9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Pilots for 9/11 Truth publicizes Rock Creek Free Press article exposing 911blogger as a disinfo site

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:49:05 -0700 [06:49:05 AM CDT]
From: "Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum" <forum@pilotsfor911truth.org>
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side? ( Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum )

jfetzer,

Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?, Rock Creek Free Press examines censorship

Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?
BY RCFP STAFF WRITERS

In the nine years since the attacks of September 11, 2010, 9/11 truth has become a significant social movement, with hundreds of millions of adherents worldwide. A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll in 2006 found that 36% of Americans believe that the US government either promoted the attacks, or intentionally sat on its hands and let the attacks unfold.

Since 2005, the leading portal for news and discussion about 9/11 has been 911blogger.com. Of the many websites for researchers investigating the events of 9/11 (a Google search for “9/11truth” brings up over a half a million results), 911blogger is the most heavily trafficked. The content is user-generated; registered users post items of interest and other users post comments.

But over the past two years, many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause, while the moderators have become heavy-handed in squelching the views of one particular group. These actions have caused many of the banned activists to suspect that Blogger has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side, i.e., those tasked with keeping the truth about 9/11 from gaining widespread acceptance.

Click here for full article and other Hot Topics and Latest News.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20721

Views: 229

Comment

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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 31, 2010 at 10:56am
Yesterday, 11:47 PM
Post #18

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735

GroundPounder,

Thanks for taking a look. The video is very revealing. I find it difficult to imagine
how someone later in this thread could suggest that NPT has been refuted, over
and over again, if they have taken a look at this. No real plane could do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PORptq9a3k

About Judyth, I had a thread on The Education Forum, "Judyth Vary Baker: Living
in Exile", that ran for months with around 3,000 posts. I believe it was the longest
in the history of the forum. She has a new book out now, ME & LEE, amazon.com.

You can find fifteen YouTube interviews I have done with her at JamesFetzerNews.
I have several blogs about her at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. Most relevant,
I just interviewed Ed Haslam, her editor, archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

About NPT, the simplest explanation is preferable ONLY IF it can account for all the
available evidence. How do you account for the impossible speed of Flight 175?
its impossible entry? and passing through the building like passing through air?

Leslie Raphael has discussed Flight 11. I discuss evidence related to all four of
the alleged "crash sites" in "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", http://911scholars.org,
including a diagram showing the eight floors of the ST that Flight 175 intersected.

Your analogy with a bullet is faulty. A bullet is a solid, dense object. A Boeing
767 is an aluminum can filled with air, which should have crumpled, with wings
and tail breaking off, bodies, seats, and luggage falling. None of that happened.

I also discuss all four "crash sites" in "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified
by 9/11?", http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ and my Seattle presentation of
13 December 2009 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html

If you want to take a look at some of this, I would be glad to discuss it further
with you. You might like my public issues site, http://assassinationscience.com
and I encourage you to join the Scholars forum at http://911scholars.ning.com.

Jim

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Oct 30 2010, 11:39 AM)

well that just looks totally fake.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Yesterday, 11:59 PM

GroundPounder
Today, 07:16 AM
Post #19

Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 842
Joined: 13-December 06
Member No.: 315

thanks for links jim, i will most certainly take a look!

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Oct 29 2010, 02:47 AM)
Your analogy with a bullet is faulty. A bullet is a solid, dense object. A Boeing
767 is an aluminum can filled with air, which should have crumpled, with wings
and tail breaking off, bodies, seats, and luggage falling. None of that happened.

well yeah

the point i was trying to make was that softer materials can deform harder ones. the 767 may be an aluminum can, but it is a big and heavy one.

yes, the aircraft should most definitely have started to shred beginning at the moment of impact. isn't there video anywhere of a street level view just below the impact hole?

on the subject of frames, do you mean like 30 frames per second being what movie cameras used to shoot? or 24 frames per second movie theater movies? i ask because hoo fatt's analysis showed the aircraft ( whatever would have been left ) decelerating by half from it's initial velocity. the plane's ~48 meter length would have traversed that distance in .25 to .5 seconds, which could be up to 15 frames...

amazed!
Today, 09:46 AM
Post #20
Group: Valued Member
Posts: 2,886
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331

Mr. Fetzer

I think in your analysis of what an aluminum tube with steel components would ACTUALLY do when striking a building such as the towers, you're overlooking the obvious.

The building itself had windows about 2 feet wide, with about 2 foot spacing. Imagine a steel grate with those approximate dimensions. In any given horizontal section, about half is not steel, but glass.

My theory is that the exoskeleton of the towers were a type of sieve. The 350 knot aluminum tube had heavy steel nose wheel landing gear leading the penetration, followed shortly thereafter by 2 larger main gear assemblies made of steel, and 2 larger diameter engines with steel and other hard metal components.

Why would such a structure as the towers NOT be penetrated? Why would the aluminum components with such a velocity NOT be shredded by the seive? What laws of physics demand that the fuselage would flatten and fall to the ground below?
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 31, 2010 at 10:52am
killtown has gathered an excellent collection of ST hit videos here: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
Comment by Thoth II on October 30, 2010 at 8:26pm
Jim,

absolutely. The principle of total relevant evidence is also very much what I believe in. In fact, when we do not consider all the relevant evidence, that is when "special pleading" takes over and I think distorts truth, and maybe that is why so many factions of 911 truth are "getting it wrong", so to speak. And of course, just like your amazing team of expert on JFK sifted through the fake and real data on JFK, that has to be done aggresively on 911 also, and I believe the "Dave Mantiks" and "John Costellas" of 911 will continue to emerge to do just this.

Plus, of course, all possible hypotheses H must be included for evaluation against the data set, and let the "best H win" , tentatively , of course. Only the ones which do not satisfy the adequacy condition for scientific hypotheses should be outright discarded from evaluation.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 30, 2010 at 7:37pm
Thoth II, I would have difficulty disagreeing with you. But convergence of opinion would be the expected outcome of different students only if they were considering the same evidence, the same hypotheses,
and using the same rules of reasoning. Those conditions, alas, are seldom realized, which means that,
in addition to embracing abductivism, we need to make sure everyone is considering all of the relevant
available evidence and the full range of alternative possible explanations. Otherwise, I agree with you.
Comment by Thoth II on October 30, 2010 at 7:11pm
"Let's let Pilots know that no-planers are as much a part ot the 9-11 truth movement as they are"

I myself think that there is only one way to discover "truth" and that is a tried and try method of science like abductivism. Therefore, in my view , there should only be ONE 9-11 "truth" movement and that is one predicated on this method of abductivism, as the guiding principle for discovering the truth about 911. Of course, one could say I was a "utopian", expecting all these people to take the time like I did to learn scientific techniques, but if not based on a scientific method such as this, it is an IMPERFECT way to learn the truth about the events of that terrible day, or at least much inferior to the other way.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 30, 2010 at 3:07pm
Even Pilots confirmed that the plane was flying faster than would be aerodynamically possible with a Boeing 767. In conjunction with John Lear's affidavit, which you can find archived on this site, I 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.
Comment by Mehmet Inan on October 30, 2010 at 2:13pm
Jim Fetzer said: There are at least four problems with the
videos of the plane hitting the South Tower:

(1) it is flying faster than aerodynamically
possible for a Boeing 767, as John Lear, our
nation's most distinguished pilot, and Pilots
for 9/11 Truth have concluded (at 540 mph);

For all planes there some speed limitations depending on the altitude, direction, open or closed slats, … The maximum speed is defined for “steady horizontal flight” depending on the altitude. Generally the given speed is civil airliners is at altitudes similar to 10000m (8000-11000m). Sure UA175 was only about 300m altitude. It’s possible horizontal steady flight is smaller, I believe your numbers of 360kts with closed slats. But in lowering flight that speed can increase a little. According to my measurement it was 377kts. This is similar speed and so it’s perfectly possible, because UA175 was in lowering flight.

Jim Fetzer said:
(2) it passes through the building without
any crumpling, the wings and the tail don't
break off, bodies, seats, and luggage don't
fall to the ground, it doesn't even slow down;

To make slow down it’s necessary to get some resistance from the aircraft’s parts themselves. To make the tail breeak of or crumple, you need to get strong noze which can create some resistance during it’s crash. But the nose part up to the beginning of the wings is not strong to be able to create any resistance force. The central part of the wings, rear landing wheels and engines are the heaviest parts of the plane. This part can be localised between the two engines. This is the only part which can make some damage on the tovers, and they did. You ycan see the damage on the façade, it’s localised at that area situated between the engines. The nose which impacted before this part is pushed forward into the building with that heavy part. Then the tail part entered naturally from the hole made just before. Only the wing tips remained outside, because they are the only parts which hcan decelerate a little and which have smaller weight with nothing before and nothing after.

The damage on the façade is consistent with the entry of a B767-200.

Jim Fetzer said:
(3) the number of frames it takes to pass its
own length into the building is the same as the
number of frames it takes to pass through its
own length in air, which is obviously impossible;

As I explained on basis of physcal law F=m*a that the decelaration is impossible. Because the available time during which there was deceleration is so small that no speed reduction is possible. 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.

Jim Fetzer said:
(4) commercial carriers have strobe lights on
their wingtips and on their fuselage above and
below, but the plane shown in these videos does
not, which means that something is very wrong.

The lights are invisible during daylight.

Jim Fetzer said:
Here's a video where you can confirm points (2)
and (4). Think about the damage done to a plane
when it hits a tiny bird in flight. Yet this plane is
shown passing through a 500,000-ton building?

This consideration of 500,000-ton building is not honest. The plane does not impacting whole building at the same time. It’s only impacting some outer columns and crossing in the empty office space.

Also telling that a bird damages the plane does not mean the plane is weaker than a bird. The engine is one of the stronger parts of the plane, but put 10 birds inside it, the engine will be damaged.

In the earlier post, Jim Fetzer said: ”Well, as I understand the physics, you are simply wrong.”

You should review your understanding of physics.

Jim Fetzer said: “Why don't you review the studies of Stefan Grossman and tell me what he has wrong.”

I went to see that. I remember the subject of the dimensions ration of UA175 was arised in ST911 forum in 2006, and I made some measurements on the plane showing that the ration depends on the direction of the plane. The plane was not perpendicular and according to the camera direction, the ratios were normal. His measurement of dimensions A, B, C is wrong. Since that time in 2006, the same wrong theory did not consider my measurements and he continue to publish his wrong theory. I just published the measurement I made in 2006.

Jim Fetzer said: “The plane was intersecting with eight floors of steel trusses 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 central part of the plane between the engines is the heaviest part and it damaged the tower. Telling the plane is made in aluminum is not scientific, some parts are plastic, some others are titanium, and some others are aluminum …

Jim Fetzer said:
I agree that we can't both be right, but I have no good reason to believe that I am wrong.

I hope you are sincere in your study and you will study the arguments here up to make more honest, sincere and scientific claims.

If my English is not enough precise and you do not understand any particular point, feel free to ask it again. But do not remain silent while we are not agreed. That would mean you refuse to discuss the subjects; and that’s dishonest for a person who claims to be leader.

Again I want to emphasis that I do not want to aggress you in any way. I respect you and I want to continue to respect you. But if we want to be researchers, we must be able to study the subjects and agree when every aspect and evidence has been considered. If we are unable to study all evidence and discuss everything on basis of science, we should not consider our group as a group of researchers. I do not want to be part of any dishonest or deceiving group.

Up to now, I never wrote anywhere that Jim Fetzer’s group is dishonest or disinfo, but if that situation of status quo continues, I will be obliged to write it, because that’s what will be my sincere opinion that I made during 5 years. But before writing such claim, I need to check every detail and remove all possible misunderstanding.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 30, 2010 at 10:52am
Here are my latest two posts, which concern, in part, an attempted defense of the official account of "collapse":

Today, 10:34 AM
Post #11

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 8
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735

All,

Here's the argument distilled into four
simple points, with a video illustration.
There are at least four problems with the
videos of the plane hitting the South Tower:

(1) it is flying faster than aerodynamically
possible for a Boeing 767, as John Lear, our
nation's most distinguished pilot, and Pilots
for 9/11 Truth have concluded (at 540 mph);

(2) it passes through the building without
any crumpling, the wings and the tail don't
break off, bodies, seats, and luggage don't
fall to the ground, it doesn't even slow down;

(3) the number of frames it takes to pass its
own length into the building is the same as the
number of frames it takes to pass through its
own length in air, which is obviously impossible;

(4) commercial carriers have strobe lights on
their wingtips and on their fuselage above and
below, but the plane shown in these videos does
not, which means that something is very wrong.

Here's a video where you can confirm points (2)
and (4). Think about the damage done to a plane
when it hits a tiny bird in flight. Yet this plane is
shown passing through a 500,000-ton building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PORptq9a3k

I can't wait to hear those who maintain that the
videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are
real. The image of a plane may have hit the ST,
but it cannot have been a real Boeing 767. Q.E.D.

Jim

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

jfetzer
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Today, 10:49 AM
Post #12

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 8
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735

SanderO,

The buildings were constructed with a minimum safety margin of 20, which
means each floor could carry at least twenty times its expected live load. I
would have supposed you would know John Skilling's observation about this.
Visit http://911scholars.ning.com and take a look at Chuck Boldwyn's work.

The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to
weaken, much less melt. UL certified the steel to 2,000*F for three or four
hours without weakening, where a massive fire in the North Tower in 1975
provided a unintentional verification that their certification was "right on"!

NITS studied 236 samples of steel from the towers and determined that 233
had not been exposed to temperatures greater than 500*F and the other 3
not above 1200*F. Which means that the government's official account is
contradicted by the government's own evidence, which you want to defend.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower tilted over and were not even exerting
any downward force when the building began to explode. If you take the
top 16 floors of the North Tower as 1 unit of downward force, there were at
least 199 units of upward force to counteract it. There was no "collapse"!

Since below the 80th floor on the South Tower and the 94th of the North,
the buildings were nothing but stone cold steel, there was no reason for
any "collapse". And in fact the buildings were converted into millions of
cubic yards of very fine dust. For example, "New 9/11 Photos Released",

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/ne...s-released.html

As a test of your intellectual integrity, by the way, do you agree that the
four points I have made about video fakery/no planes in the South Tower
videos are impeccable? If you take exception to them after having spent
some time studying them, please let me know which you reject and why.

Jim


QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 29 2010, 09:23 PM) *

Jim,

I invite you to:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org

to both read their work and present your own ideas about structure.

I think you will enjoy the experience.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 29, 2010 at 8:38pm
Today, 08:20 PM Post #67

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 6
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735

Gerry Hiles,

After making a statement about your research ethics -- "I have no experience with flying/aeronautics and
so do not comment in this area of expertise"--you proceed to violate it. If you haven't studied video fakery/
no planes, then why are you dissing it as "off with the fairies"? As a former Marine Corps officer and Ph.D.
who has just published his 29th book--THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE--I can assure you that
I am not "off with the fairies". I would be surprised if you could even define "no planes" theory.

If you are going to stick your head in the lion's mouth, why don't you at least famiiiarize yourself with some
of the work and discussion of this subject? Try "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", for example, and the
discussion of "No Planes Theory" on this forum, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=42
Indeed, if you had read this thread carefully, you would see that Rob diverted a post on NPT to a separate
thread here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10790494

I would also observe that articles published on rense.com are the responsibility of their authors. I have one
there entitled "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", http://www.rense.com/general86/911s.htm Since the
first several paragraphs were directed at the author of an earlier article published there--to which I was then
replying--start with the fourth paragraph and tell me what I have wrong. Because my arguments supplement
those of CIT and Pilots own studies about fake Flight 77.

So give us a break. Do some homework. Then weigh in.

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

QUOTE (gerryhiles @ Oct 29 2010, 04:24 AM) *
I have little experience with 911Blogger, but I am a member of A&E. Perhaps they should merge.

I have no experience with flying/aeronautics and so do not comment in this area of expertize, except for a few clarifying questions.

However I do have experience in building and engineering, so I am able to evaluate data (not all) that is concentrated on in A&E.

It is within their/my remit to stick to the subject - stuff we actually know about.

Honestly Rob, if my first encounter with Pilots had been the 'Jeff Rense'-type stuff you allow in, then I would not have joined.

I came here to broaden what little knowledge I have of aviation.

I did not expect to be subject to "no plane theories", for instance. These are off with the fairies.

I am not interested in theories which lack all evidence and which counter actual evidence.

CIT manages to get half a dozen people to witness a North approach and ignores far more who witnessed a South approach.

To the extent that I can evaluate "black box" data:

Considering that you say that most of it is fake, why not altitude?

Just asking.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 29, 2010 at 6:26pm
Well, as I understand the physics, you are simply wrong. Why don't you review the studies of Stefan Grossman and tell me what he has wrong. The plane was intersecting with eight floors of steel trusses 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.

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service