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 Mehmet Inan on October 29, 2010 at 3:06pm
Jim Fetzer said:
You don't have a monopoly on truth. Anyone who has actually studied the films in New York, including both the Naudet and the Hazarkhani and Fairbanks videos, knows there are serious problems 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.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 28, 2010 at 9:47pm
Today, 09:23 PM
Post #4

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 4
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735

You can make the counts yourself. It's not that difficult, using a single-frame-by-single-frame advance. 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.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 28, 2010 at 8:10pm
I caught and corrected the typos in the versions that are posted at the Pilots' forum, I am glad to report.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 28, 2010 at 6:52pm
They moved mine to another loction as having been "off topic" So I have posted a second statement, which reads as follows:

Today, 06:47 PM
Post #37

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 2
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735

All,

My own personal experience with 911blogger confirms the view that it has long been operating to suppress dissenting opinions from its own narrow-minded take on 9/11. I was given the boot years ago for raising questions about the thermite theory of Steven E. Jones, which I do not believe can account for the conversional of the Twin Towers into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. See

"New 9/11 Photos Released"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/ne...s-released.html

And I am the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, where Steve was my pick for my original co-chair. Kevin Barrett, prominent 9/11 activist and co-founder (with A.K. Dewdney) of Muslims for 9/11 Truth was also later given the boot. We were not the only ones.

In relation to the work by CIT, I am on their side where their research has substantiated the findings of PIlots for 9/11 Truth, namely, that a Boeing 757 flew toward the building on a due east trajectory but was too high to take out any of the lampposts and flew over the building instead of hitting it. Read

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon",
http://www.rense.com/general86/911s.htm

for example, for substantiation. Those who have attacked CIT, including Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, and Victoria Ashley, are some of those who have attacked me repeatedly over the years. See, for example, two rebuttals I published exposing Jim Hoffman's modus operandi, namely,

"The Company You are Keeping: Comments on Hoffman and Green",
http://www.911scholars.org/Fetzer_9Feb2006.html

"What's the matter with Jim Hoffman? Abusing logic and language to attack Scholars for 9/11 Truth",
http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html .

911blogger is not the only prominent web site that appears to be committed to distorting or misrepresenting the movement. See, for example,

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op",
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

Congratulations to The Rock Creek Free Press for exposing this charade.

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 28, 2010 at 6:16pm
Craig,

You don't have a monopoly on truth. Anyone who has actually studied the films in New York, including both the Naudet and the Hazarkhani and Fairbanks videos, knows there are serious problems with them. With regard to Flight 11, see Leslie Raphael, "The Jules Naudt Film was Staged", http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm . 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. 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 . 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. So unless you are willing to admit that you believe impossible things, be so kind as to lay off those of us with higher standards. And check out some of my interviews on this very subject, including with Scott Forbes, who was astonished by his own observations of what happened on that day. You are not the only serious student of 9/11.

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Dululth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://911scholars.org

[quote name='Craig Ranke CIT' date='Oct 28 2010, 03:09 PM' post='10790483']
Truth seekers do not conflate legitimate research and evidence with debunked foolishness.

That is exactly what the attack hounds at 911blogger have done in their pathetic attempt to discredit us and exactly what you are doing by showing up in this thread with your very first post in this forum.

There is a reason why there isn't a NPT at the WTC advocate who has conducted an eyewitness investigation in New York on the level that we have in Arlington and it's not because you are right.

Now please stop your effort to derail this thread that is about a specific article regarding the censorship of CIT and our legitimate findings backed with truly independent evidence.
[/quote]
Comment by Ben Collet on October 28, 2010 at 4:45pm
Go to http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20721&st=20
Ranke did not seem to like my comment at all. Let's let Pilots know that no-planers are as much a part ot the 9-11 truth movement as they are. And we do not like being censored at 911blogger any more that they do.

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service