Comments - "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?" An introduction to the issues (for another forum but suitable for reposting here) - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-28T18:41:33Zhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=3488444%3ABlogPost%3A7115&xn_auth=noExtraordinary, Bill! Great wo…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-08-25:3488444:Comment:71362010-08-25T14:23:00.000ZJames H. Fetzerhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JamesHFetzer
Extraordinary, Bill! Great work. I have already sent it to two discussion threads about video fakery. THANKS!
Extraordinary, Bill! Great work. I have already sent it to two discussion threads about video fakery. THANKS! For most people the following…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-08-25:3488444:Comment:71352010-08-25T05:48:44.000ZBill Giltnerhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BillGiltner
For most people the following will mean nothing. I did a slow motion review of one of the less analyzed videos of the 2nd hit on 9/11. Voice over annotation. Link: <a href="http://screenr.com/P2O" target="_blank">http://screenr.com/P2O</a>
For most people the following will mean nothing. I did a slow motion review of one of the less analyzed videos of the 2nd hit on 9/11. Voice over annotation. Link: <a href="http://screenr.com/P2O" target="_blank">http://screenr.com/P2O</a> That link is a great find fro…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-08-24:3488444:Comment:71302010-08-24T21:46:34.000ZJames H. Fetzerhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JamesHFetzer
That link is a great find from 1996! Five years before 9/11 is just about right for having an operational version to test on suitable targets. Excellent! Very interesting. Pilots for 9/11 Truth, of course, has studied the flight data recorder data provided by the NSTB as that for Flight 77 and found that it corresponds to a trajectory almost perpendicular to the building heading due east rather than the acute angle of the north-easterly approach of the "official account", which would have been…
That link is a great find from 1996! Five years before 9/11 is just about right for having an operational version to test on suitable targets. Excellent! Very interesting. Pilots for 9/11 Truth, of course, has studied the flight data recorder data provided by the NSTB as that for Flight 77 and found that it corresponds to a trajectory almost perpendicular to the building heading due east rather than the acute angle of the north-easterly approach of the "official account", which would have been too high to take out any lampposts and was still to high to impact with the building, which it swooped over, just as the trucker buddy of a friend of mine told him. I know Jesse and have no doubt he was sincere in what he presented, even though I agree that the idea that the black boxes were found is a stretch. Judy's theory deserves respect, especially with this kind of confirmation. Great find! Jim,
I didn't mean to launch…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-08-24:3488444:Comment:71282010-08-24T21:34:47.000ZBill Giltnerhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BillGiltner
Jim,<br />
<br />
I didn't mean to launch off in another direction without acknowledging your comment: You and I aren't really disagreeing on much.<br />
<br />
As I was thinking about what has really teed me off with different stories put out the the 9/11 truth community over the past year, it has been things like:<br />
<br />
1. Jesse Ventura's way over the top emphasis in his TruTV special on 9/11, on the idea that the black boxes of the WTC planes were found, but that fact is being covered up. I see Jesse as a newbie /…
Jim,<br />
<br />
I didn't mean to launch off in another direction without acknowledging your comment: You and I aren't really disagreeing on much.<br />
<br />
As I was thinking about what has really teed me off with different stories put out the the 9/11 truth community over the past year, it has been things like:<br />
<br />
1. Jesse Ventura's way over the top emphasis in his TruTV special on 9/11, on the idea that the black boxes of the WTC planes were found, but that fact is being covered up. I see Jesse as a newbie / innocent, but I do wonder if someone who influenced the production of that video knew they could throw some disinfo in.<br />
<br />
2. The "big news" that the flight controller data released by the NTSB for flight 77 showed that the cockpit door was never opened during the flight after take off. For anyone who had been following the forensics on the released data, all the signs were already along the lines of the data being manufactured (there were an large number of reboots of the FDR computer, which is highly irregular). So, the headline was "hijacking impossible", when the headline should have been FDR data not worth jack to prove anything. The following may not be appr…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-08-24:3488444:Comment:71252010-08-24T21:01:10.000ZBill Giltnerhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BillGiltner
The following may not be appropriate in this comment thread, because I know so little about it's authenticity or what it in-fact means. On the other hand, it seems to fill in what we have info missing. A facebook friend posted this document:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11301948/Air-Force-2025" target="_blank">http://www.scribd.com/doc/11301948/Air-Force-2025</a><br />
<br />
It is obstensibly from 1996.<br />
<br />
It kind of goes all Judy Wood on the situation, which isn't necessarily bad... but it's always…
The following may not be appropriate in this comment thread, because I know so little about it's authenticity or what it in-fact means. On the other hand, it seems to fill in what we have info missing. A facebook friend posted this document:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11301948/Air-Force-2025" target="_blank">http://www.scribd.com/doc/11301948/Air-Force-2025</a><br />
<br />
It is obstensibly from 1996.<br />
<br />
It kind of goes all Judy Wood on the situation, which isn't necessarily bad... but it's always been just a little too much for me to handle.<br />
<br />
Has anyone seen this before?<br />
<br />
Look at sections 5.5, 5.6. Excellent commentary! None of…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-08-24:3488444:Comment:71232010-08-24T20:38:36.000ZJames H. Fetzerhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JamesHFetzer
Excellent commentary! None of the 20 points enumerated above is inconsistent with flying objects having been involved, with the possible exception of Shanksville, where I explicitly discuss the possibility that either Flight 93 was shot down or else landed in Cleveland! The planes involved in the flights were not deregistered with the FAA until 01/14/2002 in the case of AA #11 (which purportedly hit the North Tower) and AA #77 (which purportedly hit the Pentagon) and not until 09/28/2005 in the…
Excellent commentary! None of the 20 points enumerated above is inconsistent with flying objects having been involved, with the possible exception of Shanksville, where I explicitly discuss the possibility that either Flight 93 was shot down or else landed in Cleveland! The planes involved in the flights were not deregistered with the FAA until 01/14/2002 in the case of AA #11 (which purportedly hit the North Tower) and AA #77 (which purportedly hit the Pentagon) and not until 09/28/2005 in the case of United #175 (which purportedly hit the South Tower) and United #93 which purportedly crashed in Shanksville. If none of these planes was involved, that does not preclude other flying objects, which I explicitly discuss in "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?" in every version I can recall, where the video indications are consistent with reports from witnesses if what they were observing was a holographic image enveloping a missile, for example, which could fly faster than possible for a 767, enter a building in apparent violation of Newton's laws (because it was actually a missile, not plane, the interaction of which would have been quite different) and could presumably pass thought its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, but where the Munster-like cut outs in the sides of the buildings still had to have been created by cleverly placed explosive changes. Great post, Jim. I would like…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-08-24:3488444:Comment:71212010-08-24T20:23:49.000ZBill Giltnerhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BillGiltner
Great post, Jim. I would like to offer a slightly modified way of framing. I don't mean to be ad hom, disrespectful, or in any way distracting from the reasonable narrative and links you have provided.<br />
<br />
After review the videos, photos, documented evidence ( official / unofficial ) of the crash sites of 9/11/2001, I offer a working hypothesis along the following lines:<br />
<br />
None of the 4 jetliners alleged to have crashed at 9/11 crash sites were in fact present. I support you and others such as Dean…
Great post, Jim. I would like to offer a slightly modified way of framing. I don't mean to be ad hom, disrespectful, or in any way distracting from the reasonable narrative and links you have provided.<br />
<br />
After review the videos, photos, documented evidence ( official / unofficial ) of the crash sites of 9/11/2001, I offer a working hypothesis along the following lines:<br />
<br />
None of the 4 jetliners alleged to have crashed at 9/11 crash sites were in fact present. I support you and others such as Dean Hartwell who are continuing to push for consideration of variations on this track.<br />
<br />
I have definite criticisms of other theories and theoreticians which propose close cousins of what I state above. For example, although I acknowledge certain solid facts and reasoning behind that idea that one or more flights did not fly at all that day, I would cast my vote toward the idea that the flights did indeed depart the airports. I have to admit that fact that AA 11 has been associated with departing from both gate 26 and gate 32 is a mystery still vexing.<br />
<br />
Thus, I propose that uniformly, objects which impacted the Towers, and the Pentagon were not Passenger Airliners. Could the debris found at Shanksville been part of a Jetliner?.... I doubt it, but I generally try to withhold any conclusions about Flight 93.<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a combination of planted evidence at the crash sites, as well as some evidence being part of some kind of military aircraft which did in fact crash.<br />
<br />
I salute you, Killtown, Morgon Reynolds, Elias Davidsson, and many others for bringing forward evidence and commentary which has been essential. I have to also give Ace Baker his due, if only because his claims drove me to continue to dig deeper to justify my rejection of his "nose-out" fakery claim. This doesn't mean I reject all claims of fakery at the WTC.<br />
<br />
I think the idea that the speed of the moving object involved in the 2nd hit at the WTC rules out that the object was a Boeing 767 is salient. However, I think there are a large number of factors such as the nature of he impact and damage to the building and explosions around WTC 2 which also preclude that object being any unmodified large passenger jetliner.<br />
<br />
Clearly we see incendiaries, bombs, explosives in the WTC are at play (prior to any demo). along with what may have been part of the projectiles. For me, seeing in certain videos the detonations going off on the side of building of WTC 1, at the same time that the WTC2 strike is occurring is almost as jaw dropping as the WTC 7 demo footage.<br />
<br />
For many good reasons, which require a much expanded discussion, I reject that idea that there were no flying objects involved in the the WTC crashes or the Pentagon at all.<br />
<br />
In closing, I would ask that all to stop by the website: <a href="http://911truth.wetpaint.com" target="_blank">911truth.wetpaint.com</a> This is a wiki where I've being trying to create as an independent encyclopedia of 9/11 truth topics. Everyone is allowed to edit.