e not a missing "not"? Surely after all of this discussion and debate you cannot seriously believe that a 767 crashed into the South Tower, unless you think that proofs of video fakery do not imply that no plane was present. I agree with that to the extent that video fakery is consistent with either the presence or the absence of a plane, where it might have been required to conceal features of the plane or of its interaction with the building that would have given the game away. The evidence of Elias Davidsson, John Lear, and George Nelson, among others, however, strong suggests that there is no proof real planes were involved at all. May I assume that you have read "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", which you can google. Do I have your position right? Jim…
s filled with 4" of concrete and connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other. They are made of steel and concrete. The plane is made of aluminum. The impact (by Newton's thiird law) would have been the same if the plane at 450 mph hit the stationary building or if the building at 540 mph had hit the stationary plane. If you know the damage that a small bird can make on a plane in flight, you know better than you are arguing here. The plane should have criumpled, the wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the groundl. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. Its velocity should have gone to zerio. I agree that we can't both be right, but I have no good reason to believe that I am wrong. And, unless you believe that a 500,000 ton building provides no more resistance to the flight of this plane than air, you must agree that it cannot pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. As for the airspeed, you had better read John Lear's affidavit about this, which is archived on this very forum. Go to the home page and do a search for "John Lear". Then get back.…
thony,
Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know how to think:
(1) Reasoning can be inductive or deductive, where inductive
reasoning involves inferring to a conclusion that has more
content than the premises. Yes, that they appear to have
been unloading something heavy and that something heavy was
found in the immediate vicinity, which only appears to have
"shown up" when they made the delivery, is an inductive in-
ference, which could be mistaken, but for which supporting
evidence exists. You blunder by supposing that, if argu-
ments are not deductive, then they are not arguments at all.
Such arguments are probabilistic and fallible, unlike deductive
arguments, but are not therefore not "arguments". Indeed, in
this case, that the sidewal5k was undamgaged and the cowling
was under a canopy strengthens the case. You have never said
what it is you think they were doing there. I can't imagine
an alternative explanation that fits the evidence any better.
(2) You again blunder by using the "l" word. Anthony, how
many times to I have to point out that someone is lying only
if (a) they are making an assertion (b) that is false where
(c) they know it is false and (d) they are doing so with the
intention of misleading their audience. Both Jack White and
I believe what we are saying. We are making assertions that
we do not know for certain are true but believe to be true
on the basis of inductive evidence. We have no intent to
mislead our audience, even including you! So I think it is
time for you to pull in your verbal horns and admit that you
committed a blunder in suggesting that he or I were lying,
for the simple reason that you have never understood either
the nature of lying or the character of inductive reasoning.
Let's see if you are man enough to own up to your mistakes.
(3) We've been through this business about the plane many,
many times. John may have some unusual beliefs about the
Moon, but that has nothing to do with the strength of his
knowledge and arguments about aircraft. Indeed, it is one
more indication of sloppy reasoning on your part that you
continue with a seemingly endless succession of ad hominem
arguments, in which you attack the man rather than what he
is contending. I know you want to make a "razzle-dazzle"
move to a special plane with special engines that can do
what other planes cannot. But that is such a stretch that
I can't imagine anyone taking your seriously. On the other,
hand, it appears highly plausible that those who were per-
petrating this scam simply used the cruising speed of 767s
for the speed of this image, not realizing that "cruising
speed" is for altitudes around 35,000 feet and not 700 to
1,000 feet, where the air is much more dense. So kindly
cease acting like a fool and a blowhard. You don't know
what you are talking about regarding logic or evidence.
Jim
Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :
Dr. Fetzer,
You can have no idea whether the FBI operatives were unloading something, or
loading it, so your statement that they were unloading something that looked
quite heavy has to be a lie, and would never stand up in a court of law, or
even in polite conversation. If you have no way of knowing that the item
was being unloaded, then you cannot say, in truth, that it was.
As far as my preference for Field McConnell's opinion over that of John
Lear's goes, Field does not think that there are settlements on the Moon and
he has not flown any clandestine missions for the CIA, helping to manipulate
the outcome of a presidential election. As far as I am concerned, the
character of the singer is often more important than the actual words of the
song being sung.
You can re-print John's opinion as many times as you like, but that will not
convince me that it is accurate, *with regard to that particular
aircraft,*and the fact that he insists on sticking with the figures
for an off-the-shelf Boeing 767 leads me think that he is covering
all of his bases.
All we know is that the plane looked like a Boeing 767 passenger plane, we
do not know that it was one, and we do not know what had been done to the
plane or its engines, before its final flight.
You and others might also like to consider the following: Had the plane's
image been computer generated, wouldn't the perpetrators have chosen an
indisputable speed for their deception?
Anthony
2009/6/21
Anthony,
Alas, not much can be said on behalf of your powers of reasoning. Here, for
example, you demonstrate that you are unable to separate "evidence" in the
form of premises (some of which is photographic) and "conclusions" based
upon them. "Answers" are conclusions, Anthony, whether they are verifiable or
not. The fames and other photos Jack has identified represent evidence that
raise questions which need to be explained. I dare say seeing agents in FBI
vests offloading something heavy at Church & Murray constitutes a lot more than
an "iota" of proof. This makes me worry about your ability to think, Anthony.
Now what do you suppose the are all doing there in the process of unloading
something that looks to be quite heavy. And it just happens to be at the
intersection of Church & Murray, where the cowling of an aircraft engine is
subsequently discovered--sitting on the sidewalk, which is undamanged, and
under a canopy, no less! Now I don't want to impugn your mental functions,
Anthony, but do you see a possible relationship of cause and effect at
work? But, of course, those who offer opinions contrary to yours "must be lying"!
Moreover, you cognitive impairments are woefully apparent when you offer up
--for the umpteenth time!-- Field McConnell, who has admitted that his view
is only an opinion about which he could be mistaken! John Lear has replied
with proofs related to the aerodynamic properties of aircraft in flight, and
area in which he is a leading expert. Gee, I wonder which of them ought to
be taken more seriously? Of course, I understand your methodology, Anthony,
which is accept the views of those who agree with you and discard the rest!
Jim
P.S. I will post the promised exchange here very shortly. Stand by! Thanks.
The jpgs are meaningless, and you must know it. A bunch of questions does
not constitute evidence. Only verifiable answers can do that, and there
is nothing in either jpg to suggest an incontrovertible answer to anything.
Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :
Dr Fetzer,
The jpgs are meaningless, and you must know it. A bunch of questions does
not constitute evidence. Only verifiable answers can do that, and there is
nothing in either jpg to suggest an incontrovertible answer to anything.
Jack White, "legendary photo-analyst", has not even hazarded a guess as to
what time of day any these photographs were taken, which is a Page One
requirement for any kind of photo-analysis, when there are
clearly-discernable shadows, and the orientation of the photographs can be
ascertained and when time-of-day is highly relevant to why the photos are
being analysed in the first place. That oversight, to me, puts Jack White
in a status far below that of legendary.
Even the title of the *murraypickupdelivery.jpg* smacks of uncertainty, yet
you have the effrontery to imply that *you* know it was not a pick up, but
a delivery, while in the *churchmurraystudy.jpg* there is a totally
unverifiable statement:
"...as a man reacts to the sound of the first WTC "plane explosion"
BEFORE any event had occurred."
Please explain how the legendary Jack White, with no evidence of the
time that the photograph was taken, was able to ascertain this. The guy in the
picture could have been looking up at *anything *and you and Jack White
must have known this.
And why are there no corresponding letters in the photographs which would
allow us to identify the bracketed ones in the text and on the map? A Fox
videographer (F)... A Naudet photographer (N)...?
And what has the fact that there were two wastebasket in this area got to
do with anything? Then there is the question, asked in the copy:
Why were police yellow tapes already deployed before any incident had
occurred(?) Why so many FBI.
Well there is what looks like a part of an aircraft engine in one of the
shots, along with police tape, which seems to indicate that an "incident"
had occurred, and it just could have been the incident to which the FBI were
reacting; the plane engine crashing down. As mentioned, above, Jack White
has not even bothered to determine what time any of the photos were taken,
so the one he's questioning just might have been *after * both planes had
struck, rather than before. Which would explain just about everything.
I repeat: These photo-montages prove absolutely nothing, yet what you
wrote was:
It should not have been necessary to off-load an engine covering at Church
& Murray. You don't have to fabricate debris from the real crash of a real
plane!
Clearly, you are lying. There is no other word for it. You have implied
that the engine was off-loaded at Church & Murray, and implied that the
debris was fabricated, without possessing one iota of proof that this was
the case. It isn't that you are mistaken, which can always be excused. It
is that you are knowingly passing on something, as being a fact, when you
know that it cannot possibly be verified as such.
Try wriggling your way out of that.
And please stop acting as though John Lear is the only pilot in the world.
He is not, and other pilots and a military aircraft maintenance Lt. Colonel
thinks that a plane, which looked like the one in the 50-or-so videos could
have achieved that speed, for a period of about ten seconds, at that
altitude, following a rapid descent of 4,600 per minute, from an altitude
of over 20,000 feet, on a very fine day, with only a slight headwind.
My final question to you is: Do you ever bother to even look at the
"evidence" you are passing on as having any merit, or do you just hope
that others get it right for you?
Anthony
2009/6/20
You know, Anthony, sometimes I get the impression that we don't like each
other very much. I wonder why. I am attaching two studies in relation to
the "engine" found at Church & Murray by Jack White, who has done
remarkable work on JFK and has more recently created a series of studies
about 9/11 at http://www.911studies.com/ or enter "Jack White's photo
studies" on google.
John Lear has produced proof after proof that it would have been impossible
for a 767 to have traveled at such high speed at such low altitude. An you
know better because they have been presented on thread where you were
among the participants. I will track on of the most important down and post it
here as an illustration. Meanwhile, give thought to these two attachments.
Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :
Dr. Fetzer,
You wrote:
Moreover, (1) the plane could not have traveled at 560 mpt at
700-1,000 foot altitude, as many, including Joe Keith, John Lear, and,
in relation the Pentagon, Russ Wittenberg in the DVD "Zero" have all--
repeatedly--explained.
Why do you select only those who say that the speed was impossible?
*Field McConnell,* an ex F4 Phantom pilot and 20-year-plus heavy-jet commercial
pilot thinks it was possible. So does *Rob Balsamo of Pilots* for 9/11 Truth.
* Joe Keith,* as you know, was debunked on your own radio programmes as
stating things which were "close to snake oil", about the plane's speed
and engine capabilities; a point of Field's with which even John Lear
agreed.
* John Lear *"knows" that there are settlements on the Moon, and he used
to fly for the CIA, yet you take his word over that of other experienced
pilots. This is known as being selective.
You have never, to my knowledge, quoted the learned opinion of a physicist,
above his or her signature and qualifications, who agrees with your absurd
assumption that a large part of the plane should have come, from a velocity
of about 800 feet per second, to a sudden stop when it met the steel and
lateral concrete lattice of the wall/floor construction of the South Tower,
and should have fallen to the ground. Not one of the Architects and
Engineers for Truth within that so-named group has ever suggested that
the impact of the plane, as depicted in so many of the videos, defied any
physical laws.
Your protestation that you...
...have explained all of this many, many times...
is meaningless, in the absence of scientific backup. Repeating
falsehoods, over and over, does not somehow correct them.
*And this is a bare-faced, implied lie:*
It should not have been necessary to off-load an engine covering at
Church & Murray. You don't have to fabricate debris from the real
crash of a real plane!
The lie being that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the
FBI planted an engine section (of the wrong type, at that!) in Murray
Street.
I
have previously challenged you to confirm what Fox videoed, and you have
supplied nothing in support of this claim. This is another of your
repeat,...repeat and repeat exercises, and: Lo and Behold it becomes
true. This is, I repeat, an implied bare-faced lie.
* If it is not, show us all your evidence.
* And you go on and on to repeat,* ad **nauseam*, the falsehoods and
misleading material that I have already debunked in the attachment,
re-instating *Joseph Keith* as an "expert" and failing to mention that
*Morgan Reynolds *was an economist, not a physicist and that *Ace Baker*,
and *Killtown *are presently disagreeing on all kinds of issues with regard to
video fakery and compositing.
You also wrote:
...Lawson and their buddies have
completely missed the boat on the most basic aspects of what happened
in New York on 9/11. For in the process they are not only making them-
selves look ridiculous but creating an impression of gross incompetence
within 9/11 community. The situation we encounter here is quite
absurd, but precisely what we ought to expect from individuals of their
caliber.
You won't do it, Dr. Fetzer, so I challenge any of *your* "buddies" to
find fault with any of the debunking included in the attachment. They can
start with your spurious assertions that the FBI planted the wrong type of
engine in Murray Street.
Come on Runyon, if you truly believe that Dr. Fetzer is right to disseminate
these kinds of things, without any proof, do some proper research to
back him up and find the proof, yourself. If you can't find it, then tell
Dr. Fetzer that it is wrong to tell lies.
Anthony…
ted and 40& is glass. I agree that the strongest part of the plane is between the engines. And you agree that the ends of the wings should have broken off. The same for the tail. This plane was intersecting eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with 4" of concrete (or about an acre of concrete per floor). You can see a diagram of the floors it was intersecting on my Buenos Aires Powerpoint on http://911scholars.org. How much horiizontal resistance was posed by those structures? how much by those structures combined with the external steel support columns, which were connected by the trusses to the 47 core columns? My suggestion is that your calculations are incomplete, because you are considering only the external force from the plane and not the resistance of the building. Since John Lear, PIlots, and even NIST agree that the plane was traveling around 540 mph, I am at a loss as to why you would dispute it. Where have you takein into account the massive resistance of the tower?…
reject your argument. The Pilot's discussion, which you are welcome to dispute, is found at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
If you have looked at the film I have linked, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PORptq9a3k , it should be obvious that what you are seeing is not physically possible. And your complaint about the 500,000-ton building is based upon a blunder. The whole building is involved when the plane hits a building, just as the whole tree is involved when a car hits a tree. It is the connection of the building to the bedrock by means of the core columns that makes it resistant to the plane as well as its internal structure, just as the roots of the tree maintain its resistance to the impact of a car. I do agree that the engines would have entered the South Tower, but most of the rest of the plane would not have.I am sorry, but you really have not thought this through.
If you think that the plane could possibly pass through its own length into this massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air--especially when it is intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with 4" of concrete (or an acre of concrete apiece), then I think you need to go back to school. I am very sorry, but this argument, of them all, demonstrates your incompetence.
The observation about the strobe lights came from John Lear. No doubt, their visibility would depend on many factors, but--as I imagine you would agree--the point has already been made. We are viewing a fantasy. If you are going to infer I am "insincere" for disagreeing with you, that inference is as valid as the rest of yours.…
a majority, and I do think endless name calling and division are a problem, but I smell a hangout and don't think we can afford anything but the complete truth. Thermite, if present, may be a distraction or at most a minor part of the whole explanation.
The best evidence in my opinion is the videos of impossible events, implicating the MM. A truly scientific investigation cannot list parameters where you can and cannot explore! It must take into account the whole of the data and not select ahead of time which data will fit your theory. We cannot support a new coverup commission! There are so many problems with the story of highjacked planes, that this is the logical starting point and everything else follows from that.
Many of the finest researchers have compiled ample evidence that these planes are a complete fiction. I challenge those who have done excellent work is the area of disproving the official theory of fire induced collapse to look at the data and find me a verifiable Boeing part, as John Lear has said there should be million of uniquely identifiable serialized parts in these four supposed crashes.
Thanks for posting this Jeannon.
Blessings to all!…