9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

John Doe
  • Male
  • Beverly Hills, CA
  • United States

John Doe's Friends

  • Chuck Boldwyn

John Doe's Discussions

No Proof of Video Fakery:
19 Replies

Started this discussion. Last reply by Psy Oct 18, 2011.

Gifts Received


John Doe has not received any gifts yet

Give a Gift


John Doe's Page

Latest Activity

Psy replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"The definitive case for no planes and video fakery are in chapters 6 and 7.   How much is it worth to you to finally learn the truth?   9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera"
Oct 18, 2011
John Doe updated their profile
Aug 12, 2011
John Doe updated their profile photo
Aug 12, 2011
James H. Fetzer replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"Check the blogs. I have posted studies from Pilots, where even NIST confirms that the plane was traveling at 5450 mph, which is an impossible speed. Your remarks about deceleration are off the mark. The plane's velocity should have gone to…"
Sep 23, 2010
sandy rose replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"so Jeff, i was looking at some of your stuff here.... wondering do you have any online examples of what you said about this... Are all the people that saw a plane lying? Are all the pictures fake? Would it be possible to control all the people with…"
Sep 20, 2010
sandy rose replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"just one(?!) comment for now, and i wouldn't mind if others here with more expertise would comment on your questions, but why would they need things to come out flawlessly? even tho 9/11 truth is world-wide and truthers have done a fabulous job…"
Sep 19, 2010
bill smith replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"It's too simplistic to think that they make a mess of everything they do. We know that the opposite is mostly true.Ask Daniel Elsberg. They WANT us to believe that they are too oncompetent to do stuff like this.Its an escape route for…"
Sep 19, 2010
sandy rose replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"red shoes said, Therefore If it was a real plane then maybe the point of entry was doctored.and the no-planes theory was manufactured.as a distraction from the seamless entry of the plane into the building. not getting it yet. sooooo, they flew a…"
Sep 19, 2010
bill smith replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"lol. That's about the strength of it actually. I guess it might be the only permutation not yet considered but that doesn't mean that it's not worth trying on for size. There are some points on it's side. I always try to maintain…"
Sep 19, 2010
Shallel Octavia replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"Ahh, the old fake planes to hide the real planes trick. Sounds like an episode of Get Smart. Where's that damn Shoephone? As to the videos, post away new friend of the fuck me pumps, tho they are moderated, so keep it below the ankle,…"
Sep 18, 2010
bill smith replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"Hi Sandy Rose. I prefer to be anonymous, That's not a crime and my shoes are my trademark. I normally post on the jref forum and have done for about 18 months- same name,same shoes.I am one of the few real Truthers there so you can check at the…"
Sep 18, 2010
sandy rose replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"Bill Smith, if that is your real name, where's your pic? why do you look like a pair of women's feet in red shoes? i'm really tired of people coming to a forum about truth and being too afraid to show their real pics. using video…"
Sep 18, 2010
bill smith replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"It would be so much easier to make an illusion of the WTC2 impact wall than it would be to make an illusion of the plane. Under real circumstaces the plane would not have penetrated tthe building at all, The original engineeers only calculated for…"
Sep 18, 2010
bill smith replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"It was the risk of the planes missing that led me to a theory that truly indicated real planes. If the plane into WTC2 had missed it would most likely have ploughed into the ground. Even inder remote control that risk would have been there at…"
Sep 18, 2010
Shallel Octavia replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"Real planes leave real wreckage, and since the planes couldn't have been the 767's which we were told they were, since it was so far out of their performance envelope, anyone finding wreckage could prove it wasn't from a 767. And what…"
Sep 18, 2010
bill smith replied to John Doe's discussion No Proof of Video Fakery:
"Hi Jeff Did you ever consider the possibility that the perps planted the idea of no-planes deliberately ? It split the Truth Movement quite nicely and it took all the attentian off how a real plane might have flown through that massive steel…"
Sep 18, 2010

Comment Wall (11 comments)

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

At 8:12pm on June 29, 2010, Shallel Octavia said…
Hey Jeff -
From your comment to Chuck, "I'vew been lsitening to Fetzer for a long time and heard the interview he did with you. I wanted to know your opinion on the "impossible physics" of the plane interacting with the building. Is it really "impossible" as some seem to believe?"

I can help you understand. Newton's 2nd Law states that Force=mass*acceleration.

If you take any of the footage of the S Tower "impact" (see http://911scholars.ning.com/video/lawsontheforger-1?xg_source=activity) and slow or step through the footage, you will find that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly through it's length in air as it does through multiple floors of steel and cement. THere is no deceleration. Therefore F=ma=mass of plane*acceleration of plane=mass of plane*0=0. No force is available to do the work of smashing through the building. Therefore these are fake videos of a false event.

Peace and good tidings, Shallel
At 7:03pm on June 12, 2010, Chuck Boldwyn said…

I will be leaving for China on Tuesday and will be back around the 23rd of July, so get any diggs in while you can. You can keep it private on our private pages or bring it out into the open community.
I am confident that I may send you into retirement along with your friend, and I will not be humble and full of humility about it...
At 6:58pm on June 12, 2010, Chuck Boldwyn said…

I have been debating with myself if I want to issue you and you secret Physics freind a challenge on what you really know and how good and bright and creative your science is, sooooooo.....

It looks like you and your Physics friend are a bit intimidated by me and you and he are not sure if you want to get your scientific butts kicked as you criticize me and my work behind my back.

Come on to this forum and lets see just what you and your "nameless" physics friend really know and see if you can stand up to me and my "arrogant" , "awesone" scientific self, as you all like to refer to me.

Let me see what kind of Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, and Math you can throw at me and let's see who gets their scientific ass kicked.
Let us see what you and your cowardly friend really can back up or will I kick your genius scientific butts out of town never to hear from you again, ashamed to return to this site...
At 1:29pm on May 26, 2010, Chuck Boldwyn said…

At 1:27pm on May 26, 2010, Chuck Boldwyn said…
Hypotheses and fairy tales do not mean much unless you can put numbers to them and a convincing premise, even if gleaned from a engineering magazine. I take Skilling at his word, even if I think his estimate of "20" was very, very low...

Pass this on to your Physicist friend and see what he can do with some numbers or if he can validly refute my numbers.
Generalized criticisms of my work mean nothing without showing where my analysis, mathematical and theoretical, are wrong or off by some factor.

A number of Physicists and Engineers have looked at my work and been in agreement with it and praised it as logically correct, some with great amazement.
I am not worried about getting my ego hurt, but unskilled criticizers should worry about their level of "real competence"

I look forward to your physicist's analysis of my work, perhaps it will enlighten and educate him. My research has had no real competition as far as quantitative analysis is concerned, either by "Truthers" or Non-Truthers" and all of them or most of them, PHDs. Quantitative Analysis of the Tower Collapses has seemed to be beyond the intuitive grasps of Physicists and Engineers since the Towers were demolished. There is no complete and quantitative analysis of the whole collapse scenario by anyone other than myself to date, at least as far as I know. It is not hard to be confident when you have no, none, nada, zero quantitative analysis competition.

I keep looking for professional

and competent feedback on my work as very few can follow and understand it, even practicing Engineers and practicing physicists and forget the Chemists and Mathemeticians who steer clear of hard core elementary high school physics.
At 1:26pm on May 26, 2010, Chuck Boldwyn said…
Why are you so concerned about the video fakery, since it has nothing to do with the demolishments. Study my posters again to get my points. I hope you have a physics, engineering, Chemistry, and math background.
If your freind is going to criticize my work, let him be very specific in stating what is wrong with it and not spout of unlikely believed generalities like the NIST and main stream media have done.

My work is quantitative and exacting in very great detail like no other researcher has presented to date.

check this Lord Kelvin quote out:

"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]
At 1:21pm on May 26, 2010, Chuck Boldwyn said…
If a physicist is going to review my work they will need to point out exactly where it is off or wrong, which means they better be very bright and experienced and be able just to understand my work and reasoning. Listening to my interview with Jim Fetzer and studying all of my posters on the Scholars site should allow one to understand my analysis provided their background is adequate.
If I souund arrogant it is because of my experience and many many years of teachng the topics at the heart of the analysis of the WTC TT collapses. It is as if I have been preparing myself my whole career to specialize in the analysis of the impossible collapses. I am not really arogant, I just know what I am talking about. 99.99999 % of the population can not understand the details of my work, even though it is very, very simple if you have the correct background education and that education is "fresh"......!!, not stale and forgotten...

I do not see the great importance of the plane collisions or video fakery due to my analysis of Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy.
Once the Energy is determined, based of the "20" factor of Skilling, then you know that mini nukes are the likely candidate to be used. My calculations give 0.5 little boy atomic bombs per tower or more, probably much more. Lots of other evidence is there to determine that mini nukes, perhaps grapefruit sized, were likely used. Listening to my interview will bring many of these points out.

I still wish to research your area of interest, but it may have to wait till mid July or thereabouts.

At 1:19pm on May 26, 2010, Chuck Boldwyn said…

I am getting ready for a one month trip to China, and I just got a new iPhone and some books to learn how to use all of its many, many features. I can not at this time work up a physics and math reply on the "impossible of possible plane penetrations" into the towers. Applying momentum equations presents some problems which I will look at later. There are several ways to approach the problem.

I have never really tried to prove the penetrations one way or another because once I proved that the collapses were impossible with Vector forces Physics & Math and the John Skilling quote and my years of applied Engineering & Physics experience on deteremining CL/DL or CL/LL efficiencies, I saw all else, plane crashed & fires, as just a deceptive smoke screen, to fool the unknowing public, even Engineers and Physicists.
CL = Collapse Load
DL = Dead Load
LL = Live Load
CL/LL = Collapse efficiency or Tower of Bridge Safety Factor for Collapse

A well built balsa bridge or Tower can hold over 4,000 times its own weight before collapse can occur, so giving the Steel towers a CL/LL of just 20 is more than highly likely. Physicists who do not have experience in this area of applied research would probably think that the "20" factor is to be disregarded and that would be a great mistake. Even a factor of "20" should not crush down the total tower, maybe a portion of the top of the towers which were very thin relative to the lower sections, 1/4 inch at the top compared to about 4 to 5 inches at the lower sections. Please check out my recent graphics on this topic.

At 11:21pm on May 23, 2010, Chuck Boldwyn said…

my full explanation reply is too long for this comment box, so I will try to work up the physics of momentum collision into a poster graphic similar to many I already have posted, with all of the detailed physics and math.

I now believe that video fakery was used and that the fuel and explosives were timed to go off as the video experts of the mass media portrayed. I am not exactly sure how they did it but the other researchers appear to be on the correct track.

Check out this photo that has something to do with the timed video fakery and the images that appear to be colliding into the towers.

The flashes had something to do with the timing of the video graphics fakery. There had to be a timed delay to put in the plane graphics and then show them to the public on tv.

If there were real planes, then the planes set of the internal towers explosions thereby allowing the planes to penetrate the towers.

I lean towards video fakery being the real answer as physics shows these penetration events cannot occur.

I need to do further research on this, irrelevant to the collapse issue, events.

Chuck Boldwyn
At 10:12pm on May 22, 2010, Chuck Boldwyn said…
Welcome, Jeffrey,

How did you find 911 Scholars Forum?

I have a ton of photos, graphics posted to this site for those interested in the Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, and especially the Vector Forces Math the conclusively proves the collapses as propagandized by the USAG and its Zionist Mass Media as blatantly falsehoods, lies, criminal deceptions.

Check out my work by going to my page and let me know what you think.

Spread the word...



© 2017   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service