Theory of 9/11 video "cloning" has no basis in fact.

[Ben Collet]

Ozzy bin Oswald's assertion that all the video from 9/11 is fake is unsupported by any evidence. The two segments of smoke given as an example of video "cloning" on close examination actually show nothing of the kind.

[Bill Giltner]

I'm still looking at this whole WTC / plane mess and continue to think there is a "high tech" explanation for how the flying objects "melted" into the WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Has anyone proposed the type of technology ("Laser Canon") described at this url: http://www.popsci.com/node/19965

[James H. Fetzer]

An appealing hypothesis that may still not cover all of the evidence, in my view, is that something hit the North Tower, but it wasn't a 767; that video fakery was used in lieu of a plane for the South Tower; that a 757 flew toward the Pentagon but swerved and flew over it; and that a 757 did not crash in Shanksville but might have been shot down or else landed in Cleveland! Here's a summary of the evidence relevant to these questions:

CONSIDER:

We know the government has never proven that the "hijackers" were on board:

Elias Davidsson, "No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11"
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&vi...

We know that all the phone calls from all the alleged "planes" were faked:

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

We know the government not produced any debris uniquely IDed to the "planes":

James H. Fetzer, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-...

We know there are indications that the engine at Church & Murray was planted:

See the Jack White studies, including "murraypickupdelivery.jpg" attached.

We know the speed of the plane shown hitting the South Tower was impossible:

Regarding the speed of Flight 175, here's an interview with an aeronautical
engineer, which you can hear http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pf_011909.mp3

We know that no real plane could have traveled that fast at that altitude*:

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-on-the and
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-in-the

We know there are lots of exaggerated stories about the alleged witnesses:

http://sparkoflife.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/the-study-of-911-eyewit...

We know there are also many oddities about the alleged "passenger lists":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze5Fg9Nw9YA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0qbhOUcO2Q&feature=related

We know there are oddities about the deregistration of the alleged "planes":

AA#ll (serial number 22332) was deregistered on
1/14/2002. Reason for cancellation: Destroyed

AA#77 (serial number 24602) was deregistered on
1/14/2002. Reason for cancellation: Destroyed

UA#175 (serial number 21873) was deregistered on
9/28/2005. Reason for cancellation: Cancelled

UA#93 (serial number 28142) was deregistered on
9/28/2005. Reason for cancellation: Cancelled

My presumption is that mature people argue their case based on evidence.

Jim

* Where I am inferring that the same obstacles apply to any other plane.