faster than is aerodynamically possible for a 767 (at about 540 mph, which is its cruising speed at 35,000 feet but impossible at 700-1,000 feet, where the air is three times denser); it enters the building without damaging it at all as it enters (as though it were flying into a 110-story stick of butter); and it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air (which means that the building provides no more resistance to its flight path than air). Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the first point. Newton's laws of motion are sufficient to establish the second; and you can confirm for yourself the third. (See "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11".)
It appears that video fakery was used to insure it went off as planed. Pilots who tried to perform the feat of hitting a 208' wide tower at more than 500 mph found it was extremely difficult and could not do it better than 1 time in 10. The question becomes how it was done, where the most promising alternatives are CGI (computer generated images), video compositing (especially by adding images to real-time images just before they are broadcast), or the use of some sophisticated kind of hologram (which John Lear, our nation's most distinguished pilot, and Steffan Grossmann, who has a book on this event, both endorse). I interviewed Scott Forbes on "The Real Deal" recently and he said "the building swallowed the plane", which suggests to me that the third explanation may be the correct one.
For an overview of the evidence that the government has been lying to us, visit 911scholars.org and read "Why doubt 9/11?" in the upper-left hand corner, where I lay out 20 proofs that what we have been told is not true. Then scroll down the page to "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?" for my Buenos Aires Powerpoint. Or visit http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ for "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Justified by 9/11?", from my London symposium. And stick around to hear Kevin Barrett address the moral and religious dimensions of arguments for the "war on terror" while Gilad Atzmon dismantled the political rhetoric used to support it. Where our Master of Ceremonies was Ken O'Keefe, the hero of the Freedom Flotilla! You won't be disappointed.…
VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
Part(s): 2 winmail.dat 92 KB
The purpose of this post is to show that if Flight 11 crashed into the north
tower there should have been tons of aircraft parts on the ground.
The attachment (at the bottom of the text) is a composite of the alleged
left wing of Flight 11 in the North Tower and its positioned exactly as
represented in the NIST report.
This means that there cannot be a change in the position
of the alleged left wing without a change in the right wing and the alleged
slot of the right wing.
Columns are arbitrarily numbered 1 through 15 just for reference.
The alleged wing is represented by 2 green lines with these 3 references
labeled, WING, Top of Wing, Bottom of Wing.
The left horizontal tail is referenced by 'Left Horizontal Tail', aa and bb.
The left engine is represented as a circle with 'Left Engine' labeled
inside.
Slightly below and slightly to the right is the alleged Edna Citron.
The cc inside the circle, represents her approximate height with a line at
her head and one at her feet. I assume she was around 5 feet tall but it
doesn't matter because we are only using this distance as a distance
reference from the Left Horizontal Tail to the bottom of column 13, 14, and
15 to show how much lower the left horizontal tail would have to have been
to hit these columns, 13, 14 and 15.
You will notice (ee) how neatly the steel columns, 13, 14 and 15 were
sliced, perfectly horizontal, and not at the angle of the left horizontal
tail. This is also the position in the wing where the bulk of the fuel is
but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of a fire. The perfect horizontal
cut may have also been the steel column joints.
Letters A, B, C, D, and E through which the alleged left wing passed are not
breached, that is, spars, ribs would have had to compress, break and slip
through the space between the columns. Any material that didn't pass between
the columns would have fallen to the ground.
Consider the large and heavy spars of the left wing: all of those spars
could not possibly have been severed over their entire length by impact with
the columns and then pass entirely through, disappearing into the tower and
leaving nothing to fall to the ground.
Considering the breach of the first spar would have ignited the wing tank
fuel there appears not to be much evidence of fire on the outer face of the
columns.…
er 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.…
Others warned me that he would pull another stunt like this. I think you all should know. He
seems to believe that, if he has ASSERTED that holographic projections are impossible,
then I,…
ith 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]…