ll seem to be linked up to you guys despite wishing to be removed. But here is a subject which is worth making a contribution to.
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/911/ong.html
Of course the 9/11 Commission had to link the planes to the events and what better way to do that was using the communications from flight attendents. What better way to operate a hoax than using a flight which had been taken out of the scheduled line-up.
Flight 12 was a scheduled flight out of LAX at 13:00 being the return flight to Boston. If an explanation is required for Ms Ong stating she was speaking from Flight 12 then Flight 12 was a real flight whereas Flight 11 was not. She wondered off the script. She might have been on Flight 12 on many ocassions and she knew that the ground staff would know it was a hoax because flight 11 was not flying that day.
There is an analysis here which is impressive. The lack of back ground noise and the seemingly calmness of Betty Ong. If her collegues were being killed off then she had nerves of steel.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread326637/pg2
There is also something very prominant in the exchange between her and the ground staff. It is noteworthy that the ground staff were chiefly question her bona fides and were listening to her account of the effects of the hijacking. What she was relaying could not have really got any worse. But the ground staff should have diverted her off of these things and have got onto the matter of gaining intelligence and seeking a communication link to the hijackers. Something positive instead of reeling off all these alarming events. Get her to think of the living and not the dead. But it seems Betty Ong was not able to convince the ground staff of the hijacking of the plane. The events which Bettg Ong relayed could all be associated with an exercise. Did she ever ask for instructions for countering this hijacking? The exercise would end at a certain point short of storming the cock-pit and those taking part might only have a limited part to play. Relaying the bad news. Betty Ong never volunteered nor the ground staff asked if there had been any diversion from the flight plan. Surely, strange changes in course would have been noticed by flight attendents. Did the ground staff ask her any specific questions regarding the position of the plane. Land marks below the plane, and such like. Of course if 11 was not flying that day they would be as perplexed as 9/11 researchers are.
From: Rolf Lindgren
To: Jack & Sue White ; Alex LLoyd
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Proof of Video Fakery
She also says she is on flight 12.
If the tape was faked, she would not have said that, nor would the government tried to cover it up.
From: Jack & Sue White
To: Alex LLoyd
Sent: Wed, October 21, 2009 9:19:02 AM
Subject: Re: Proof of Video Fakery
The alleged phone call of flight attendant Betty Ong on Flight 11:
Betty Ong's phone call: Flight attendant Betty Ong allegedly called Vanessa Minter at American Airlines reservations at 8:21, and talked for 23 minutes, until the plane crashed. Nydia Gonzalez also listened in from 8:27. The FBI refused to release a recording of the first 4-1/2 minutes of the conversation, but during the 9/11 Commission's January 27, 2004 hearing, the recording was played.
I do not have a transcript of Ong's alleged call, except I remember "there's buildings, there's water" etc. She does not mention excessive speed or a steep dive. Is that odd?
Jack
On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:07:33 AM, Alex LLoyd wrote:
Certainly the official path has the plane diving many thousands of feet very rapidly, but still leveling off completely and then banking before hitting the tower. So it's not as if the plane dived straight into the tower at 540 mph.
One thing for sure, is that it is ludicrous that any amateur pilot could have executed this maneuver. So straight off the official story is wrong.
The question here though is it possible for any plane, even with an ace pilot, to recover from this sort of high speed dive and then be controlled to undergo this rapid banking maneuver to hit a narrow target straight on at 540 mph?
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:44:45 -0400
> From: webfairy@thewebfairy.com
> To: shure_dj@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: Proof of Video Fakery
>
>
> Only one video shows anything near a "dive," and you guys claim that
> shows the same flat approach as the rest.
> The rest show a flat approach, if we believe your Fakery Fakers who
> claim the "plane" can be seen way in the distance in Fox 5.
>
> The first hit footage shows divebombing attitude and incredible speed,
> but no plane at all.
>
> Another problem is the lack of debris: millions of parts, each with a
> serial number, that would have been overtaken by gravity after hitting
> steel girders.
> We double back to Newton's Laws of Motion, which don't allow a plane at
> any speed to ignore them.
>
> He shows that an aeronautical engineer can suffer cognitive dissonance,
> but not much else.
>
>
> SHURE Dj wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > In an interview you said "it is approved to fly there only once during
> > the test program."
> >
> > audio is attached.
> >
> > This is what aeronautical engineer Ben Eadie said recently about the
> > conversation I had with him.
> >
> > /"One last thing here. The plane cannot fly at that speed but it sure
> > as hell can effing dive and crash at that speed. If the pilot does not
> > care if the plane falls apart as he turns it into a projectile then
> > YES the speed is possible. YES IT IS FULLY, COMPLETELY, 100% possible.
> > If I was asked if a plane could dive with full throttle at that speed
> > and with out regard to the airframe. my answer would have changed to
> > effin YES! Can it fly at that speed, no, can it crash at that speed yes!
> >
> > So this harmless video also makes me look like a dumbass. As the
> > answer is incorect."
> > /
> > /"It may not appear that the aircraft is diving at the angle of the
> > film, also it could have just came out of a dive, to decelerate at
> > those speeds it would have taken likely a minute to loose the
> > velocity. Again if you are not afraid of damaging the airframe then
> > you could bank at that speed. the structure is designed to take 1.5
> > times the forces recommended so to not be able to bank it would have
> > to be traveling at 700+ miles per hour 500 is well within reason to
> > bank."/
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: johnlear@cox.net
> > Subject: RE: Proof of Video Fakery
> > Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:05:46 -0700
> >
> > A military fighter can go that fast at low altitudes but bombers
> > cannot. (KC-135, B-1, B-2, C-5 etc.)
> >
> >
> > Vd is the maximum dive speed that cannot be exceeded at any time. Not
> > for a few
> >
> > seconds, not for a few milleseconds. That is why it is called Vd
> > (maximum velocity dive).
> >
> > If Vd is exceeded then the Vmo must be reduced. That is why Vd is
> > there in the first place.
> >
> >
> > But in no case did any jet, big or small, drone or missile hit the WTC.
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Rolf Lindgren [mailto:rolfusaugustusadolphus@yahoo.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:03 AM**
> > *Subject:* Re: Proof of Video Fakery
> >
> > a military plane can go that fast. At least one of the planes that
> > hit the Twin Towers may have been a military plane.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* SHURE Dj **
> > *Sent:* Mon, October 19, 2009 7:39:24 PM
> > *Subject:* RE: Proof of Video Fakery
> >
> > A plane cannot go that speed in a sustained flight, but it could for a
> > few seconds which was all it did it for on 9/11. John Lear even said
> > in an interview that a plane is brought to those speeds during testing
> > which I have recorded somewhere.
> >
> > Still no proof of video fakery!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:18:37 -0500
> > > From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
> > > Subject: RE: Proof of Video Fakery
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I still think Jeff is a "good guy", though I infer from some odd
> > recent posts
> > > of his he may not think the same of me. He gathered expert reports
> > that the
> > > velocity of the plane shown in the Hezarkhani video is flying at a
> > speed that
> > > is greater than aerodynamically possible for a Boeing 767. Not only
> > has this
> > > been confirmed by Joe Keith and by John Lear--whose arguments are
> > especially
> > > telling!--but Pilots for 9/11 Truth has arrived at the same
> > conclusion. This
> > > suggests to me that something odd is going on with Jeff. He was
> > right all
> > > along but now he seems to have abandoned his position. I don't
> > understand it
> > > but there are many reasons why good guys can do dumb things. This
> > may be one.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> >…
roblems with them. With regard to Flight 11, see Leslie Raphael, "The Jules Naudt Film was Staged", http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm .
Yes, Naudet’s film is suspect, may be modified, … but we have no evidence to accuse them. Also, that film proves very few thing, almost meaningless evidence. But the damage on the façade of WTC1 is meaningful. It’s consistent with a 767-200, like AA11. Why refute it?
Jim Fetzer said:
And, with regard to Flight 175, I have laid them out in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", ttp://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html . If you can't explain how a 767 could fly at 540 mph at 700-1,000 feet, then you have no standing to oppose those of us, including John Lear, perhaps our nation's most distinguished pilot, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who have concluded that that would be aerodynamically possible.
The speed of UA175 was about 377kts, perfectly normal for such a plane in a descending flight path with entered slats and pushed by the engines under automatic control on board.
Jim Fetzer said:
If you can't explain how a plane can melt into a building without a collision -- which should have crumpled its fuselage, its wings and tail broken off, and bodies, seats, and luggage fallen to the ground, then you have no standing to oppose those of us, including Morgan Reynolds and Steffan Grossman, who has written extensively about it, including, for example, http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.45.html .
Even broken tail will continue its movement toward the tower. The planes are not designed to bore a frontal impact at such speeds. There was a collision with the tower’s façade, its kinetic energy broken the outer columns of the tower making most of the plane pars enter into the building, only some of them remained outside and feld down.
Jim Fetzer said:
And if you can't explain how a plane could traverse its own length into a massive 500,000 steel and concrete building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, then you have not standing to oppose those who realize -- as you apparently do not -- that would be physically impossible.
Sorry Jim, the number of frames must be almost the same before and during the impact. The physics law F=m*a is the reason: F=m*a --> a=F/m --> dv= F*dt/m, with m very big, F meaningless, dt=0.25s, so the speed variation dv=F*dt/m is almost null. And that’s what we saw in the videos.
I strongly ask you to study that simple mathematics.
Do not consider that like a meaningless subject, I am extremely sincere and I am really waiting some answers from you.
You have two choices: Defend your claims or revoke your claims. Continue to support your claims while you refuse to defend them is not leader’s work manner.
I know you since nearly 5 years, end of 2005, remember that was the beginning of ST911; you must imagine that I am tired and not more ready to hear wrong theories.
If you continue to remain silent to all my requests, I'll begin to think that I was deceived like many members of ST911, and all 911 truth groups are disinfo.
You were the last 9/11truth leader that I still want to believe who is not disinfo. If you still remain silent, that will be gone.…
Added by Mehmet Inan at 3:06pm on October 29, 2010
gical.
It is pointless to have a discussion based on PLANES or NO PLANES.
The discussion should be HIJACKED PLANES or NO HIJACKED PLANES.
If your position is HIJACKED PLANES, you support the government story.
If your position is NO HIJACKED PLANES, it is logical that you should
consider ALL alternative possibilities:
1. Substitute 757-767s were used
2. Similar or other jet aircraft were used
3. No aircraft were used
4. Secret military technologies were used
5. PsyOps were used
6. Video manipulation was used
7. Special effects were used
8. Television networks were used for fakery
9. Controlled demolition was used
10. Missiles were used
11. Unknown means were used
12. Combinations of above were used
13. Other
There is much evidence supporting some of the above possibilities. Making
ad hominem attacks on supporters of any one position is counter productive
if your position is that NO HIJACKED PLANES were involved.
If you support HIJACKED PLANES, you are a government shill.
Jack
On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:38:56 PM, Jack & Sue White wrote:
Jim...this fellow says I did not establish the time of day. WRONG. The video
CLEARLY is just moments after first building collapsed, because it shows
people fleeing down the street ahead of the dust cloud. This raises several
curiosities...the FBI took photos of the Church Street "engine" both BEFORE
and AFTER the dust cloud. Photos show it both pristine clean, and then covered
with dust.
People making ad hominem attacks on me without knowing the facts are annoying.
Had he or anyone asked the time of the FBI men unloading something, I
would have told them. Nobody asked. Yet that is taken as a negative excuse
to attack me.
. . .
Jack
On Jun 20, 2009, at 12:35:28 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:
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 raises
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.…
oo much more precise, and easy to make? Why should we all believe some numbers given by NTSB without any possibility to check them? That behavior of pilotsfor911 is suspicious to be disinfo and needs to be explained. I believe pilotsfor911 are disinfo.
I made the speed measurement, and got the number of 377kts for UA175. This speed is smaller than the reported maximum speed of 425kts. Please ask to pilots to make the speed measurement on that basis.
If you compare the 500,000 tons towers to a tree, the conclusion is simple: The towers remained intact, like a tree does it face to some car impacts. But we are not considering the connection of the towers to the bedrock. Sure the towers still stand and they should do it. Here, we are considering the entrance of the plane into the tower. And in that case, we must only consider the resistance of bolted outer columns and the behavior of (4”concrete / 140” empty space). In that case, the bolted columns are too much smaller then 500,000 ton massive steel. And the (4”concrete / 140” empty space) would act like a cutter to the plane, leaving all parts hitting the 140” empty space to enter the building. When you speak about 8 floors you include the extremity of the wings; we know that the wing tips did not enter the buildings. As I told, only the parts situated between the engines will enter the tower, and that’s what we saw. That also means all parts situated before and after the engines will enter the towers too, because the heavy parts opened the door and pushed the parts which were before them. These parts include the entire fuselage, so all seats also.
Jim Fetzer said : “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.”
I do not THINK 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”, I PROVE it using physics law F=m*a, and I ask you to use the same mathematical thinking method to understand the facts. Here is the mathematics again :
F=m*a --> a=F/m=dv/dt --> dv= F*dt/m. m is the weight of the plane and is very big. F is the resistance force which can be made the plane parts and the outer columns of the tower. Plane parts are weak, except the parts between the engines. The columns at such high floors are made by thin steel plates, ~=0.5inch. Also these columns are bolted and bolts can not create big resistance force. The slab thickness is 4 inches, and there are 140 inches empty space. As conclusion the columns resistance is exceeded oly during the impact of the central parts between the engines. During all other impacts only the plane parts resistance cen be considered. During most of the time, the resistance force is very small made by fuselage. We can tell the force is very small and meaningless. The time duration during which the speed reduction is made is very small, it’s 0.25s for whole impact, let’s say 0.1 for the impact of the biggest parts.
On basis of these considerations, we can clearly tell that there could not be any significant speed reduction because, dv=F*dt/m, F is small, dt is small, m is big. This is physics law applied by mathematics. I must also tell that at the beginning I thought that some speed redcution must happen, but when making this calculation, it’s clear that there is meaningless or invisible speed reduction.
About the strobe lights, I disagree to follow any body like John Lear, who ever he could be. I’ll always make my own truth about each subject on basis of material evidence and loical scientific considerations. The conclusion of all that stuff, the planes were real ones, nothing gives us any evidence to deny their true number, AA11 and UA175 for the towers.…
Added by Mehmet Inan at 11:33am on October 31, 2010
ll,
If this is supposed to be your response to my post about the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, then I can understand why you didn't even
include the post to which you were responding. I have done plenty to refute
the government's "official account", including the summary of refuations that
may be found as the very first item on 911scholars.org at the upper left. But
were are dealing here with one of the greatest mysteries of history, and some
of us want to understand what happened and how it was done. Those, like you,
who want to take a less aggressive intellectual path are welcome to it. But
don't think that justifies you--either intellectually or morally--in placing
obstacles in the path of those who have more intellectual integrity and moral
courage than do you. Egad! That is compounding your offense. And those who
think they can make headway in a legal context without knowing the whole score
are, in my opinion, simply deluding themselves. So, if you want to play the
role of an intellectual mouse, you are welcome to do that, but stay away from
the intellectual lions who are not going to cease their investigation until we
have discovered the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of 9/11.
Jim
In a message dated 6/21/09 1:20:09 AM, wmgolden@verizon.net writes:
If your objective is to develop a demand for an open 9/11 investigation with
prosecutions, the most effective course might be to simply demonstrate that
the official explanation cannot be true, due to clear evidence, and you may
not want to prejudice the case with too many explanations, especially if they
are controversial. That will be the work of the prosecution, which you might
later work with.
This is a close statement of my objectives, and that of virtually everyone
I know in the 9/11 truth movement and supportive of this movement.
Ken
Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:
Ken,
Are you telling me that, even if I am right about (1) through (10) and
the evidence supports no planes in New York, in Shanksville, or at the
Pentagon--EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT, WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS THE
RATIONAL THING TO BELIEVE--neither you nor any of your associates will
admit it BECAUSE YOU THINK IT WOULD DISCREDIT THE 9/11 COMMUNITY?
AmI to understand this is your position? Is this why I have felt as if
I were beating my head against a stone wall--because none of you will
admit it, even if you know, in your heart of hearts, that I am right
and there is no evidence for any planes? Just tell me so I can get my
head wrapped around this. For 9/11 Truth, the Truth is not the goal?
For 9/11 Truth, politics takes precedent. For 9/11 Truth, some of the
truth is good enough and more of the truth or all of the truth is not?
Tell me that, while I may want the truth, all of the truth and nothing
but the truth, you do not--because it would defeat the 9/11 movement?
I just want to be very clear about this. In your view, politics has
to come before science and reason and rationality must be suppressed?
Because, if this is the case, then we diverge in our methodology for
the simple reason that we have different objectives, aims, or goals.
I want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
about what happened on 9/11. You and the rest of your gang do not.
But if that is the case, then cease feigning that I am wrong about
all these things. Stop claiming to be right when you are not. Tell
me that, even if I am right, you want me to leave it alone, because,
in your view, the truth not only will not set us free but will hobble
us politically. And is it also the case that, for reasons of a like
kind, you are not interested in indications of Israeli complicity in
the crime, because you think that would be similarly disadvantageous
in the pursuing the political objective of . . . ? Do tell me more.
Jim
What's wrong with this picture?
Moreover, as I shall explain below, an impossible speed is only one of
many indications of video fakery on 9/11, which also include the manner
in which the plane entered the building with no loss in velocity, with
no crumpling, damage or debris, including no breaking off of the wings,
no passengers, seats, or luggage, with the tail remaining intact. This
situation has been summarized by Mark Smith replying to Ralph Omholt:
______________________________________________________________________
(A) Crash Summary: Quoting "Mark E. Smith" :
Ralph wrote:
"No planes? Then account (rationally) for the damage, based on highly
probable or undisputable facts, versus highly improbable or fantastic theory
and baseless claims."
Planes cannot account for the damage either.
Never before or since has a plane cut into a building like a cookie cutter,
or sliced through a building like a hot knife through butter. The whole
reason for the limited hangout of controlled demolition is that the planes
cannot account for the damage.
Neither can they account for controlled demolition. Nor can controlled
demolition in the basement and throughout the height of a building be set
off by an aircraft hitting the building.
What's planes got to do with it? Nothing. I don't know of any WTC damage
that could only have been caused by planes. If I see something flying
towards a building, I'll probably assume it's a plane rather than a missile,
as I don't expect to see missiles in urban areas. (Lucky me--knock wood!) If
I then see an explosion and what resembles an airplane-shaped hole in the
building, I'll think a plane hit it. But if I don't see the end of the
aircraft sticking out of the building and debris from the crash falling to
the ground, I have to rethink the whole thing.
People who will fake crash scenes are certainly capable of faking videos. I
think the kids call it FX. People capable of high-tech controlled
demolition, are capable of setting off small explosions and blowing out
specific shapes in building walls. When they use plastique to blow open a
door, they need to be able to enter that door, thus no fiery, flaming
inferno, which is why there was a woman standing in that cookie-cutter
plane-shaped hole with no flames and no fire.
This is so basic, I can't believe we're back to this again. When an aircraft
hits a building, the aircraft falls down, the building does not. Planes do
not pass through buildings. Not even wooden buildings, no less concrete and
steel buildings. To put it in Mensa terms that even the most brilliant minds
can understand, the mass of a concrete and steel building is denser than the
mass of a bird, and hitting a bird causes immense damage to an airplane. If
a plane cannot pass through the feathers, extremely light bones, and some
soft internal organs of a bird, it cannot pass through a much denser
building.
Faster than a speeding bullet! Mor powerful than a locomotive! Able to
penetrate tall buildings in a single bound! Look! Up in the air! It's a
bird.....it's a plane....it's super-psy-ops!
--Mark
_______________________________________________________________________
(B) Evidence Summary: Quoting "James H. Fetzer" :
The fact is that John Bursill appears to be grandstanding by presenting a
biased and selective case in light of the mass of evidence that supports
the possibility that no planes may have been involved on 9/11. Notice,
especially, we have much more evidence to work with in thinking about the
videos than the videos themselves. In earlier posts about this question,
for example, I not only reinforced the proof we have that the events we
see in the interaction of Flight 175 with the South Tower cannot possibly
be correct--since it would have been intersecting acres of concrete, 4"
thick, poured onto the trusses, which were welded to the external support
columns at one end and to the core columns at the other, which would have
created enormous resistance and caused the place to crumple and break up,
with massive debris falling to the ground, which did not happen in these
videos--but we have many other indications there may have been no planes:
(1) Kee Dewdney has shown that cell phone calls would have been impossible,
which means that those we have heard about are fabrications, some of which
must have been created using sophisticated "voice morphing" technology, at
some considerable effort;
(2) Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has no proof that Islamic
hijackers were aboard any of these planes, where such evidence as has been
provided (the list from Atta's suitcase, the miraculous passport, and all of
that) is transparently fabricated;
(3) John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, has observed
that, before a commercial carrier can pull away from a terminal, the pilot
must submit an "envelope", including his flight plan, passenger manifest and
check list for fuel load, operation of electronics, and all that), yet not
one of the envelopes for any of these planes has ever been produced;
(4) George Nelson, a former USAF air crash investigator, has observed that,
although each of these planes had hundreds and hundreds of uniquely identi-
fiable, safety-related component parts, the government has yet to produce
even one from any of the four alleged plane crash sites;
(5) Joe Keith, John Lear, and various aeronautical engineers--even persons
at Boeing--have explained that no Boeing 767 or 757 could fly as fast at the
altitudes involved--700-1,000 feet in New York, skimming the ground at the
Pentagon--as the videos show or as the government has claimed;
(6) Multiple pilots, including some from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, have said
how difficult it would be to hit one of those towers at 500+ mph (where one
group tried it with their flight simulators shortly after these events and
found they were unable to do it after multiple tries, at best 1 time in 5);
(7) Video experts, including Ace Baker and killtown, have explained how easy
it would be to create fake videos and even have them played in very close to
real time (with a 17-second delay) or ever in real time (using compositing
by imposing a layer with the plane over images of the buildings themselves);
(8) 175 footage shows a plane traveling faster than aerodynamically possible,
entering the buildings with no loss in velocity (passing through steel and
concrete as effortlessly as it passes through air), with no debris or damage
to the plane and passengers (no luggage, no seats, no bodies);
(9) Jack White has discovered FOX footage that shows FBI agents offloading
something heavy at Church and Murray shortly before an engine alleged to be
from the impact was found, where the sidewalk is not damaged, it is sitting
under a canopy, and it was from a 737, not a 767; and,
(10) as David Ray Griffin has emphasized, some six or seven of the alleged
hijackers have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East, which
would not be possible if they had sacrificed their lives in acts of terrorism
by crashing these four aircraft as the government maintains.
We also have videos whose authenticity is not in doubt that were taken before
and after the purported "impacts" with the buildings, which provides further
bases for figuring out what was added to them or subtracted from them. Some
of those who have done the most work on video fakery, Ace Baker and killtown,
for example, have theories about how it was done, which implicate the media,
especially FOX television, if I understand them correctly, as the original
source, where FOX subsequently deleted its own feeds out and began playing
the videos from other networks as feeds in to conceal its role in putting
them into the public domain, which gives us insight as to how it was done.
We need explanations that can account for all of the data, not just some.
Quoting KenJenkins@aol.com:
In a message dated 6/20/09 3:47:54 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
For some reason, indication of video fakery or the possibility
of no planes in New York drives him nuts
Jim,
Your statement above implies that you do not know the reasons why the no
planes in New York idea is a hot button issue. Although there are various
reasons for the upset, I believe the main reason is quite straightforward.
Even if it were true, the concept that no planes hit the Twin Towers sounds
crazy to most people, and thus undermines our efforts to expose the big lie
that is 9/11. It is hard enough to get people to change their beliefs about
what happened on 9/11 even without introducing this large, additional burden
of no planes. Many think we are crazy just to suggest that the official
story cannot be true and/or that the 3 WTC Towers came down because of
controlled demolition. After all, most of us have been working to reveal the
truth of 9/11 for many years, some of us for nearly 8 years, and although we
have made much progress, we still have far to go. So to add to that difficulty
an idea (no planes) that even most of the 9/11 truth movement thinks is
wrong and crazy is just too much. And even if no planes in NY were true, it
would still be a self-defeating strategy to put it out there publicly as
evidence, since such an outrageous notion undermines our credibility regarding
our more solid evidence. So either way, there are serious problems with
no-planes as regards our primary goal of convincing more of the public about
9/11 truth.
For those of us who believe that planes did hit the Twin Towers, there is
of course more distress, because we not only recognize the problem of losing
credibility by including such an idea as part of our evidence, but we
further agree that it should undermine the credibility of anyone who would claim
such a notion. So there is a double added burden with no planes.
The bottom line is this: The no planes in NY idea generates the FEAR that
it will undermine our efforts to expose the big lie that is 9/11. And
since the future of our world as one of endless war vs. peace hinges on whether
or not 9/11 is exposed as a lie, the fear that the no planes idea induces in
many is intense. It is that fear that makes the no planes idea such a hot
button issue that drives some people nuts.
I hope this makes the reason for the upset clear.
Ken…
ad nauseum' for years, you just get to the point where you turn away and don't look any longer.
as for the 'eyewitnesses' gig, those who support the official story, to the last person, are government people who can't be trusted to ever tell the truth. starting with Theodore Olson and working down from there. virtually 'all' of the people who swore they saw a Plane actually impact the Pentagon, to the last person, were or are still, government employees.
in the case of David Ray Griffin, who I used to actually believe and trust but now am wondering about, his linkage to Gage and Company at AE911 thru endorsing their fantasy land shit, puts him in a rather unusual position of either not fully understanding how unequivocal support of 'bullshit' like that, makes virtually all of his work now very suspect.
as for chap 10, most people DO NOT support the official story any longer. about 20 percent do, on a stretch, maybe up there as high as 30 percent of the population still believes the official story which now is morphing into LIHOP land.
we're all entitled to our opinions but until I took really good hard looks at the plane entries into those towers and saw virtually ZERO INTERACTION going on with half the plane buried deep within the building, I took those videos as 'real' or truly indisputable evidence that the video shot that day in NYC was probably good. Can't go there anymore, based on the total utter lack of reaction to the buildings and the nice clean edges shown initially,which then became jagged like magic, after the breakaways and re-zooming back in again.
the PsyOp piece makes good points but it's really not too fair to attack Judy Woods without doing more research into what she is saying. I don't really espouse all she has written but I can say that after looking into it for two weeks from a number of things published and in lectures she has given, she raises more valid questions than anything, with her work.
do I believe that no planes impacted the buildings? not at this stage of the game I do not, but to be honest, until people look at those video's, in particular, the plane entry moment on at least the real clear one where you can see half the plane just go into the tower with ZERO, and I do mean, ZERO interaction with it, till everyone does that, I don't know how much more proof they need of VIDEO FAKERY than that shit.
jesus f'ing christ, there is no structure anywhere on this earth made of steel and interspersed with concrete, albeit a less rigid form of light weight concrete, that would have offered ZERO resistance to the plane as it penetrated the building, and allowed for a nice clean cookie cutter edge to the entry point as is clearly visible in the video.
shit would have, by that point in time, been going in all sorts of directions, not all necessarily forward into the building.
we can all differ here about what we all believe took place, but until every one of the members of this forum watches the entry of that one plane in particular, in slow motion, and freeze frames it thru the sequence, IF after having done that you can still tell me that is normal or real or valid, I don't know what to tell you.
it doesn't make sense.
per Jim Fetzer's very correct assessment here, video fakery took place with those videos. does this mean no aircraft were involved in striking the buildings? what it means is that those videos of the plane strikes are altered, heavily so, and if AA 11 and UA 175 hit those towers that day as the government said they had, then WHY IN GOD'S NAME DID THESE FUCKERS HAVE TO MESS WITH THOSE VIDEOS then?
it's truly a stretch to look at the stuff and not come away realizing that we've all been had.
to what degree, who knows? the whole entire thing was a staged event. is it any wonder that virtually every bit of propaganda and evidence the government has shown us, is truly suspect of being tampered with or fabricated fully?
in the state of the art in 2001, the technology was there to really do some incredible special effects work with video.
unfortunately for the asshole who did the tower strike videos, they forgot to put away their HOLLYWOOD dunce cap and think about physics. You can't have airliners going into buildings without significant interactions between the two objects, one which is stationary and one moving at very very high speeds, beyond 460 knots and as high as 508 knots.
not possible. so is Judy Woods so crazy? Is John Lear crazy?
I don't think they are. both raise very valid issues about the perceived reality everyone has of the day in New York City when two alleged passenger planes hit buildings and yet the building strike sequences and the clean cookie cutter edges of the entry on one building, don't compute.
at this stage of the game, everyone should re-examine those videos and watch them really close and critically, and
in particular, the one nice clean one where the plane is halfway embedded in the building and virtually ZERO impact force
evidence is there as it goes in. That aluminum plane struck a building, yes, at high speed, but even when planes fly into clouds, there is interaction with those clouds immediately upon entry. Why not with steel and concrete?…
Added by Dennis Cimino at 2:57pm on October 19, 2011
ce. This is really not difficult to establish, since it can be done with the Fairbanks film, for example, which does not have any parallax problems. A flying beer can, especially an empty one, is not going to be able to penetrate steel. You do understand that, by Newton's third law, the impact of the plane flying at 540 mph on a stationary 500,000 ton building would be the same as the impact of a 500,000 ton building flying at 540 mph impacting a stationary plane? You really haven't thought this through. Are you aware of the damage done when an airplane hits a tiny bird in flight? Stefan Grossman, by the way, is a physicist. Do you believe that a 767 could fly at 540 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude? Do you believe that a 767 could pass though the steel and concrete -- where it was intersecting with eight floors of steel trusses filled with 4" of concrete on each floor -- which would have provided enormous horizontal resistance. Its velocity should have fallen to zero. Take a look at either my Buenos Aires Powerpoint, "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", 11 September 2009, at http://911scholars.org, my London symposium presentation, "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?", 14 July 2010, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ or, for even more emphasis, my Seattle presentation, "Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", 13 December 2009, which you can find at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html . John Lear and Stefan Grossman believe that, in order to fly faster than a 767, to enter the building in violation of Newton's laws, and to travel its own length into the steel and concrete building in the same number of frames that it passes though its own length in air, it cannot possibly be a real plane. So do I. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. None of that happened. The engines, no doubt, would have penetrated the structure, but most of the plane would not have. They conjecture that it was probably a sophisticated hologram. I have interviewed yet another physicist, Stephen Brown, who had recently taken a course on holography at Cambridge, on "The Real Deal", and he affirmed that a holographic projection like that would have been feasible. A nice point John has made, by the way, is that a real plane would have strobe lights on its wingtips and fuselage, while this image has none. Think about it. Pay special attention to the design and structure of the South Tower. If you can figure out a better explanation for all the data, I'd like to hear it. You can email jfetzer@d.umn.edu.
QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 28 2010, 08:29 PM) *
Just curious...
How many frames did the plane you refer to (175 or 11?) take to traverse its own length? Did you take into consideration paralax as the camera position could influence the calculations of velocity?
Do you believe that a plane with enormous kinetic energy could or could not penetrate the facade of the twin towers?
Do you believe that a baffled aluminum tank of say 500 gallons traveling at several hundred miles an hour could destroy the facade structure of the twin towers at the floors of the supposed strikes?
Would any of that fuel in addition to bursting the tank penetrate the building?
What is the margin of error in analyzing speed etc in the frame rate of the videos presented of the plane strikes?
Just a note:
The twin towers aside from the flimsy 4" thick floor slabs at 12' oc vertically has essentially nothing between the facade and the core except office landscape furniture for the most part. If NIST is to be believed on this (I am not saying I do) there was damage to the core related to the plane strikes indicating (if you accept this premise) that sufficient mass with sufficient kinetic energy reached up to and then destroyed some core columns completely.
This post has been edited by jfetzer: Today, 09:44 PM
Go to the top of the pageReport Post
Edit Post+Quote Post
V Full Edit
V Quick Edit
jfetzer
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts
post Today, 09:30 PM
Post #5
Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 4
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735
Here are the first six points out of twenty from "Why Doubt 9/11?" on the upper left-hand corner of the Scholars home page. You are talking about Frank DiMartini, of course, who was speaking of the intricate lattice structure of the buildings as wholes, not denying the local damage that would occur from a plane hitting the structures, especially intersecting with eight floors of steel trusses connected to the forty-seven core columns at one end and the steel support columns at the other and filled with 4" of concrete. Take a look at the first fifteen frames of my Buenos Aires Powerpoint or the first ten minutes of either of the other presentations. No real plane could have made such an effortless entry. A car is not going to pass through an enormous tree just because it is being driven faster and faster, nor is an empty beer can going to pass through a steel plated building. Also consider:
The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.
Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.
The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.
Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.
If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.
The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.
QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Oct 28 2010, 09:03 PM) *
HI All \
!
The problem that I have with Mr. Fetzter's observation that the planes should not have disappeared into the building is that the designer of the WTC's (I forget his name but we all love him) is that the plane should have penetrated the outer perimeter columns "like a pencil through a screen door screen" but still should not have caused a collapse even assuming the resulting "hot jet fuel fires". He says the the design assumed such a penetration and such fires, but still would not collapse.…