertia at high velocities.
Keenan Roberts must have missed the memo where we learn that the plane intersected with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were covered with 4-8″ of concrete, which, at 208′ x 208′, represented an acre of concrete and steel apiece. They would have posed enormous HORIZONTAL resistance. (See the diagram, “Figure 6-8″, above.) Does Keenan have any idea what would happen to a plane in flight were it to encounter just one of these massive floors suspended in space? One of us may not understand the physics involved here, but it ain’t me.
This is absolute bullshit and the argumentation of a subnormal with an egenda of his own or other interested parties – he cannot get away from the fact that in his own words that the aircraft hit “500,000tons of steel and concrete”…
The aircraft DID NOT hit 500,000tons of steel and concrete nor an acre of solid mass because the building is constructed in space frame format and all weight or mass is equal to the amount of structure at any point – thus the aircraft only met the reduced resistance of each element as it was constructed in space frame format (as opposed to momcoque construction) not the accumulated mass tonnage of the total build – which therefore destroys Mr Fetzers argument about how the aircraft could not have penetrated the building.
It is true that from other commentators on this lead that the issue is the total truth of the issue as in Priens comments and Truth Seekers – Mr Fetzer appears to insist on the perpetuation of a singular argument for which he can provide no actual proof other than his absurd contention of the impossibility of the aircraft to be able to penetrate the “500,000 tons of steel and concrete – in that he would be correct if the mass of 500,000tons of steel and concrete wer to be a solid mass, but it was not the case as that mass was DISTRIBUTED over a very large area making the exterior surfaces compliant to a high speed mass of aircraft despite the aircrafts “apparent” flimsy body those aircraft HAVE to be able to take on serious aerial forces, resistances and many thousands of landings in order to function.
His arguments as we see are repetitious and repetitious of the same narrow point of view and whilst many commentators are spelling it out from him he DELIBERATELY continues with his contention irrespective of better evidence and vision. He is forcing this argument and I suggest that VT and Mr Duff are accommodating this. That in itself will have repercussions.
Let’s see. The South Tower consisted of 110 floors with subbasements and the core columns were rooted in bedrock. That’s parallel to a massive tree, which is rooted into the ground. We would all agree that, if a tree or a building were NOT rooted to the ground, its properties would be more like those of a trailer or a stack of wood. Suppose, for example, that the tree had been cut horizontally at the base (just above the ground) and then segmented every foot or so to create a stack of sections one on top of another. I take it that is the model you have in mind. Because unless the tree is segmented, a car is hitting the whole tree and not just the part with which it comes into contact. Keep the car-hits-tree model in your mind as we think this through together.
A building like the South Tower, after all, is not a stack of floors, one stacked on top of another, as if it were a roll of quarters, where you could knock one quarter out of the stack if you were to strike it just right. On the contrary, the South Tower was an intricate lattice, tube-within-a-tube, structure, where those floors were rooted to the ground all the way down to the bedrock. You could no more knock out one of those floors by hitting it “just right” than you could a certain section of a massive tree. So you really are trading in a fantasy. It WAS hitting a 500,000 ton steel-and-concrete tower and it was doing so at an angle, which caused it to intersect with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which posed enormous horizontal resistance representing about an acre of concrete-and-steel apiece.
So while one of us may be trading in “bullshit”, that would not be me.
It is true that the horizontal concrete floors will add resistance to the penetrating plane flying into the side of the building, but again, the faster the plane is traveling, the further into the relatively thin floors the plane will penetrate before crumpling and decelerating. Some of the plane will be shredded and travel around and past the relatively thin floors, while a smaller percentage of the plane will crumple against the floors, which themselves are also crumbling and giving way at the same time.
The point is, when slowing down the video to observe what is happening, one must take into account the fact that the velocity of the penetrating object is orders of magnitude faster, perhaps even 100 times faster than what is happening in the slow motion video, and the phenomena observed does not seem “right” when looking at it at the much slowed down speed. But just because something “doesn’t look right” in a slowed down video, that does not make it a scientific argument. Only taking into account the physics of the velocity, inertia, and mass distribution can one determine of it is “right” or not.
Here is a jet crash test at roughly the same speed but into several feet of PURE concrete… note how the plane goes all in, seeming to disappear into the object:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
We all know about the Sandia test. The comparison is a faulty analogy. The plane in that case was mounted on a railway frame and run into a solid reinforced concrete nuclear-blast-resistant barrier. It has to have been made of some synthetic material, since it blasts apart into millions of tiny pieces. Flight 175 disappears into the building, but this plane does NOT “disappear into the object”. Are you implying that this aluminum commercial carrier, which is supposed to be a Boeing 767, blasts apart into millions of tiny pieces? Because it obviously does not. It should have crumpled upon impact, with its wings and tail breaking off and bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. That did not happen. What is there here you do not understand?
That is only your opinion but not your factual knowledge – you conveniently misconstrue the relative arguments – it is not the destruction of the aiecraft it is the PENETRATION of the aircraft into a substantial block of concrete to which under the law of relativity a lesser resistence can be penetrated by and equally light construct when their mass is equal in construct, plus the velocity of the aircraft in the circumstances of the “limited” resistance of a relative scale of the buildings surface..
No I do not expect it to blast into millions of tiny pieces but at 500 mph, which is a massive penetrating force, I expect it to get in there. Which is what the architects said as well, that they expected commercial jets, should they collide, to penetrate like a pencil shoved through a screen door. If the plane was moving at 50 miles per hour it would no doubt visibly crumple and have a fair quantity not get in. Then your purposely obtuse-about-speed dis-info package would work..
Jim if you look at some of the video evidence on youtube,there is a flash on the nosetips of both planes jsut before impact.This suggests explosive devices that were used to breech the outer structures of the buildings.I’ll dig them up if you want and you can decide for yourself.
Also many eye witnesses saw what I saw live on TV.They did not have the time to photo shop or super impose planes on the video .Are all these eye witnesses lying?
No, I have not suggested that the witnesses were lying, but The New York Times collated some 500 witness reports and they were all over the place: some saw no plane, some a small plane, some a military plane, some a civilian. The number reporting a United Airlines plane hitting the South Tower is the same as the number who reported a missile having been fired from the Woolworth Building into the North Tower: one.
I am not sure what to make of those flashes, which I agree are oddities in the videos. Since the planes are performing impossible feats (impossible speed, impossible entries, and equal distances/equal times into the building and through air, they cannot be real planes. Images of planes, however, could do that. Some have suggested that the flashes may have been coordination points for CGIs or video compositing.
The more seriously we take the witness reports, the greater the weight for holographic projection, which is why I favor that hypothesis. When I interviewed Scott Forbes, for example, who had worked in the South Tower for three years and told me he had watched as the second plane effortlessly enter the tower from his apartment, which surprised him, that seemed to me to confirm the use of a sophisticated hologram.
While I have not emphsized the cookie-cutter like cut outs that were visible AFTER the smoke had cleared, they provide additional proof of fakery. Not only do they suggest that fragile aluminum can cut through steel and concrete (remember the eight floors intersected by the second plane and seven the first) but the damage that become apparent AFTER the smoke clears is not apparent AT THE TIMES OF ENTRY.
Those who are convinced that I am wrong, therefore, may want to compare the videos and the aftermath still shots and think about how those jagged edges become apparent later when, in the alleged entry aircraft footage, as they pass into the building, neither those edges nor any damage to the towers can be seen: those cut-out features and their ragged, jagged, very messy edges are simply invisible and do not exist.
Others have written to me that they regard this anomaly as perhaps the most undeniable proof of fakery. One has elaborated, for example, “nobody can convince me that the nice smooth event horizon video can then later translate into the roughly hewn, broken and very messy edges where the planes penetrated later.” And I think he is right and that this is another powerful indication of the faking of the videos.
I presume you appreciate my explanation of why they had to resort to fakery: they needed to coordiate the “hits” temporally with the explosions in the sub basements that drained their sprinker systems of water; they needed to get the plane completely into the buildings before they exploded to create a pseudo-explanation for their later “collapse”; and hitting a building 208′ on a side with a real plane is extremely difficult.
So I agree that those flashes are very odd. They are more easily explained on the CGI or video compositing hypotheses. But the greater the weight that we place upon the witnesses, the greater the support for their having observed the image of what they took to be a plane, since no real plane could perform the feats that we discover in the Hezarkhani and Fairbanks videos of Flight 175 passing into the South Tower.
Oops, I mean a plane traveling at 50 miles an hour has 100 times the kinetic energy of a plane traveling at 500 miles an hour, not 10 times, so it is an exponential relationship.
Think about that: the Kinetic Energy it 100 TIMES BIGGER at 10 times the velocity!
a 100 ton aircraft traveling at 500 miles per hour is equivalent to a 10,000 ton aircraft traveling at 50 mph!
Let’s do that again. a A plane traveling at 500 miles an hour has 100 times the kinetic energy of a plane traveling at 50 miles an hour.
The Kinetic Energy is 100 TIMES BIGGER at 10 times the velocity!
A 100 ton aircraft traveling at 500 miles per hour is equivalent to a 10,000 ton aircraft traveling at 50 mph!
This has gone beyond the realm of reason into absurdity. There was no deceleration at all. It has nothing to do with my opinion. The plane passes through its own length into this massive building, which had an intricate lattice structure, in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. CASE CLOSED! The only reason for your ongoing drivel appears to be to save some face with this blizzard of nonsense. The effect of the plane flying into the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as the building hitting the stationary plane at 560 mph. You can continue to make these meaningless posts, but the situation is clear. We are witnessing events that are physically impossible. If you want to believe impossible things, that’s fine with me. But don’t try to con the rest of us. OK?
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS! we just need to get a new, honest and transparent investigation going. in my opinion the BEST way to do that is to focus like a laser on wtc7. building 7 is the linch-pin; it’s easy to see and understand the probs with the “collapse” of wtc7—47 stories, under seven seconds, falls straight down, “pull it”, many cameras pointing directly at the building because people had been told to “keep an eye on that building…it’ll be coming down soon.” rather than infighting on “planes or no planes at wtc”, let’s pull together to get the friggin’ investigation on wtc7 going, and with that momentum, we can discover all the intracacies of the day. (you will never get anywhere telling people no planes hit the twin towers that day. people will think you are a nut, and they will shut you out.)
The proof that we were subjected to video fakery is abundant and compelling. Everyone knows about WTC-7 and nothing has come of it. If the American people realized that they were bamboozled on 9/11 by the media and the government USING VIDEO FAKERY, then this lazy attitude about it might change. I can assure you that ignoring proofs like these is not going to advance the cause of 9/11 Truth at all
“The effect of the plane flying into the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as the building hitting the stationary plane at 560 mph. You can continue to make these meaningless posts, but the situation is clear. We are witnessing events that are physically impossible. If you want to believe impossible things, that’s fine with me. But don’t try to con the rest of us. OK?”
No Jim, it is you who wants to believe in fairy tales.
The overall size of the building is irrelevant. The only relevance is the amount of mass in the impact zone, and the distribution of mass at the point of impact. This “massive” building is designed to resist the gravitational force of several multiples of its own mass, but relatively little horizontal force compared to its overall mass. So, when you say that “The effect of the plane flying into the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as the building hitting the stationary plane at 560 mph” is a bit misleading, because you imply that the full mass of the building is impacting the plane. But only a very tiny percentage of the building’s mass is involved in resisting the plane, and that mass is thinly distributed at the point of impact, with the plane entering the building like a bullet, in which there is a very small cross section – perhaps 20 feet across – of a few steel columns only a few inches thick and a few floors a few inches thick to resist that very large kinetic energy of the 100 ton plane, which acts like a much more massive object at the velocity it is traveling.
Sorry if you don’t like the physics involved Jim, but you can’t get away from it. The more you ignore the physics of kinetic energy, and pretend that it doesn’t matter, the more silly and irrelevant you make yourself to the movement.
You keep stating that there was NO deceleration at all. But your claim is disputed by others who have analyzed the videos and have observed some deceleration in some of the videos. However, in some cases, there are not enough frames and not a good angle to make a determination at all one way or the other regarding the deceleration.
You are wrong–and it shows how little you know about this. Eric Salter made that claim, but Rick Rijter showed he had used two different frames of reference. Get over it! There is no deceleration–and the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That not only proves that there was no deceleration but that the videos are fake. You are welcome to believe impossible things; I am not. You have never even faced up to the considerations that (a) a plane encountering just one of these floors suspended in space would be smashed and crumpled and (b) that the effects of the plane hitting the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as those of the building hitting the stationary plane at 500 mph. And just as the roots of a tree ground it and make it immobile to the effects of a car hitting it–even at high speed–the grounding of the upper floors in the core columns and external support columns connected by steel trusses connected to both and grounded in bedrock makes a difference here. This building was not segmented like a tree that had been sawed into sections and then stacked. Your incompetence becomes more and more manifest with each of your posts. Keep it up. You are doing a great job of discrediting yourself. Keep ‘em coming, Keenan!
I don’t see how you can explain it better, especially to someonbe claiming to be a scientist. First, the energy generated will, of course be the mass times velocity squared. The impact this energy will have on anything it encounters will, of course, depend entirely on the contact surface area over which this impact energy is distributed. So if the entire impact energy were distributd over 10 square inches, its effect would obviously be vastly greater than if it were distributed over 100 square inches. It’s sort of like the ground pressure armored vehicles exert. So a 50 ton tank with 12 inch threads where 20 feet of tread is pressing against the ground at any one point will excert vastly less ground pressure than a tank of same weight with 8 inch wide treads. the GErmans learned this the hard way in Russia when T34 with much wider treads could go where the PZKW IV, V or VI dared not venture.
Prien
Jim, can you agree that the inertial mass of an object is a function of its velocity, and that it is an exponential relationship? Can you agree that the kinetic energy of an object is multiplied by a factor of 100 when increasing the velocity by a factor of 10?
For you to keep stating that “a plane encountering just one of these floors suspended in space would be smashed and crumpled” without taking into account the mass of the plane, velocity of the plane, and the distribution of mass at impact, is a completely useless statement. It’s like you are just trying to use sound bites to persuade people. It shows that you don’t care about physics. It shows that you prefer to remain ignorant.
Jim, let’s see if you can go beyond sound bites and back up your claims with math and physics. Until then, why should we take you seriously?
Because practically everyone can understand my arguments, and practically no one can understand yours. You are doing a razzle-dazzle here, Keenan, which is really inappropriate on this forum. If you can’t address the simple questions I have posed–when I point out that there is no deceleration and the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air–then admit them. They not only prove that there was no deceleration but that the videos are fake. You are welcome to believe impossible things; I am not. You have never even faced up to the considerations that (a) a plane encountering just one of these floors suspended in space would be smashed and crumpled and (b) that the effects of the plane hitting the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as those of the building hitting the stationary plane at 500 mph. It would have been mashed.
And just as the roots of a tree ground it and make it immobile to the effects of a car hitting it–even at high speed–the grounding of the upper floors in the core columns and external support columns connected by steel trusses connected to both and grounded in bedrock makes a difference here. This building was not segmented like a tree that had been sawed into sections and then stacked. Your incompetence becomes more and more manifest with each of your posts. When you will not answer simple questions that everyone can understand and want to appeal to calculations that nobody here is going to follow, it becomes obvious why you are here and what you are doing. I am sorry, Keenan, but you are doing this forum a disservice and disgracing yourself. I am not appealing to “sound bites” but to data everyone can verify for themselves by doing a frame-by-frame advance to confirm it! There is no good reason to take you seriously, under these conditions.
Joe Keith is a retired aerospace software engineer, who created the software for Boeing’s “shaker” system to determine when airplanes will fall apart. This article is archived at http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/ and bears repeating. When some smooth talking con man tries to deceive you about this, just reread what Joe has explains here. There are reasons why Keenan is not answering my simple questions.
JOE’S LAW
Posted on June 13, 2008 by Morgan Reynolds
“Joe’s Law”
Joseph Keith
Retired Aerospace Engineer
June 13, 2008
Revised and updated on July 24, 2008
Joe’s Law. It’s immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren’t immutable, I wouldn’t have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: “Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected.” The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: “Truth goes through three stages; first it’s violently opposed, then it’s highly ridiculed, and finally it’s accepted as an obvious fact.” Adolph Hitler once wrote: “Little people tell only little lies. They don’t dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth.”
At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force’s NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.
Now, let me get on by explaining Joe’s Law. Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: “AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!” By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe’s Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here’s how to apply Joe’s Law in order to find the truth: Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do.
However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don’t have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane’s nose and then use your remote’s single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of!
You will learn that 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. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton’s third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe’s Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!
Now, you may ask: “What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job.” Well, here’s what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers(2) are: Michael Hezarkhani, Evan Fairbanks, and Luc Couchesne. The Media’s defense will be: “We didn’t fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!” The question now is: When this fakery is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?
For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.
(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI
A video showing that Joe’s Law is immutable.
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt4XGnqtm-E
Freelancer’s videos in real time and slow motion
Jim, is it too much to ask you to back up your claims with scientific calculations? You say that it would be impossible for a plane to fly into a single floor of the WTC tower, that the floor would totally resist the plane and stop it from smashing the floor, right? Show me that you understand the physics involved. Specifically, show me that you understand the kinetic energy involved and that it would by physically impossible for a jumbo jet traveling at 500 mph to crash through one of those floors without totally bouncing off or crumpling first. The equations are not that complicated. If you need help, let me know.
What happens to a country that allows Economic Terrorists to run it’s “Economy” say from 1913 ? What happens to country that allows Economic Terrorists to run it’s “Economy” {Central Bank/Treasury} and Own the Media ? What happens to a country that allows Economic Terrorists to not only print the currency {“money from thin air”} but also OWN the Media, and put Video Phakery on Talmudvision while telling the braindeadgoy a bad guy named Al Quida in a cave thousands of miles away defeated a multi-trillion “dollar” investment in “National Security” including multiple layers of apparently Faux-Intelligence…..I mean in relation to “bureaucratic inertia” and criminally insane malfeasance..? just sayin’ if some peoples brains were magnified ten thousand times they would look like a BB rolling down a 12 lane hiway…to JEWTOPIA. – http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/07-15-04/discussion.cgi.47.html -
Jim, let’s say that you are in space and there is a bullet that is stationary and you are traveling at 2000 feet per second towards the bullet. What do you think will happen when you impact the bullet? Will you bounce the bullet away from you, or will you get punctured by the bullet as you keep moving past the bullet at a high velocity?
It’s not that difficult to see through you, Keenan. Newton discovered three laws. One is that of inertia. Another is that masses react in the direction of impressed forces. The third is the equal and opposite force law. We don’t need to make the kinds of calculations you are promoting for obvious reasons. Let us define “f1″ as the force of the plane hitting the building and “f2″ as that of the building hitting the plane, where in the first the building is stationary and in the second the plane. The resistance posed by the building is a function of its total weight as a structure anchored in the bedrock, just as that of a tree is a function of its weight and roots anchored in the ground. We might therefore formalize them thus:
F(plane hits building) = f1
F(building hits plane) = f2
By the third law, f1 = f2
So what you are doing is calculating one side of a force that is encountering an overwhelmingly greater resisting force. I can’t believe you think that you can perpetrate this fraud on this web site. The Twin Towers were extremely robust and there is no way that the plane could have entered the building, once you understand the intricate lattice structure of the 47 core columns, the 240 external support columns, and the 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. A Boeing 767 has an empty mass of around 200,000 lbs (or 100 tons), which, when filled–and this plane was only about 1/4 full of passengers and luggage–of perhaps another 100,000 lbs (being generous).
So we have a plane with a mass of around 300,000 lbs (150 tons) impacting with a building with a mass of 500,000 tons (1,000,000,000 lbs), where the mass of the plane is only .0003 percent that of the tower. Insofar as the effects of the plane hitting the building are the same as those of the building hitting the plane, is there any serious doubt which is going to prevail? Steel and concrete, incidentally, are more dense than aluminum, where the skin of an airliner is very thin. In collisions, denser objects prevail over the less dense. Take another look at the diagram, Figure 6-8, and give this just a little more thought. You are promoting a fantasy scenario intended to deceive the unwary. No one who has even a slight understanding of the physics of the situation is going to be taken in.
They had to fake the plane for three reasons: (1) it is very difficult to hit a facade 208′ wide at high speed with a real plane; (2) they had to get the plane completely inside the building to create the pseudo-explanation of why jet fuel fires and damage to the structure would bring about a “collapse”; and (3) they needed to time it precisely to account for the explosions in the subbasements as a consequence of jet fuel falling through elevator shafts. They made the mistake of not realizing that differences as modest as 14 seconds and 17 seconds would be detectable by the seismic laboratory run by Columbia University.
Since no real plane could be guaranteed to even hit the South Tower, much less at the right time, and no real plane would have been able to enter the building, they had to fake it with the image of a plane, where such an image could (a) fly faster than a real plane, (b) enter the building in violation of Newton’s laws, and (c) pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. Please take your phony arguments somewhere else, because Veterans Today is not the right place to be perpetrating fraud and deception about the atrocities of 9/11. Have some respect–if not for the truth, then at least for the dead, who deserve better!
Jim, cut the crap. You site general laws of Newton, but cleverly avoid the relevant questions I keep posing to you. Do you think people won’t notice that you are continuing to avoid the relevant points of physics, specifically regarding kinetic energy and mass distribution? You really think you can pull one over on us like that? Please…
It’s really not that hard to see through you, Jim. You give a bogus argument regarding the mass of the ENTIRE building resisting the plane, which you know is complete nonsense, as a only very tiny part of the building’s structure was involved with resisting the plane while the rest of the building had between miniscule and zero involvement, while continuing to ignore the relevant question of the mass of the impact zone that gave way and crumpled while being penetrated by a narrow object with extremely high kinetic energy, does not indicate to people that you are willing to have an honest debate.
Your same crap argument if applied to the bullet, would go as follows. Since the bullet is only less than .001 percent of your body mass, it wold therefore bounce off of you and not penetrate, no matter how fast it was traveling.
And, using your crap logic, NASA can just stop worrying about the danger of space dust and debris, when the mass is a small fraction of the spacecraft or astronaut.
By ignoring the physics of kinetic energy and mass distribution, you are choosing to remain ignorant, or you are pretending to. I am having a hard time deciding which it is at this point. Since you are continuing to question my motives, I might as well question yours.
The rest of your post is a series of baseless assertions and crap logic.
When you are ready to have an honest debate and address the relevant physics regarding kinetic energy and the other questions I have posed to you over and over again, then I will take you seriously. But you are seriously testing my patience at this point.
Unbelievable! YOU tell ME to “cut the crap”, when that is all you have been dishing out here. You have a lot of nerve. When I advance obvious arguments for which you have no response–namely, that the plane makes an impossible entry into the building in violation of Newton’s laws and 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 determinable by frame-by-frame advance on both the Hezarhkani and the Fairbanks’ videos)–you come here implying that I am wrong, when I could only be wrong if this massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance to the path of this plane than air in violation of Newton’s second and third laws. The relative mass argument, the relative density argument, and the equal frames arguments are all on my side, not yours.
Someone who is peddling such crap with the calm assurance that you have been displaying here is indeed “a smooth talking con-man”. Was I supposed to miss your number when you are raising one irrelevant issue after another and appealing to calculations that have nothing to do with Newton’s third law? Your response told me that you were feeling some consciousness of guilt. That is present in spades in this latest response, where you are still trading in irrelevant nonsense about kinetic energy and mass. I certainly cannot take seriously a fraud like you who is here peddling crap to mislead this forum. If you want to convince some audience that a massive steel-and-concrete building poses no more resistance to the path of a plane than air, do it somewhere else! That you come here to make fraudulent arguments in a matter of this kind is both offensive and disgusting.
Jim,
And I though you were a scientist. Definitly a Popperist.
Please, your impleminded formulaes of f (1) = f (2) are pure gibberish that entirely omit the key elements – mass and velocity that determine the energy generated, And they entirely omit the the impct force exerted on a given point that depends entirely on the area over which the impact force is generated. Your claim that the impact area that resisted the impact force was the entire 500,000 ton of the tower is simply absurd. The only areas of the twoer that resisted the impact force against penetration by the plane were the surface areas of the girders, wndows, aluminum skin and the edge of the concrete floor that were in contact with the aircraft. The only way your claim aboput the entire weight of the building resisting the impact force comes into play is whether the plane impact force was sufficient to TOPPLE or MOVE the building. In that regard, the impact force the of plane exerted on the building is puny indeed.
If you want to grasp the science involved, chck out the penetration power of anti-tank ammo and anti tank gun ballistics against armor plating.
Prien
Prien, Give it a rest. I have explained all of this repeatedly. No one is suggesting that a 500,000 ton building was concentrated on a few floors around the 80th. That would be absurd. But the South Tower was a tightly integrated structure, with masses pressing down from above and the whole structure rooted in the bedrock. Go back and reread other posts of mine where I address this. And you, of course, conveniently ignore that the plane was intersecting with 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. How many times to I have to explain this for you to grasp the crucial points? And your remarks about “anti-tank ammo” appear to be equally ignorant. They are made of depleted uranium, which is one of the densest materials known to man. Your posts here are now becoming as juvenile as those that you have made about Popper.
And your responses are becoming childish, as your fasilure to address the issues I raised about Popper make clear. You clearly fail to grasp that the man of empirical science has read experince right out of his science by declaring that statements can only be justified by statements that eliminates all expereince from the equation. He makes this absolutely clear by declaring “that expressions such as ;occurence’ or ‘event’ should be banished altogether from epistimological discussion, and that we should not speak of ‘occurrences’ pr ‘non-occurrences’ pr of the ‘happening’ of ‘events’. but instead of the truth or falsity of STATEMENTS. By all means banish “events:” and “occurrences” from scientici discourse as these are filthy connections to the material world. Concern yourself solely with the idealism of STATEMENTS, and their truth or falsity. Now explain how the truth or faslity of any statement can be established relating to a faslfying experirmwnt wothout referring to the actual results
ccurrence” of the experuiment. You have no clue about what Popper really stansd for, and even less of his idealist pedigree which is firmly anchored in Machinism and their idealist nonense/ But I don’t expect you will get this any more than the issue raised about the impact energy of objects and how it is transmitted to the object it hits.
As for the igniorance of my remarks about anti-tank ammo, nice that you realize that depleted uranium is being jused that is the densest material on earth. It’s density does nothing to change the physics involved in its penetration capability. Had you known this, you wouldn;t have made your silly remark. There is, of course, an entire range of anti-tank ammo as well as armor designs to thwart them, starting with Chobham armor to defeat shaped charges to explosuve reactive armor to counter hard-core penetration rounds. I also guarantee that no armor designer would for a millsecond take you seriously that the penetration capability of an object into another one had anything at all to do with whether the struck object is welded to the ground or how much it weighs in total. For I guarantee you that the total weight of an Abrams tank will have absolutely nothing to do with whether its turret armor, for example, is capable of withstanding the impact of an anti-tank round at any point on the turret. The sole issues in play will the the penetration energy of the round and how concentrated it is at the point of impact, and the resistance to penetration that the armor can exert to defeat it at the point of penetration.
Now, to explain how Chobham armor deals with it, such armor has embedded in it a material that rapidly dissipates the heat generated by a shaped charge at the point of impact to reduce the heat imparted at the point of impact below the heat resistance capability of the target steel. Essentially, the rapid dissipation of the heat energy of the shaped charge reduced the amount of heat left that is needed to weaken the steel enough to be penetrated.
Prien
Prien, I think that our discussion of the philosophy of science belongs elsewhere, not here. I have reviewed many posts from you and regard you as highly intelligent, well-read, and sincere. Let us engaged in an exchange in another forum. Please write to me and we can continue our conversation. My email address is jfetzer@d.umn.edu. I would be glad to hear from you. My very first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, is dedicated to Popper.
Have you read LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY or CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS? You seem to think that hypotheses (sentences) are refuted by other sentence (contrary ones), when what Popper is saying is that they are tested on the basis of observations, measurements, and experiments. I think you have misunderstood him. Tell me what work of Popper you have studied and we can go from there. Let me know.
In formalizing the relationship between hypotheses and experience, observations, measurements, and experiments are described by sentences, but their truth is a function of the correspondence of their content to the world. So experience is the fundamental ingredient in testing hypotheses. And it is the testability of hypotheses that makes them scientific. Have you studied logic? I would be glad to discuss all of this with you further.
The bulding would have been typically unassailable.
I suggest we model the crash…rent a flight simulator and use an untrained pilot….
hell..microsoft flight simulator is good enough…lets do it and stop screwing around
buy half a ton of steel, get i welded…as per design…use sheetrock for floors….tile sheetrock…construct a model plane with proper density and propel it at speed
lets do it…..
I respionded to your email, but got an error message. Will try diretly.
No reason for any error message: j-f-e-t-z-e-r-@-d-.-u-m-n-.-e-d-u Please try again. We should not be debating philosophy here. Many thanks.
Gregory Jenkins, David Ray Griffin’s right hand man, did a scientific study of the amount of deceleration of flight 175 impacting WTC-2 and concluded that there was a net decrease in velocity of 70% representing a net loss of 91% of the aircraft’s kinetic energy, during impact, observable in the video. Gregory further noted that the center of mass of the plane should be used to calculate the velocity, not the tail end. Many people erroneously measure the deceleration of velocity in relation to the tail end of the plane, not the center of mass. This is a faulty methodology, because the front of the plane is decelerating rapidly and crumpling while the tail end of the plane is continuing at a high velocity with very little deceleration. So, the tail end gives a false impression of what is happening to the overall plane, whereas the center of mass is the relevant point to measure. His paper can be found here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf
So, Jim, were you measure the change in velocity in relation to the tail end of the plane, or the center of gravity?
Also, can you prove Greg Jenkin’s paper wrong? Let’s see your calculations and methodology.
Keenan:
I’ve been re-reading the comments and I commend you on your challenges to James Fetzer. However, I have to challenge Gregory Jenkins’s claims that there was a net decrease of 70% of the velocity of the plane as it entered the building. The video that offers the best view for attempting to make a deceleration calculation is the Evan Fairbanks video, which is quite out of focus. However, the “center of mass” can be taken as the center ot the wing root extended through the center of each engine. By the time this section of the aircraft comes fully into view, it is impact-minus-5 frames. From impact to the “center of mass” disappearing is only two frames. During these two frames, a line drawn in an editing application, and moving at a constant rate across the screen shows no discernible deceleration during these two frames.
I don’t see how Gregory Jenkins can use the NIST graphic with any accuracy, because NIST shows a 75% drop in the plane’s velocity when the “center of mass” is 1/5th of its way into the building. There were no X-Ray cameras operating that day, so I fail to see how NIST could make such an assumption in its graphic, as to what, in the video, would have been the impact frame plus-2 frames. For a start, the 3rd NIST frame doesn’t even show the engine which subsequently exited the building as being any further advanced, within the building, as the rest of the disintegrating plane, which looks as though it should have been about 3-to-4/5ths of the way across the width of the building.
In such a situation, it is reasonable to compare the F4 tailfin’s deceleration in the Scandia test with the 767 tailfin’s deceleration at the South Tower. Although the aircraft were of different weights, and sizes, the speeds were close. Using the sophisticated Adobe Premier editor, I can detect no deceleration of the tail fin in either video.
Anthony, thanks for pointing out the problematic assumptions in Gregory Jenkins paper, and I agree. After I posted my comment above citing the Jenkins paper, I did start to ask myself how the heck they determined the deceleration at the point of the center of mass of the plane when that point was already inside the building and wouldn’t be visible in the videos.
The main point seems to be the problem, encountered over and over again, in the way people will take low res and unclear videos slowed down to attempt to make unprovable claims, whether it involves the old pod theory or the no-plane/hologram theories.
By the way Jim, when you resort to insults and name calling and questioning my motivations, while ignoring my very reasonable requests for you to back up your claims, you are showing people that it is you who are doing this forum a disservice and disgracing yourself, not I.
Please keep this discussion civil. I will kindly ask the mods to remind Jim Fetzer of the forum rules and to stop with the insults and the questioning my motives.
I noticed that you are refusing to answer any of my questions so far, even though I have addressed your questions multiple times.
Let’s start with the question about how you measured the change in velocity of UA175 into WTC2. Did you measure it from the tail end of the aircraft, or the center of mass? This is a very important question about your methodology, Jim.
You are clearly misrepresenting the physics of the situation, which the moderators should deplore. So please don’t feign to be offended when you are the one who is not representing the situation fairly. The attacks on me, in case you haven’t noticed, are the ones that are far, far out of bounds, not my replies to you. Give me a break!
Jim, I think most people on this forum can see quite clearly what is going on here. You are not as clever as you think you are. At some point, if you continue to refuse to back up your claims and accusations, while at the same time pointing the finger at me and feigning victim status and attempting to insinuate to the mods that I should be censured or disciplined, you will likely squander the last remaining tiny amount of credibility that you might still have with some people here.
In case you missed it, here is my reply. The Salter study was exposed as grossly flawed by Rick Rijter. Thank you!
Unbelievable! YOU tell ME to “cut the crap”, when that is all you have been dishing out here. You have a lot of nerve. When I advance obvious arguments for which you have no response–namely, that the plane makes an impossible entry into the building in violation of Newton’s laws and 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 determinable by frame-by-frame advance on both the Hezarhkani and the Fairbanks’ videos)–you come here implying that I am wrong, when I could only be wrong if this massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance to the path of this plane than air in violation of Newton’s second and third laws. The relative mass argument, the relative density argument, and the equal frames arguments are all on my side, not yours.
Someone who is peddling such crap with the calm assurance that you have been displaying here is indeed “a smooth talking con-man”. Was I supposed to miss your number when you are raising one irrelevant issue after another and appealing to calculations that have nothing to do with Newton’s third law? Your response told me that you were feeling some consciousness of guilt. That is present in spades in this latest response, where you are still trading in irrelevant nonsense about kinetic energy and mass. I certainly cannot take seriously a fraud like you who is here peddling crap to mislead this forum. If you want to convince some audience that a massive steel-and-concrete building poses no more resistance to the path of a plane than air, do it somewhere else! That you come here to make fraudulent arguments in a matter of this kind is both offensive and disgusting.
When did I say anything about the Salter study? I referenced Gregory Jenkin’s paper. Sheesh! As far as the rest of your baseless drivel, I am not going to stoop to your level of discourse. Either address the relevant points I have been posing to you regarding kinetic energy, mass distribution, measuring the velocity at the plane’s center of mass, etc., and stop with your avoidance dance and misdirection, or consider this debate over.
I caught that. Any study claiming decleration has already been refuted by the discovery that the plane passes through its own length in to the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. I have explained that several times now. I certainly hope that you are wrong about Gregory Jenkins. I think you mean Ken Jenkins, who is David’s videographer. But it doesn’t matter. The simple argument I have presented PROVES NO DECELERATION.
The moderators should deplore you deleting my post asking you to substantiate your claim in paragraph two of an open letter:
“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.”
There is no such system, and you keep deleting my questions about it.
Tony
I don’t think anyone is working here. I can’t reach John half the time, Debbie is on vacation and…well, you know.
Dr. Fetzer, thank you for being so courageous in taking on this extremely complex and controversial subject. We do need the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when it comes to everything in life, in particular monumental, “game-changing” events such as 9/11. And yes- we know the prime conspirators behind 9/11. The Israelis (through the Mossad/intelligence services), the traitorous neo-con dual citizens that had/have complete control of the US government, the Jewish owned media and criminal elements of the US government. Google “Israel did 9/11.” There is overwhelming evidence pointing in their direction, along with the criminals in the US government that are either puppets or outright agents of the Zionist criminal state of Israel.
Dr. Fetzer has made numerous points that absolutely devastate Anthony Lawson’s rather pathetic attempts to discredit his research into video fakery and no-planes on 9/11 proposition. Mr. Lawson does phenomenal work, but his refutation of Dr. Fetzer is clearly not.
Consider these points:
1. There is a history of video fakery coming from the US government and media, especially when it comes to major “game-changing” events, like the JFK assassination for example. The Zapruder film is a hoax, it was altered, and it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by people like Dr. Fetzer and John Costella.
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/
So, we clearly have a history of this sort of psychological operation (video fakery) going on in false flag/black ops.
2. We know that the entire official government conspiracy theory about what happened on 9/11 is a complete fraud, including the Arab hijackers, the phone calls from the hijacked airplanes, and even many of the alleged “victims.” Marc Bingham and his mother come to mind. Barbara Olsen as well. Please see Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams’ research into these subjects. Google “Lets Roll 911.” Dr. Fetzer has had them on his radio program, which is available for free at radiofetzer.blogspot.com, or through a simple google search. These guys are definitely on to something big with their research. I’ve come to discover that many of the alleged victims are frauds.
3. As Dr. Fetzer points out, the plane passes through its own length into the WTC, which is a massive building, in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. To me, that rock solid proof the videos we’ve seen are faked, or at least altered. Can anyone here, in particular Mr. Lawson, address that specific statement?
4. As Killtown has pointed out, psychological/information warfare has been a principal weapon used by the global power elite. They do in fact have the ability to alter live television footage, and have even written about this in major newspapers and periodicals. For instance, here’s a brief excerpt from an article titled, “When TV brings you the news as it didn’t happen,” from the Independent in the UK back in 2000:
“Viewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS’s recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using “virtual imaging” technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn’t really there.
While it’s little surprise that advances in TV technology enable broadcasters to better manipulate existing images and create new ones, what is surprising is that this was done during a live broadcast and in a news programme. The CBS evening news coverage involved replacing the logo of rival network NBC with the CBS logo on a large video screen in Times Square. NBC was “outraged” by the use of the technology, and even CBS’s evening news presenter, Dan Rather, admitted it was a “mistake”.
The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.
The system CBS used was developed by a United States company called Princeton Video Images (PVI). Other players in this field include Symah Vision – part of French defence to media group Lagadere; Israel-based Orad Hi Tech Systems, and SciDex, another Israeli firm with offices in Europe and the US. Each system, while similar, has its differences. None of the companies will publicly discuss how their’s works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/when-tv-brings-you-the-news-as-it-didnt-happen-728236.html
__________________________
See here also: http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/airchronicles/stein.htm
I would love to see Mr. Lawson and those refusing to even honestly engage with Dr. Fetzer and his research discuss these important revelations. We know, for a fact, that there are private sector companies that have partnered with the military to develop technology that can alter live television footage, and they have talked about how this is an extremely valuable weapon in their use of psychological/information warfare. It is quite clear to me this sort of technology was implemented on 9/11. Any responses Mr. Lawson?
5. Take a good hard look at the research Dean Hartwell has done regarding the phantom flights on 9/11 and the alleged passengers/victims: http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/deans-911-theory.html
________________________
Thanks again Dr. Fetzer, your research and efforts are an inspiration to many. At least those of us that want the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and have an ability to thinking rationally and critically about any and all subjects.
Let’s try this again and see if Jim will answer crucial question. When you measured the deceleration or lack thereof, did you measure at the tail end of the plane or at the center of ass of the plane?
When you measured the deceleration or lack thereof, did you measure at the point of the tail end of the plane or at the center of mass of the plane?
Further proof you are a fraud: the simple verification that the plane passes into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air can be done using addition, which is as simple a mathematical procedure as we have. It not only demonstrates that the plane DOES pass through its own length into the building IN THE SAME NUMBER OF FRAMES it passes through its own length in air BUT ALSO PROVES THERE IS NO DECELERATION. Besides, you should know that, under the conditions that were present at the time, the velocity of (most of the plane) should have dropped to zero, just as in the case of a car impacting with a gigantic tree. Do you want to measure the deceleration of the vehicle at the end of the car or at the center of mass of the car? How dumb is that? We know what SHOULD happen. The problem is that IT DOES NOT. So spare me your phony arguments and insinuations that I am being deceptive, when my proofs are obvious and simple and dispose of the question without any calculations of the kind your would employ to distort the facts. I have certainly had my fill of you and your tactics here, which (I repeat) are offensive and disgusting.
Unbelievable! YOU tell ME to “cut the crap”, when that is all you have been dishing out here. You have a lot of nerve. When I advance obvious arguments for which you have no response–namely, that the plane makes an impossible entry into the building in violation of Newton’s laws and 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 determinable by frame-by-frame advance on both the Hezarhkani and the Fairbanks’ videos)–you come here implying that I am wrong, when I could only be wrong if this massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance to the path of this plane than air in violation of Newton’s second and third laws. The relative mass argument, the relative density argument, and the equal frames arguments are all on my side, not yours.
Someone who is peddling such crap with the calm assurance that you have been displaying here is indeed “a smooth talking con-man”. Was I supposed to miss your number when you are raising one irrelevant issue after another and appealing to calculations that have nothing to do with Newton’s third law? Your response told me that you were feeling some consciousness of guilt. That is present in spades in this latest response, where you are still trading in irrelevant nonsense about kinetic energy and mass. I certainly cannot take seriously a fraud like you who is here peddling crap to mislead this forum. If you want to convince some audience that a massive steel-and-concrete building poses no more resistance to the path of a plane than air, do it somewhere else! That you come here to make fraudulent arguments in a matter of this kind is both offensive and disgusting.
Ok Jim, it appears that you are never going to address the relevant points. Trying to get you to answer basic questions apparently just encourages you to keep dancing the circle dance. I’m bored going round and round with you. This is your last chance. Either address the relevant points I have posed to you or I’m done debating with you.
There is nothing to debate! Further proof you are a fraud: the simple verification that the plane passes into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air can be done using addition, which is as simple a mathematical procedure as we have. It not only demonstrates that the plane DOES pass through its own length into the building IN THE SAME NUMBER OF FRAMES it passes through its own length in air BUT ALSO PROVES THERE IS NO DECELERATION. Besides, you should know that, under the conditions that were present at the time, the velocity of (most of the plane) should have dropped to zero, just as in the case of a car impacting with a gigantic tree. Do you want to measure the deceleration of the vehicle at the end of the car or at the center of mass of the car? How dumb is that? We know what SHOULD happen. The problem is that IT DOES NOT. So spare me your phony arguments and insinuations that I am being deceptive, when my proofs are obvious and simple and dispose of the question without any calculations of the kind your would employ to distort the facts. I have certainly had my fill of you and your tactics, which (I repeat) are offensive and disgusting. Good riddance!
Just as I expected. Your absurd rationale for refusing to back up your claims with any data or calculations speaks volumes. Your refusal to answer basic relevant questions has been noted. Thanks for showing your true colors, Jim. I’m not going to waste my time with you anymore. Have a good day.
Your attempts to peddle this crap speaks volumes! Any study claiming decleration has already been refuted by the discovery 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. I have explained that several times now. I certainly hope that you are wrong about Gregory Jenkins. I think you mean Ken Jenkins, who is David’s videographer. But it doesn’t matter. The simple argument I have presented PROVES NO DECELERATION. The evidence is all on my side, not yours. Thanks!
The raw data is the videos. The calculations are based upon frame-by-frame counts. So even in your attempts to dismiss my arguments, you have to resort to distortion and misrepresentation. They ARE based upon DATA and CALCULATIONS, which in this case happen to only require simple ADDITION. You really are something else!
For some reason, my last comment was not published…..I’ll try to re-do it here.
First off, thank you Dr. Fetzer for tackling this very complex and controversial subject. We do need the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and we need our brightest, most experienced, and critical minds to explore these subjects. So I’m very grateful for your work, and Dr. Judy Wood’s work, amongst other researchers. Guys like Dean Hartwell, Phil Jayhan, Larry McWilliams and Killtown are some of the best researchers in my opinion, yet they get absolutely no coverage about their findings, which tend to support Dr. Fetzer’s contentions here.
Second off, we know the prime conspirators behind 9/11. They happened to be the only people arrested on 9/11 in connection with the attacks. Israel’s Mossad was certainly the prime conspirator, along with it’s network of agents, puppets and assets that had (and continue to have) control over the US government, in particular in the Bush administration. Virtually all of the neo-con Zionists in the Bush administration were Jews with ties directly to Israel and Israeli intelligence. And we know, through history and current events, that Israel’s standard operating procedure is conducting false flag attacks and blaming it on Arabs or Muslims generally. The Mossad/Israeli intelligence, the Zionist dual citizens in the US government, the Jewish owned and operated media and criminal elements in the military are certainly responsible for carrying out 9/11. More than likely, they were facilitated by other foreign/private actors and intelligence agencies.
As for Jim’s work on video fakery and no planes, consider these points:
1. There is a history of video fakery, especially when it comes to black ops/false flag. The best example of this is the Zapruder film, which has been exposed as a fraud, a hoax. The film was altered/manipulated, and Dr. Fetzer and John Costella have proven this fact.
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/
So we know this type of stuff has happened, and likely continues to happen, especially with 9/11.
2. We know for absolute certain that the entire official government/media conspiracy theory explaining what happened on 9/11 is a complete and utter fraud, including the Arab hijackers and airplanes, the phone calls, and even many of the victims and their families. Marc Bingham comes to mind, as does Barbara Olsen. Take a look at what Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams have discovered in their investigation into 9/11. Google “Lets Roll 911,” to find their forum. Dr. Fetzer has two great interviews with them over at radiofetzer.blogspot.com. I find their research and perspective quite intriguing and well thought out. They’ve pointed out two important things about 9/11: 1) Many of the victims, passengers, and their families are hoaxes and 2) the WTC buildings were not built or constructed as many think they were. For instance, they contend that the buildings were never actually completed during construction, and that they were being systematically cleared out once Lucky Larry Silverstein and his Zionist gang bought the WTC complex.
3. Take a good hard look at Dean Hartwell’s research about the phantom flights and the fake hijackings on 9/11.
http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/deans-911-theory.html
4. Finally, the most important aspect to bring up here, which was initially pointed out by the blogger Killtown who has done absolutely rock solid research into 9/11, is the fact that private sector companies have partnered with the military to develop technology that can alter live television feeds. This is an extremely valuable and powerful weapon in psychological/information warfare, and it was clearly at play on 9/11. Here is a brief excerpt from the Independent in the UK from an article titled, “When TV brings you the news as it didn’t happen,” which was written in 2000:
“Viewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS’s recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using “virtual imaging” technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn’t really there.
While it’s little surprise that advances in TV technology enable broadcasters to better manipulate existing images and create new ones, what is surprising is that this was done during a live broadcast and in a news programme. The CBS evening news coverage involved replacing the logo of rival network NBC with the CBS logo on a large video screen in Times Square. NBC was “outraged” by the use of the technology, and even CBS’s evening news presenter, Dan Rather, admitted it was a “mistake”.
The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.
The system CBS used was developed by a United States company called Princeton Video Images (PVI). Other players in this field include Symah Vision – part of French defence to media group Lagadere; Israel-based Orad Hi Tech Systems, and SciDex, another Israeli firm with offices in Europe and the US. Each system, while similar, has its differences. None of the companies will publicly discuss how their’s works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/when-tv-brings-you-the-news-as-it-didnt-happen-728236.html
See here also: http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/airchronicles/stein.htm
_________________________
I don’t know why Dr. Fetzer hasn’t brought up these facts, but they definitely support his perspective. I’d love to hear from Mr. Lawson about the points I just made here. Let’s be reasonable, honorable men and women here, and engage in serious discussion about these subjects, not get in childish screaming matches and baseless ad hominem attacks, like virtually everyone on this thread has done.
Thanks again Dr. Fetzer, you are truly an inspiration for those of us out here that still have the capability to think critically and rationally about the most important matters facing us today, in particular 9/11. Keep up the great work!
Well, I have given links to studies by Elias Davidsson, David Ray Griffin, Leslie Raphael, and others who pursue aspects of the fraud that was 9/11. And I have given references several times to articles of mine, such as “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” (2008), “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” (2009), and the video of my London symposium presentation, “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?” (2010), which is archived (with the other discussions on that occasion) at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ But I am in agreement with most of what you say here and I greatly appreciate that you persevered in posting. And after some of those I have had to deal with, yours is a refreshing change! (The lapse, I fear, may have been mine by not having approved your post earlier on, though others are involved, too.)
Oh, I know you’ve given countless links and provided overwhelming evidence to support your claims Dr. Fetzer. I was trying to convey my message to everyone reading this thread.
And I know you know who was behind 9/11: Israeli intelligence and Zionist Jews that have complete control of the US government, media and banking system. I’ve never actually heard you say that, but I know you’re a brilliant man who understands these facts. I appreciate your and all the other researchers you and I’ve cited work relating to 9/11. There’s no doubt you are putting out the best research about this subject, which is the most important subject to talk about these days, period. At least for anyone that can seriously examine the evidence you and others have presented.
I want to hear more from Dmitri Khalezov. And I have listened to your podcast with him, a few times in fact. I wrote about his testimony in detail here, and also posed some questions that we need addressed:
http://mrfriendsblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/mike-harari-mossad-and-911.html
I’ve had 2 people privately confirm to me after reading that post that they knew specifically about the nuclear devices placed at the base of the WTC towers. Direct energy weapons may have been involved as well, I think there is a lot of technology, especially weapons related, that is classified. Anyways, Khalezov’s explanation of what happened on 9/11 is the best one I’ve heard thus far. Dr. Wood says we can’t know who did 9/11 until we know what happened. No- I completely disagree with that, although Dr. Wood has done great work. She does the scientific research, I and many others, including Dr. Alan Sabrosky and Gordon Duff, do the geopolitical stuff, which 100% points in the direction of Rothschild’s private fiefdom ie, Israel, and her network of agents and spies that have infiltrated and now control virtually all Western governments, media and banking systems.
If anyone is still in doubt about video fakery and no planes on 9/11, please watch and read this from Killtown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpkqomUc7Xs&feature=related
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html
John, Thanks for an excellent comment. I, too, am very interested in the use of nukes on 9/11, but I have skepticism about the specific account of Dimitri Khalezov. Our interview is archived:
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/Jim%20Fetzer%20Real%20Deal%20-%20Dimitri%20Khalezov.mp3
His claim that 105kt devices were implanted at the foundation of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-3 at the time of their construction and then used to destroy them on 9/11 appears to be dubious to me:
(1) I understand that nuclear weapons require maintenance. I could be wrong, but that that could have been done looks implausible in this case.
(2) It implies that those three buildings were taken down in the same way, which is inconsistent even with the gross observable evidence:
…………………………..WTC-1 & WTC-2……………WTC-7
…………Sequence:……….Top down……………….Bottom up
…………Floor motion:…Stationary…………….Falling together
…………Mechanism:…..Pulverization……..Controlled Demolition
…………Time/Speed:…About 10 secs……….About 6.5 secs.
………………………………(~ free fall)…………….(~ free fall)
…………Remnants:……No pancakes……………..Pancakes
………………………..(below ground level)……….(5-7 floors)
The term “pulverization” may not be the right choice, since it tends to imply a mechanical process. But an additional difference is that the Twin Towers were largely converted into millions of cublic yards of very fine dust, while WTC-7 was not. For example, see “New 9/11 Photos Released”,
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html
(3) If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition–as virtually all sides agree–then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not. The phrase, “controlled demolition” still applies, since they too were brought down by a demolition that was under control. But the causal mechanisms were different.
(4) The scheme that Dimitri outlines would surely have destroyed the bathtub, which did not occur. Saving the bathtub was the reason that a novel method of demolition (from the top down) was required in the first place. I therefore doubt that such a scheme could have been seriously entertained.
(5) His explanation includes the shock waves traveling upward at high speed, where the first 60 floors were decimated, the next 30 heavily damaged, and the upper-most floors fell due to the force of gravity. But that implies that the appearance of structural integrity of those first 60 or more floors for several seconds was an optical illusion. I can see no justification for supposing that was true.
So while I am very interested in the possibility of nukes having been used–especially mini-nukes, 3rd or 4th generation (fission or fusion), I do not believe that Khalezov’s theory is defensible. For an alternative approach, consider my interview with Dr. Ed Ward, M.D., which is also archived at:
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-ed%20ward%20md%209%2011%20micronukes.mp3
???
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Terry:
You make one generalization after another.
“September Clues” is full of lies and unsubstantiated innuendo about what people might have done. Give me a single sample of one proof that one of the videos was faked.
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.
Keenen Roberts, like Anthony Lawson, does a nice imitation of the Energizer Bunny! He has declared he is done with me about a half-dozen times, so we have a pretty good idea what his word is worth. If anyone had any doubt about his sincerity or honesty, I think this post lays them to rest. He attacks me for (a) offering pseudo-scientific proofs of video fakery, (b) of measuring the deceleration of Flight 175 improperly, (c) of ignoring the results of the Sandia F-4 Phantom jet crash, and (d) of generally being an “all around” BAD GUY! I shall address each of these in that order.
(a) There is nothing “pseudo-scientific” about my proofs of video fakery, which I first presented in “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″, http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery–by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html Although I have been repeatedly challenged about them, they are as good now as they were then. There is nothing remotely wrong with them. Pilots has confirmed the impossible speed and Joe Keith has offered a sterling explanation of why we are both right about this. Keenen appears to be taking his defeat poorly, which is why I am not surprised he’s back.
(b) He WANTED to pin a mistake about measuring deceleration on me, but my argument was based upon the gross properties of the video data, namely: 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 physically impossible but which also demonstrates that there is NO DECELERATION, since equal distances in equal times implies equal speed. He TRIED AGAIN AND AGAIN to undermine my argument, but without success. Here he is asserting a claim that has no foundation, which represents the virtues of theft over honest toil.
(c) As I have frequently observed, citing the Sandia test and comparing it with Flight 175 is a faulty analogy. The F-4 was mounted on a railroad flatbed and run into a nuclear resistant, concrete barrier. It flew into millions of tiny parts. He says the tail end of the F-4 showed no deceleration, which is fantastic: DOES HE THINK IT PASSED THROUGH THE BARRIER? Not only does the Boeing 767 NOT fly into millions of tiny piece but Flight 175 ACTUALLY DOES pass through the external support columns and completely penetrates the building. This man must think we are complete and total idiots to make this argument.
(d) Keenen Roberts says I am a bad guy and practice pseudo-science. But if these arguments are any indication, that charge is more appropriately lodged against him and others who have attacked me. My Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science. I have published widely in that area. I even received the Medal of the University of Helsinki for my contributions to the philosophy of science. I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning–and no one with such a flimsy grasp of the principles of reasoning as Keenan Roberts could have passed any of my courses!
It is apparent to me that we are witnessing a rear-guard action from a special interest group that places its political agenda above the search for truth about 9/11. I have a history of tackling the complex and controversial issues of our time, whether they concern the authenticity of the Zapruder film in the case of JFK, the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone, or video fakery in New York on 9/11. I make no claims to infallibility, but if someone is going to show that I have something wrong, they are going to have to produce better arguments than has Keenen Roberts, whom I hope IS finally “done”!
YOU ARE LYING AGAIN.
You’ve just written:
“Pilots has confirmed the impossible speed and Joe Keith has offered a sterling explanation of why we are both right about this. Keenen appears to be taking his defeat poorly, which is why I am not surprised he’s back.”
Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth has recently reiterated their position about the “impossible speed” for a member of the 767 family of aircraft.
Question asked by Anthony Lawson: “Was it possible, given the American penchant for adaptive technology, for a plane that looked very much like one of the Boeing 767 family of aircraft to have hit the South Tower at a speed of around 504 knots (580 mph)? ”
Answer given by Rob Balsamo: “It is possible for any aircraft to be modified to achieve any speed. Aircraft manufacturers modify their aircraft routinely from it’s prototype for increased performance, speed, weight, range, customer needs etc.. The 767 itself has gone through several modifications for increased performance. So, once again, yes, it is possible…”
Do you understand that? The speed was possible. Never mind what, exactly, the plane was, or how it had been adapted, it was a clearly a member of the Boeing 767 family of aircraft which includes military tankers with all kinds of reinforcements made to what would be a standard passenger version. Whatever it was, it cannot be stated that the videos were faked based on the speed of the aircraft.
And listen to what two aviators said about Joe Keith on Fetzer’s OWN radio program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUpKL4d-wRk#t=1m16s
WHY DO YOU KEEP TELLING LIES?
WHY DO THE EDITORS OF VETERANS TODAY ALLOW JAMES FETZER TO KEEP TELLING LIES?
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
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.
RULES OF EVIDENCE
I have used the word “lie” quite correctly. It has been explained to you that the experts who disputed the deceleration of the plane, when using the Evan Fairbanks video, were working with copy videos the quality of which did not allow for a definitive decision as to whether or NOT the plane decelerated. The expert you cite, Rick Rajter claimed that Eric Salter made a mistake, but did not, himself prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no deceleration, while Eric Salter claimed that the plane did decelerate by at least 8.5% and possibly more.
However, as I have pointed out, in the companion video to this article, because of the extremely poor-quality and out of focus images in the Evan Fairbanks video, which even someone with little experience of such issues would immediately comprehend, deceleration cannot be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, nor can a lack of deceleration.
Apart from what anyone else says or claims, as an experienced video editor myself, and although I respect Eric Salter’s efforts and would guess that he is quite possibly right, I would not stand up in court and state, under oath, that I think Eric’s conclusions on the deceleration should be added to the confirmed evidence pile, because there are far too many possible problems, including how many copy stages the video that was eventually examined by Salter and Rajter went through, and particularly because of the extreme out-of-focus nature of the resulting video. The same goes for Rick Rajter’s no-deceleration opinion.
Therefore you are lying when you maintain that the plane did not decelerate, just because you believe it did, when you have no proof that it did. The way you try to twist things, the word “lie” would become meaningless, in the face of the way you use the word “believe”.
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.
Entering “lie” for an internet search, here is the first definition I found. Notice that in its first and primary usage, the role of intent–as “an intentional untruth”–receives emphasis. People make false statements all the time, Anthony, because they are ignorant or misinformed, leap to conclusions without conducting any research and all that. But just because someone is making a false assertion does not make them a liar.
I am stunned that you continue to pursue this. The matter could not be more cut-and-dry, which suggests that you, Anthony Lawson, are making an assertion you know to be false, yet make it anyway with the intent to mislead readers here. In that case, while one of us may be lying, that person does not appear to be me. If you persevere with this little charade after this, then none of us will have any lingering doubt.
lie1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
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?
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
Keenan. Thank you for your persistence, and I totally agree with your findings, particularly:
“His [Fetzer's] 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.”
For years, I have been asking James Fetzer to find a crash-physics experts who would confirm his theory. He has refused, point blank, every time, often with dismissive words similar to: 10th graders already know that it was impossible.
Now that you have supplied a very clear and rational rebuttal of his misconceptions, he still will not even consider that he could have been wrong, for so long. Perhaps there is a scientific formula for the degree of certainty that someone develops for his own or someone else’s faulty theory over a period of time.
C = E (Y X R) ^2
Where C is Certainty-of-Rightness; E is for ego on a scale of 1 to 10; Y the number of years since the theory was first formulated, and R the number of annual repetitions of the theory made by anyone.
If there is anything that can be found amusing in this, it is that he refers to the theory as Joe’s Law, and Joe (Keith) can be heard in this short video (sound and stills) giving his opinion on what happens to a fast-moving plane at 700 ft. This is followed by two pilots, John Lear and Field McConnell thoroughly dismissing him as an aeronautical expert. And the host of this radio show was none other than:
Da Daaaah: James Fetzer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUpKL4d-wRk#t=1m16s
That was uploaded in May, 2009, yet he is still trotting out this same “expert”, as he did in a comment on the article of mine that this “Open Letter” is about (August 3, 2011 – 8:43 pm).
And your prophetic sentence, Keenan, was right on the button:
“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.”
He does turn it back on you, and on me, because he never does anything other than attempt to discredit those who do not agree with him. But it can’t be done. I can call him out and prove that every time he accuses me of hiding something, or getting something wrong, or choosing to ignore a pertinent fact, or whatever, his are the accusations that don’t stand up to even the mildest of inspections. What is astonishing is that he is so blatant with his lies: He states, in the second paragraph of this “Open Letter”, which cries out for emphasis:
“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.”
BUT NO SUCH SYSTEM EXISTS!
Once again, thank you for the backup.
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.
James Fetzer wrote:
“I have presented definitive arguments demonstrating that these videos show impossible events…”
You have presented nothing of the kind, you have presented what fits your theory. You have clearly not taken any other opinions into account, least of all the fact that not one of the 9/11 videos is clear enough to determine whether or not the plane decelerated, nor the opinions which very much doubt that any deceleration would have been visible, outside of the building, as is the case with the Scandia video, where the tail does not slow down, to any degree that I can measure, myself, on Adobe Premiere Pro. In this instance the F4 Phantom was impacting a SOLID CONCRETE WALL at 500 mph, but the plane that hit the South Tower impacted a wall of open construction with 4-6 inch concrete-slab floors separated by about 12 feet; plenty of room for the fuselage of the 767, which is 17ft 9 inches, tall, to be torn to pieces, while those pieces retained a high percentage of the impact velocity. You’ve been told this by many, many people but you still trot out the lack of deceleration as your main “proof” that the videos were faked, while you can present no other evidence that they were.
You then accuse me of lashing out with “one ad hominem after another” but you will not address this lie:
You stated, in the second paragraph of this “Open Letter”.
“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.”
But no such system exists.
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.
Jim
Eventually, you and tony will have to let go of each other’s throats.
It fills my email box every day.
g
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…
Right. Where are all the critical thinkers? Ones that can tell the difference between a solid concrete barrier and the open lattice construction of the Twin Towers.
WTC PLANES THRU STEEL WTC CONSTRUCTION — 911TRUTHINATOR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c&feature=email
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
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.
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.
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!
Gordon Duff Wrote
August 13, 2011 – 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
Eventually, you will have to stop James Fetzer using Veterans Today to spread his disinformation. He will not answer my accusation about his claims about an airborne safety system that does not exist; he simply goes off on another rampage of lies about what I have written about the speed of the South Tower aircraft.
James Fetzer: “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.”
This is not true. I have maintained, since I made my video “Impossible Speed and Impact — Busted”, that some kind of Boeing 767 lookalike could have attained the speed following a steep descent, because I am 100% convinced that the major videos are genuine.
He has interviewed a well-known pilot on his own radio programme who has attested to this, and I have always maintained that a 21% speed over Vd, an allowable and FAA approved test parameter at the required altitude, would not be the absolute ceiling for an aircraft built by Boeing which was designed to have a service life of at least 25 years. The idea simply defies common sense, although there are a lot of people pushing it. In any event, it is well known that the planes were never identified so to talk in terms of the test parameters of a standard Boeing 767 is to concede that the official story might be true.
But it doesn’t matter if I am wrong about the speed, that is beside the point of James Fetzer claiming something I have never written or spoken. I have never, as he has just written, (August 13, 2011 – 5:51 am), “…admitted that 560 mph, which is its cruising speed at 35,000 feet, is impossible at 700-1,000 feet.”
That is a bare-faced lie. It is not true! He cannot hide behind this because “he believes I have written or said that”, he must present the evidence, and he cannot do that because I have never done so. My video, which cannot be altered and still maintain the upload date and viewing figures, is proof that this has been my stance since December 2007. I was banned from the Pilots forum for not giving in to what I think are John Lear’s false claims on this issue.
What is wrong with Veterans Today that someone will not do something about James Fetzer’s provable lies?
Does this mean that anyone can write what they like about anything and have it published by Veterans Today as the truth? Do you check anything? Do you look into any accusation which might have merit?
Or don’t you care?
Someone will probably delete this, and if they do, it will be on Rense within 24 hours.
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!
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.
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
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.
It’s called classic Newtonian physics. If you admit the damage that a small bird, for example, can do to an airplane, and if you understand Newton’s third law, then when you consider that this “plane” would have been impacting with no less than eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses covered with 4-8″ of concrete (or an acre of concrete apiece), why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that a plane at 560 mph impacting with just one of those floors suspended in space would have suffered catastrophic damage? And how do you account for the fact that no damage occurs with the plane enters this building? It does not crumple. Its wings and tail do no break off. No bodies, seats, or luggage fall to the ground. So what’s going on? Have the laws of physics been suspended? Get serious. If you had a case, you would make it. Nothing that I or Shallel is arguing is inconsistent with Newton, but the same cannot be said of you or Anthony Lawson, among others.
It actually could if shape charge was in nose.
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!
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.
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?
I am with Lawson on this one, an advanced energy weapon.
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.
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.
And yes, I know the Major General..
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?
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?
I know when demolitions are used, reference building (7)…..try composition (4) and D-cord, or composition (B), test for traces of these materials, then maybe you can track backwards to tower A and B, then go back to your video.
It’s more like a ping pong match between you and Anthony Lawson, and Gordon’s the umpire.
Repetition of pseudo-scientific sound bites over and over again will not win an argument, but will simply re-inforce the fact that that person has no real arguments and doesn’t really care about finding the truth. Whether it is someone’s ego and inability to admit that they might be wrong, or whether it is intentional obfuscation and disinformation, that makes them do this, cannot always be determined.
Veterans Today needs to decide whether they want to maintain a reputation of responsible journalism and credibility, by fact checking the claims of their major contributors/moderators and not allowing themselves to be made fools of by people like Jim Fetzer, or whether they want to go down the path of World Net Daily and other similar discredited jokes in the world of journalism whose reputations for believability and reliability are substantially lower than even Faux News’ laughable standard of journalism.
See Anthony Lawson’s article regarding Jim Fetzer and Veterans Today: What Has Happened To Veterans Today? By Anthony Lawson http://rense.com/general94/vtrn.htm
This is yet another in a blizzard of meaningless posts that claim I am wrong without demonstrating it. Anthony Lawson has turned into an obsessive loon who has no good reason for attacking me, when I have been as patient as I could be in dealing with him to the extent to which it is rational to do so. If you can show I have something wrong, Keenan, do it! But these slovenly and unsupported posts don’t do it.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
Well, if you are going to write meaningless drivel posts like Anthony Lawson, expect to be called on them. Show me an argument for video fakery that I have produced that is wrong? Explain my argument (so I can tell you have it right) and explain what I have wrong.
Since you are making a big “to do” over my being some kind of pseudo-scientist (or dis info agent, whatever), that ought to be rather easy for you to do here and now. Otherwise, others, like me, will justifiably infer that you are spouting nonsense because you know no better.
None of this hand-waving rubbish about already having proven me wrong. 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.
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
Gordon, could you please address the questions I asked you? Why did you ignore them?
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.
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.