9/11: Planes/No Planes and "Video Fakery"

[James H. Fetzer]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-vid...

by Jim Fetzer

 

Perhaps no question within the scope of 9/11 research generates as much heat and as little light as questions that have arisen over the role of the aircraft on 9/11, which has come to be known by the name of “planes/no planes” and of “video fakery”. While I have long since concluded  that no plane crashed in Shanksville and that, while a Boeing 757 appears to have flown toward and then over the Pentagon, I was personally unable to bring myself to take the idea that no real airplanes had hit the North or the South Tower until nearly two years of being verbally assailed by Morgan Reynolds, who understood these issues far better than I, where his studies can be found on his web site, nomoregames.net, especially a response to criticism he has received for raising the issue during a FOX News appearance.  Morgan has also authored excellent critiques of alternative theories of how theTwin Towers were destroyed.  It was the dawning realization that video fakery and real planes were logically consistent, since video fakery could have been used to conceal features of the planes or of their entry into the buildings, that enabled me to take a serious look to sort out what was going on here.  Even I initially through the very idea was quite bizarre.

During the research I have done on this question, some of the most important reasons to question the use of planes on 9/11 are (1) that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day and, (2) that, according to FAA Registration records I have in hand, the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005, which raises the questions, “How can planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11?” and “How can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?”  We have studies (3) by Elias Davidsson demonstrating that the government has never been able to prove that any of the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes and research (4) by A.K. Dewdney and by David Ray Griffin demonstrating that the purported phone calls from those planes were faked.  And (5), as Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed, although there are millions of uniquely identifiable components of those four planes, the government has yet to produce even one.  My purpose here is not to persuade anyone to believe the 9/11 planes were phantom flights on 9/11, but simply to lay out some of the evidence that supports that conclusion, even though I myself was initially unwilling to take it seriously.

[Chuck Boldwyn]

Quantitative proof for the impossibility of plane penetration would would lay the penetration vs. non-penetration to rest.
This would be just like proving the impossibility of the gravitational Vector Force collapse of a Tower, Vector Forces comparisons using Newton' 3rd Law of Action vs. Re-Action.

[Chuck Boldwyn]

We need the skills of a "materials strength tester" to assess the force of strength of the Wall's resistance against penetration by a Jet Liner.

[Chuck Boldwyn]

I still wish to know the Vector Force Support for the Tower Wall against the airplane's Vector Force of collision. That would tell all that the Tower Wall could not be completely penetrated, if the Wall's Vector Force against penetration were of a greater Magnitude.