Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = An Inside Job
9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/911-seismic-proof-video-fak...
Jim Fetzer
Many sober citizens are reluctant to conclude that 9/11 was an “inside job” because they cannot bring themselves to believe that their own government would deliberately kill 3,000 of their fellow citizens to promote a political agenda for the sake of oil, Israel, and ideology. The evidence, however, extends to the apparent use of video fakery on 9/11, which, I now believe, was necessary to create a pseudo-explanation for explosions in the sub-basements of both Twin Towers. Either should be sufficient to make the point, but in combination they are devastating.
Two studies that initially seem far removed from one another turn out to be intricately interrelated. In "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an 'inside job'" (original), http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html (also republished in a slightly revised version that does not affect the key points), Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong followed up on the report of an explosion in the subbasement of the North Tower PRIOR TO reverberations from the alleged plane impacts by William Rodriguez, the senior custodian in the North Tower, which he had lived through.
Using seismic data from a laboratory run by Columbia University and FAA and military radar data to establish the relationship between these "events', they found that explosions in the subbasements of both towers occurred 14-17 seconds before "impacts". They were meticulous in their research and their conclusions are well-supported by their data.
http://i53.tinypic.com/v77b88.jpg
Data Table from “Seismic Proof”
When Willie mentioned to me that the subbasement had filled with water, I realized the principal purpose of those explosions had been to drain the sprinkler systems of water. Since most of the jet fuel burned up in spectacular fireballs within the first 15-20 seconds, the modest fires that remained could have been easily extinguished by the sprinklers, had they not been drained.
Evidence that the videos of the airplane impacts were faked -- which I have summarized in several arguments 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 one they 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 in the 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 one of those in the North Tower. He survived the experience without having been burned alive, which would have been 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.
http://i56.tinypic.com/651zbp.jpg
"Fight 175" entering the South Tower
The indications of fakery here include that the plane – allegedly a Boeing 767 -- is traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed); it enters the building effortlessly with no loss of velocity, no impact, and no debris; and it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air – impossible unless a 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the plane’s trajectory than air!
Now it might seem reasonable, on first consideration, to suppose that it would have been simpler to use real planes instead of resorting to video fakery. The problem, however, is that hitting a target that is only 208' on a 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 a 208' 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 those videos) made it extremely difficult, indeed. In their efforts to GUARANTEE that those impacts would occur at the times required to "explain" the subbasement explosions, therefore, it was necessary to resort to the tactic of video fakery, where how it was done--with CGIs, compositing, or holograms--is an open question.
Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at UMD, is the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, http://911scholars.org.
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/911-seismic-proof-video-fak...
Jim Fetzer
Many sober citizens are reluctant to conclude that 9/11 was an “inside job” because they cannot bring themselves to believe that their own government would deliberately kill 3,000 of their fellow citizens to promote a political agenda for the sake of oil, Israel, and ideology. The evidence, however, extends to the apparent use of video fakery on 9/11, which, I now believe, was necessary to create a pseudo-explanation for explosions in the sub-basements of both Twin Towers. Either should be sufficient to make the point, but in combination they are devastating.
Two studies that initially seem far removed from one another turn out to be intricately interrelated. In "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an 'inside job'" (original), http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html (also republished in a slightly revised version that does not affect the key points), Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong followed up on the report of an explosion in the subbasement of the North Tower PRIOR TO reverberations from the alleged plane impacts by William Rodriguez, the senior custodian in the North Tower, which he had lived through.
Using seismic data from a laboratory run by Columbia University and FAA and military radar data to establish the relationship between these "events', they found that explosions in the subbasements of both towers occurred 14-17 seconds before "impacts". They were meticulous in their research and their conclusions are well-supported by their data.
http://i53.tinypic.com/v77b88.jpg
Data Table from “Seismic Proof”
When Willie mentioned to me that the subbasement had filled with water, I realized the principal purpose of those explosions had been to drain the sprinkler systems of water. Since most of the jet fuel burned up in spectacular fireballs within the first 15-20 seconds, the modest fires that remained could have been easily extinguished by the sprinklers, had they not been drained.
Evidence that the videos of the airplane impacts were faked -- which I have summarized in several arguments 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 one they 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 in the 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 one of those in the North Tower. He survived the experience without having been burned alive, which would have been 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.
http://i56.tinypic.com/651zbp.jpg
"Fight 175" entering the South Tower
The indications of fakery here include that the plane – allegedly a Boeing 767 -- is traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed); it enters the building effortlessly with no loss of velocity, no impact, and no debris; and it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air – impossible unless a 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the plane’s trajectory than air!
Now it might seem reasonable, on first consideration, to suppose that it would have been simpler to use real planes instead of resorting to video fakery. The problem, however, is that hitting a target that is only 208' on a 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 a 208' 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 those videos) made it extremely difficult, indeed. In their efforts to GUARANTEE that those impacts would occur at the times required to "explain" the subbasement explosions, therefore, it was necessary to resort to the tactic of video fakery, where how it was done--with CGIs, compositing, or holograms--is an open question.
Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at UMD, is the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, http://911scholars.org.
Views: 160
Comment
-
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 30, 2011 at 8:05am
-
Danny, I like your questions. The fireballs were real, no doubt, prearranged but real. Your thought that the water might have also protected the bathtub is very interesting as well as any effects for the use of nukes. Thanks!
-
Comment by Danny White on June 29, 2011 at 10:49pm
-
p.s. I wonder if the water remaining in the pipes could have interfered with the nuking of the towers? I understand 99% of the energy released by the nuke is in the form of "hard" x-rays.
-
-
Dr Fetzer: I've been thinking about the need to drain the sprinkler water with the first explosions. It dawned on me if
planes are factored out, so are jet-fuel fires. It seems as though the huge fireballs have to be part of the video fakery which was seen on TV, but not in real life. There would still be the need to not interfere in the smoke-show with the sprinkler water, however. I also wonder if the water could have been used to protect the bathtub somehow?
-
Comment by Thoth II on June 28, 2011 at 6:40am
-
the best laid plans of mice and men.... this stuff is getting comical. These guys never learn there is no "perfect" crime. Reminds me of the bloopers that Costella found in the Z film .
About
Welcome to
9/11 Scholars Forum
© 2024 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum