9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = An Inside Job

There's a bit of JFK in the first few paragraphs, but the rest of this post (from another forum) belongs here:

 

Thanks to Don but not to Bill.  As what I hope will be my final post on this provocative thread--where therereally is no point in continuing, since Lifton wants to address any issue anyone has raised other than pointsI have made about 9/11--I will be as kind and gentle as possible to Kelly, who seems to understand neithermy exchanges of the past with Josiah Thompson nor this current thread initiated by David Lifton.  Consider:


Josiah has long maintained the only chapter of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) he endorses is thatby Gary Aguilar, who traces the description of the wound to the back of the head from Parkland throughBethesda, maintaining that there is tremendous continuity between them.  While I believe he has not donecomplete justice to the Bethesda reports--given the enlargement we know was performed by Humes--Garydoes establish beyond any doubt that both sources supported a major defect at the back of his head.  As Ihave observed on many occasions, this means that the Zapruder film--which, in its early frames following313, does not show it--has  to have been altered, which means that, if Aguilar is right, then the film is a fraud.

This argument, of course, has been complemented by the report of Clint Hill, who looked down into theskull and observed a gaping, fist-sized hole in the back of his head, as I have explained in "Who's tellingthe truth: Clint HIll or the Zapruder film?", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hi... , and by the results of the ARRB, which Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009) has reported in detail and I have summarized key findings that relate to Zapruder film authenticity, "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994 , but which can also be established by observing that the blow-out to the back of his head is visible in later frames, like 374.  So evidence internal to the film also proves it's fake.

To demonstrate that 9/11 research encounters challenges of even greater complexity, consider two studies that initially may seem far removed from one another but turn out to be intricately intertwined.  In their study,"Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an 'inside job'", http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html (republished in a slightly revised version that does not affect the key points), Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, following up on thereport of an explosion in the subbasement of the North Tower PRIOR TO reverberations from the alleged plane impacts, which William Rodriguez experienced himself, used seismic data from a laboratory run byColumbia University and FAA and military radar data to establish the relationship between these "events',and found that explosions in the subbasements of both towers occurred 14-17 seconds before "impacts".

Within the last year or so, Willie spoke in Madison, after which he and I and Kevin Barrett had dinner.  Whenhe explained to me that the subbasement had filled with water, I realized that probably the principal purposeof those explosions was to drain the sprinkler systems of water.  Otherwise, since even on the official theory,most of the jet fuel burned up in those spectacular fireballs within the first 15-20 seconds, the modest firesthat remained could have been easily extinguished by the sprinklers, had they not been drained.  The reason it was necessary to fake the videos of the airplane impacts--evidence of which is in "New Proof of Video Fakeryon 9/11", http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-... --thus appears to have been to effect a precise temporal coordination of the "impacts" occurring prior to the intended subsequent explosions as their pseudo-cause.

The reason is that the perps needed a semi-plausible explanation for why they had occurred at all.  The onethey chose was to claim that jet fuel had fallen through the elevator shafts and exploded in those basements.There are several problems with this account, however, including that the primary elevators are staggered inthe towers, which means the fuel could not have fallen through them into the subbasements. Another is that,while there are one or two that extend all the way up and down the towers, a co-worker of Willie was in oneof those in the North Tower.  He survived the experience without having been burned alive, which would havebeen his fate if the official account were correct.  And, of course, there was a human error in coordinating the"impacts" with the explosions, where Ross and Furlong confirmed that the explosions actually happened first.

Now it might seem reasonable, on first consideration, to suppose that it would have been simpler to use realplanes instead of resorting to video fakery.  The problem, however, is that hitting a target that is only 208' ona side is a very daunting task.  Pilots for 9/11 Truth, for example, has reported that many of their members,who were far more highly qualified than any of the alleged "hijackers", had made repeated attempts to hit a208' wide tower using a 767 simulator without success.  The only one of whom I know had any success was Rob Balsamo, who had one success in ten tries, where the speed of the plane (at 560 mph as seen in thosevideos) made it extremely difficult, indeed.  In their efforts to GUARANTEE that those impacts would occurat the times required to "explain" the subbasement explosions, therefore, it was necessary to resort to thetactic of video fakery, where how it was done--with CGIs, compositing, or holograms--is an open question.

Anyone who relies on their subjective opinions without studying the available evidence with regard to 9/11,therefore, is about as likely to sort things out as those to take for granted that the film is authentic and thatJFK's body was never subjected to alteration.  Both conspiracies challenge our abilities as researchers, which, I'd like to believe, will give those who naively believe in the official account of 9/11 good reasons to reconsider.

 

Views: 89

Comment

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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on June 8, 2011 at 12:53pm

I think the problems with guys like Josiah Thompson is that they get ego entrenched in positions and then just doggedly refuse to relent in face of new evidence, thereby I feel they do more harm than good and become obstacles to research.  This happens again and again and there is no place in science for it.

 

I actually heard Kevin Barrett interview Vince Bugliosi on Monday, and shockingly Bugliosi contends that the magnus opus  (or is it magnum opus?) of his entire career is his book on JFK.  That guy now seems to be a total special pleader and attack dog, not a scientific sharp mind.  I used to admire him, now I most certainly do not.

 

It is such a terrible shame that scientific research has to be set back by something as mundane as human ego.  Yes, it takes a certain amount of ego to get hypotheses advanced, but when you "lose" in the battle of hypotheses, you should graciously concede and get out of the way; I mean, do guys like Bugliosi "Reclaim History", what gigantic silly hubris.  

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service