I said nothing about "official". Show some evidence, provide a source. I've even provided you with a template: a completely non-US, non-official source. Pretty simple.
Fetzer is currently participating in a meltdown over at P4T. The lunatics are running the asylum over there. No much 'consensus' over there ...
Beats me. Why do truthers post stuff that is without merit? Your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims carry no weight since you can't actually debate the topic.
I'm not attacking you. I'm merely asking if you apply the same judicious skepticism to all sides of the story. The "issues" have been debunked and explained so many times already. Anyone really seeking the "truth" should have no trouble finding it. Truthers can be shown the truth but they can't be made to see it.
from those, like Hannibal and Patriot911, who have offered many unwarrated and justifiable attacks upon me, including that I must have "abandoned ship" for not having posted replies before now. I have been preoccupied with another project, namely, posting "What happened to JFK's body? A cover-up 'on the fly'", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-happened-to-jfks-body-cover-up-on.html which illustrates the important epistemic principle that, when you are onto the truth, digging deeper and deeper confirms it. See, for example, "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then", "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", "JFK, the CIA and The New York Times", for example, all of which are archived at Veterans Today. (Enter "Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer".) Among the reasons I am not excited about the attacks that have been launched here is that those launching them display a number of telling characteristics: (1) they express certainty that their position is right; (2) they imply every aspect of my position is wrong; (3) they virtually never offer sources or references; (4) they are long on ad hominems and short on proof; (5) they appear to have done virtually no research. That doesn't mean they are not resorting to anti-debunking web sites, which provide them with pre-packages answers to objections like those I raised in "20 reasons the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong". But virtually all of them are amenable to relatively effortless substantiation. I have done that in many places, including, for example, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEzoBKAkzmU"]"The Global War on Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State"[/ame]. That presentation and many others are accessible via the Scholars for 9/11 Truth web site at http://911scholars.org. Those who serve as apologists for the "official account", however, avoid that at all costs. One reason is that most of the evidence is photograph, which means that they are better off not addressing it. Another is that, once you understand the case, it becomes more and more difficult to debunk it. Nice examples include that the fires in the Twin Towers burned neither long enough or hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. Even NIST admitted it had studied 236 samples of the steel. It determined that 233 of them had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F, which is that of an ordinary office fire. The other 3 had not been exposed to temperatures above 1,200*F, which is still relatively low. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. had certified the steel used in the Twin Towers to 2,000*F for 3 or 4 hours without incurring any damage by weakening or melting. In fact, the melting point for steel is around 2,800*F. And it doesn't happen except under special circumstances. Even if those fires had been far more intense, say, 2*000*F, those fires only lasted about one hour in the South Tower and an hour and a half in the North. There was a fire in the North Tower in 1975 that tested UL's certification. I burned 3 or 4 hours at around 2,000*F, yet when it was over, none of the steel had to be replaced. I talk about it in the lectures I have linked. Kevin Ryan blew the whistle on the false stories about the steel in an article he published back in 2004. It can be found in many places, including the web site, 911Truth.org. You can check it our for yourself here. Similarly for the other points I made, which were the result of collaborative research between me, other members of Scholars, and other students of 9/11. See, for example, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job". As an illustration of what I mean about "digging deeper and deeper", I had already concluded that video fakery of some kind was involved in New York and published, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", 29 July 2008. But I have continued to do collaborative research on this subject and have now published additional articles about the fabrication of the plane crashes at all four alleged crash sites, three of which I linked in an earlier post. The proof that Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air derives from Bureau of Transportation Statistics own data, while FAA Registration data shows that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005. So how can planes that were not in the air have crashed and how can planes that crashed have still been in the air four years later? These are questions that Hannibal and Patriot911 would prefer that you not consider. It turns out that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has now established not only that the plane that is shown in the Flight 175 videos was traveling faster than aerodynamically possible for a standard Boeing 767 but that Flights 93 and 175 were in the air, but far removed from their alleged locations: Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to have been crashing in Shanksville; and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, at the time it was supposed to have been effortlessly entering the South Tower. Logic and evidence are on my side, not theirs. Do some research. Check it out.
from those, like Hannibal and Patriot911, who have offered many unwarrated and justifiable attacks upon me, including that I must have "abandoned ship" for not having posted replies before now. I have been preoccupied with another project, namely, posting "What happened to JFK's body? A cover-up 'on the fly'", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-happened-to-jfks-body-cover-up-on.html which illustrates the important epistemic principle that, when you are onto the truth, digging deeper and deeper confirms it. See, for example, "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then", "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", "JFK, the CIA and The New York Times", for example, all of which are archived at Veterans Today. (Enter "Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer".) Among the reasons I am not excited about the attacks that have been launched here is that those launching them display a number of telling characteristics: (1) they express certainty that their position is right; (2) they imply every aspect of my position is wrong; (3) they virtually never offer sources or references; (4) they are long on ad hominems and short on proof; (5) they appear to have done virtually no research. That doesn't mean they are not resorting to anti-debunking web sites, which provide them with pre-packages answers to objections like those I raised in "20 reasons the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong". But virtually all of them are amenable to relatively effortless substantiation. I have done that in many places, including, for example, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEzoBKAkzmU"]"The Global War on Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State"[/ame]. That presentation and many others are accessible via the Scholars for 9/11 Truth web site at http://911scholars.org. Those who serve as apologists for the "official account", however, avoid that at all costs. One reason is that most of the evidence is photograph, which means that they are better off not addressing it. Another is that, once you understand the case, it becomes more and more difficult to debunk it. Nice examples include that the fires in the Twin Towers burned neither long enough or hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. Even NIST admitted it had studied 236 samples of the steel. It determined that 233 of them had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F, which is that of an ordinary office fire. The other 3 had not been exposed to temperatures above 1,200*F, which is still relatively low. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. had certified the steel used in the Twin Towers to 2,000*F for 3 or 4 hours without incurring any damage by weakening or melting. In fact, the melting point for steel is around 2,800*F. And it doesn't happen except under special circumstances. Even if those fires had been far more intense, say, 2*000*F, those fires only lasted about one hour in the South Tower and an hour and a half in the North. There was a fire in the North Tower in 1975 that tested UL's certification. I burned 3 or 4 hours at around 2,000*F, yet when it was over, none of the steel had to be replaced. I talk about it in the lectures I have linked. Kevin Ryan blew the whistle on the false stories about the steel in an article he published back in 2004. It can be found in many places, including the web site, 911Truth.org. You can check it our for yourself here. Similarly for the other points I made, which were the result of collaborative research between me, other members of Scholars, and other students of 9/11. See, for example, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job". As an illustration of what I mean about "digging deeper and deeper", I had already concluded that video fakery of some kind was involved in New York and published, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", 29 July 2008. But I have continued to do collaborative research on this subject and have now published additional articles about the fabrication of the plane crashes at all four alleged crash sites, three of which I linked in an earlier post. The proof that Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air derives from Bureau of Transportation Statistics own data, while FAA Registration data shows that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005. So how can planes that were not in the air have crashed and how can planes that crashed have still been in the air four years later? These are questions that Hannibal and Patriot911 would prefer that you not consider. It turns out that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has now established not only that the plane that is shown in the Flight 175 videos was traveling faster than aerodynamically possible for a standard Boeing 767 but that Flights 93 and 175 were in the air, but far removed from their alleged locations: Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to have been crashing in Shanksville; and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, at the time it was supposed to have been effortlessly entering the South Tower. Logic and evidence are on my side, not theirs. Do some research. Check it out.
Funny thing, Jim: you posted that blog before you ever posted for the first time here. The date on it is Friday, March 23. You first posted here on Saturday, March 24. It's not a good idea to begin your indignant post with a blatant falsehood. Tsk, tsk. How on earth will you ever reach a 'consensus' when you post such whoppers?
Dismiss the substance of the points raised, and straight to attack mode. For the benefit of the intelligent reader, THIS is the main reason I no longer take seriously anything that this gentleman posts. It's a never ending dance and void of specific debate.
These posts seem to have been missed by the esteemed Mr. Fetzer. Perhaps if he returns he would be good enough to address the points made.
Well, I had a terrible time getting the formatting right. The study runs 42 pages in its original and, because I was mixing and matching from several different sources--Word and Doug's original--I had to figure out how to get it right, which took more time than I care to review. You are right about the initial post, but I only finally got it right this afternoon. Sorry about that.
No worries, things happen. A question, while you prepare to address the points brought up by Patriot911: What kind of consensus do you imagine, and what result are you hoping for? In the many different factions of the remnants of the 'truth movement', I see little hope for reconciliation.
Hannibal posted this, which I take as Hannibal's agreement with Patriot911: Quote: Originally Posted by Patriot911 BELOW ground level? That's just TFF!! So the pictures we see of the mountains of debris are just imaginary? So much bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Your claims are directly refuted by the actual evidence found at the scene. More retarded opinion that does not constitute evidence. RESPONSE: Fr. Frank Morales from St. Marks Episcopal Church reported the fact that they were actually destroyed BELOW GROUND LEVEL. Many photos show as much. For a nice synopsis of what happened to the North Tower, go to "New 9/11 Photos Released" and don't overlook the video at the end, in which you can see the remnant of the core columns of the North Tower turn to dust like the rest of the building, which should come as no surprise, since the buildings in their totality were being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. See if you can figure out why they had to do it this way. CLUE: It has something to do with the "bathtub"! Yeah. Everyone knows anything flying that fast can't get that close to the ground. High Speed Low Altitude Fly-by's - YouTube This has been debunked as well. The hijackers never reset their altimeter which would still be set for 35,000 feet air pressure. RESPONSE: No, it's not a question of whether "anything flying that fast" can get that close to the ground (in New York or at the Pentagon), but whether a standard 767 could fly around 560 mph at 700-1,000' altitude and whether a standard 757 could skim the ground at around 500 mph at the Pentagon. The answer to both questions is, "No!" Check out John Lear's affidavit in Morgan Reynold's civil suit, which you can find here. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has also confirmed it, as I have explained several times now. Try here. Nobody but truthers claim Flight 93 hit an abandoned mine shaft. Flight 93 hit a reclaimed strip mine. Wrong yet again on so many levels. RESPONSE: There is no evidence any plane crashed in Shanksville. One of the reasons advanced is that it disappeared into an abandoned mind shaft. I have given several links to studies that include this point, which you are ignoring, "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/ "The Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?" (with Dean Hartwell) http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/ Since I have already explained that Pilots has established that Flight 93 was in the air but over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to have been crashing in Shanksville and that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered by the FAA until 28 September 2005, why don't you try to explain away the evidence? Why is it truthers try to pretend Osama is the sum total of Al Qaeda? Do they have hard evidence (a receipt or some other piece of physical evidence) linking Osama to 9/11? No. Do they have his repeated confessions? Yes. Was he the leader of Al Qaeda, the group they DO have tons of evidence for? Yes. RESPONSE: Osama denied he or al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. He also died on or about 15 December 2001. David Ray Griffin has published a book about it, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Osama-Bin-Laden-Dead-Alive/dp/1566567831"]OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE?[/ame] Even our own FBI confirmed that it had "no hard evidence" that tied Osama to 9/11. If you doubt me, search for "Rex Tomb, Osama bin Laden, 9/11". The problem is that you guys are impervious to logic and evidence and continue to spout off false claims that have long since been debunked, which makes it very uninteresting to debate with you. You have no idea what is true about 9/11.
Wait - was the link to Judy Wood's site intentional? Do you think that helps or hurts your credibility? Do you believe in the DEW theories of 9/11?
Who by name are you saying is responsible for executing the atrocities, and what is the evidence against them you are referring to (the best evidence first please).
Let me remind you of what you claimed: You claimed the entire debris field was below ground. This is a blatant lie. RESPONSE: No, it's not a question of whether "anything flying that fast" can get that close to the ground (in New York or at the Pentagon), but whether a standard 767 could fly around 560 mph at 700-1,000' altitude and whether a standard 757 could skim the ground at around 500 mph at the Pentagon. The answer to both questions is, "No!" Check out John Lear's affidavit in Morgan Reynold's civil suit, which you can find here. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has also confirmed it, as I have explained several times now. Try here.[/quote] A bunch of lying retards claiming something everyone else flat out laughs at isn't evidence. Is it extremely dangerous to fly a 757 that fast that low? Yes. Do you lie about the speed? Yes. It impacted at 530 MPH. Was it always flying that speed? Not even close. It was accelerating as it impacted the Pentagon as the FDR clearly shows. That's because there was no mine shaft. It was a strip mine. Posting lies doesn't change the truth. Did anyone find a mine shaft there? No. Was the plane recovered from a mine shaft? No. Therefore posting there was a mine shaft when it was only some retarded opinion does not make it true. There is plenty of evidence a plane crashed in Shanksville and that evidence proves it was Flight 93. You have the plane parts recovered. You have the FDR and CVR. You have the DNA evidence from every person on the plane. You have the calls from the plane. You have the radar evidence from the flight path of the plane. It isn't evidence. The liars at pilotsfor911truth can come up with any retarded claims they want, but they have no EVIDENCE to back up their claims. They have all kinds of theories, many of which conflict, yet they pretend they are all true. BTW, your link mentions nothing about Urbana IL. Maybe they realized it was such a blatant lie they pulled it. As for flights being deregistered.... how does that prove anything? Does a plane only cease to exist when it is officially deregistered? I was unaware that FAA paperwork had that kind of power! He did that ONCE when he was in the custody of the Taliban and the Taliban said they would turn him over if there was evidence. Since then he has repeatedly made that claim as well as other leaders of Al Qaeda. In the mean time, not ONE member of Al Qaeda has stepped forward and said it was NOT Al Qaeda. Believe whatever you want to believe, but there is no evidence Osama died in December 2001 and TONS of evidence he was still alive past that. Funny how truthers pretend he died in 2001 yet his wives, who are still in custory by Pakistan, failed to mention their husband has been dead for a decade. Who are we to believe? Known, proven liars like DRG? Or the physical evidence as well as the testimony of those closest to him? Wrong yet again, and apparently you failed to either read or comprehend my response. OSAMA IS NOT AL QAEDA. The blatant dishonesty of your post where you try to pretend the sum total of evidence all has to point at Osama himself vs. Al Qaeda only emphasizes the complete disregard of the truth by the truther movement. Do I doubt they have zero hard evidence against Osama? No. Do they have all kinds of other evidence that proves he is the head of Al Qaeda and thus guilty of 9/11? Yes. Do they have numerous confessions from Osama? Yes. Do they have the confessions of other members of Al Qaeda? Yes. Moussaoui, a proven and admitted member of Al Qaeda has already been tried and convicted in a court of law as being part of the 9/11 attacks. So squirm all you want, Fetzer. The truth is the truth. It is anathema to all truthers. BTW, since you ran away from the rest of my debunking of your lies, I am assuming you are conceding they are lies since you have nothing to prove your claims are true.
NEITHER_IS_ANYBODY_ELSE. Sorry-but-my-space-bar-is-broken. Al-Qaeda-was-first-mentioned-by-the-state-department-in-reference-to-bin-Ladens-charitable-front-company-called-(I-think)-the-Islamic-Salvation-Front-in-1996. Neverminding-the-propaganda,- Azzam-didn't-start-al-Qaeda-in-1989. In-1998-they-called-themselves-the-World-Islamic-Front-Against-the-Jews-and-Crusaders. The-leader-from-Kashmir-withdrew-years-ago-and-their-inspiration-is-as-meaningless-as-Zawahiri-is-to-Egyptians...mainly-because-Mubarak-is-now-gone. So-unless-you-believe-Zawahiri-can-inspire-more-than-his-American-sidekick-then-al-Qaeda-is-no-more-than-the-propaganda-it-always-was-and-the-war-is-over. This-means-we-can-now-return-habeus-corpus-and-learn-how-KSM-was-radicalized-at-a-small-Baptist-college.(It-was-the-shoes)
He pretty much speaks for me Jim.I couldnt say it better myself.But yeah great work,you took the paid shills here to school and they know it.yeah thats how we know their paid shills,their the same characters every day,post after post,year after year,yeah excellent work,well done.again its great to see you take the paid shills here to school.with your excellent work I see you have done just here in this one thread, I have to assume you really are the REAL Jim Fetzer? You have to be because your homework you have done is extremely impressive.
those two posters you just mentioned at the very beginning yeah they can only sling crap in defeat and go on personal attacks since you are destroying and shooting down their fairy tales. Yep Jim you nailed it,you found out what everybody seeking the truth that comes here finds out immediately in their first posts they make within minutes finds out,that those two posters you mentioned in the beginning have virtually done no research whatsoever into this case at all.Best to put them on ignore.They expose their REAL motive here everytime and people like you spot them instantly what their truely all about.they know it was an insie job as well as we do.
The proof that Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air derives from Bureau of Transportation Statistics own data, while FAA Registration data shows that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005. And this means what,exactly?..If you were honest and actually did some research you'd find that it's common to find planes still on the rolls YEARS after they crashed
