A reader comment regarding the "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" article . . . Jim's reply . . . emphasis added by me. Oh my God!! This guy is nuttier than a fruitcake. No offense to fruitcakes intended. I like them actually. My Mom, rest her soul, made an excellent one. Regarding the "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners" . . . if DRG is to be believed, then he is in essence claiming that all of the friends and family members who received calls from loved ones from the hijacked planes are . . . what . . . liars? . . . co-conspirators? Or as Scott likes to claim, did the CIA "get to them" too? What is his position on this?
While I don't deny that the government has been force feeding us BS about 9/11 (and none of what you posted is new information to me), I have heard people on this forum and elsewhere address all of these issues, and I am not convinced either way. Government lies are not, of themselves, proof of direct involvement. But you claim LIHOP is a "cover story" for MIHOP. I suggest that the reverse is true. The many wild and contradictory MIHOP scenarios (energy beams, thermite, holograms, plane swiches, etc.) serve to undermine the credibility of the movement and distract us from what we all saw. MIHOP people say "the government did this and the government did that", but we all witnessed what the government did on 9/11: not a god(*)(*)(*)(*) thing. They sat around with their thumbs up their asses, reading children's books about pet goats and waiting for Al Qeada to deliver their blank check. And there is a little bit of government involvement in the LIHOP theory, just not as much. Mostly, as I said, it is about strategically looking the other way, like the Able Danger drills and the decoy terrorists. To the others who have posted on this thread: most of you are completely off topic. If you are not a "9/11 truther", you have no place in this thread, and I respectfully suggest that you direct your comments to one of the numerous other 9/11 threads on this forum, where your views would be relevant to the topic at hand. This thread is about consolidation within the 9/11 truth movement. If you are not in it, if you support the official government story, then you are in the wrong place.
I'm afraid you'll have to look far outside this forum in order to bring about some consolidation within the truth movement. http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html I don't really think that that is what Fetzer intended anyway given his participation in the thread so far. But, since you asked so politely, I shall do as you wish and bow out of this thread and merely observe. Unless of course Fetzer responds to my points or attacks me again. Then I shall reserve the right to reenter the debate.
I'm not surprised that Fetzer's strong suit isn't physics. Though I have to say I'm not entirely impressed with the quality of debate thus far. I'm more interested in how Wood could miss the point that a massive cloud of steel dust would burst into brilliant and intense flame the second it came into contact with oxygen. I suppose a degree in mechanics of materials might not include much on chemistry of materials. I just find that obvious oversight astonishing.
So, Jim..... how is the concensus building going? So far all you've managed to do is expose your posts as the ignorant crap that they are. I've seen some truthers cheering you on, but that's not the same as joining in with you, is it. Nope. So what is it you actually believe happened on 9/11. I've seen you bounce from theory to theory with no concern for how retarded they are or the fact they conflict with one another. How about coming up with a theory you like and sticking with it. Seems like you're a big fan of dental assistant Judy Wood. She is a big enough nutjob for any truther to worship, but I doubt you're going to get many truthers to get in line behind you. The few that have tried to defend Judy's crap got their butts handed to them in short order. Still believe in her billiard ball theory? You know the one.... where the entire collapse would have to come to a complete stop on every floor on the way down and take 97 seconds. You wouldn't trust an accountant that can't add two numbers together and come up with the same answer, so why would you believe a supposed engineer when she can't even get very simple physics anywhere even close to correct! Well, anyway. Good luck with your consensus building. You're going to need it. Truthers in general know better than to get behind any one theory because as soon as they do, they get proven wrong and then look like complete idiots when they then get behind a different, contradictory theory and pretend now THIS theoy is the right one.
Anyone who takes a look at the facade of one of the towers can determine that the surface area of steel and concrete was easily more than half of the surface area as a whole. That Fangbeer tries to pull stunts like this is very revealing. The plane should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the floor. If this guy is going to scam you on something as obvious as this, what is there he won't distort?
Whatever. I find it more than exasperating to deal with many of those here who have no respect for logic and evidence . Is this the best you've got?
Let's see. You ALREADY KNOW (1) that the government has never proven that any of the hijackers were aboard any of those planes; (2) that all of the phone calls from all of those planes were faked; (3) that of the millions of uniquely identifiable component parts from those planes, the government has yet to produce even one; (4) that around 100 improbable events had to occur for the Naudet Brothers to be in the right position to take their film; and, (5) that the footage of Flight 175 shows a plane traveling at an impossible speed for a Boeing 757, making an impossible entry into the South Tower, and passing its whole length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air . . . and you are still "not convinced either way"? Have you read "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots", by the way? I think you might find some of the answers you are looking for there.
Jim made this thread about the 9/11 research community. He did so here: and here: The "9/11 research community" is not limited to self described truthers. If Jim is looking for consensus among the people who have researched 9/11, he's going to have to include our opinions as well.
They had to fake the airplanes in New York because (a) they could not have penetrated the buildings before exploding, which they need to have a pseudo-explanation for the "collapse" of the buildings; (b) they needed to have them hit the buildings at the right time in relation to the explosions int he subbasements that drained the sprinkler systems; and (c) it is difficult to hit a relatively narrow target (208' wide) at high speed in an airplane. So to make sure it all came out right, they faked the planes. See, for example, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job" by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong and visit killtown's excellent site, where he also addresses this question.
Let's try something a little different. Let's focus on one crucial question, namely, "Did the Twin Towers collapse?" Instead of taking a "scatter shot" approach, let's approach this with greater focus. This is an appropriate question for us to address, since if the government has been lying to us about this, there can be no good reason to doubt that it has been lying to us about lesser aspects of 9/11. Here is a news report by Joshua Blakeney for PressTV about Richard Gage, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/233912.html and [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O1VRV7PWdI&list"]Architects & engineers evidence proves 9/11 story fake - YouTube[/ame] I have recommended "This is an orange" and "9/11: The Towers of Dust". I have "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11" at ATS, which is accessible via this link: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread662308/pg1 The differences in the modes of destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 are rather substantial, include the following important characteristics: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WTC-1 & WTC-2 / WTC-7 . . . Sequence: . . . . . . Top down . / . Bottom up . . . Floor motion: . . Stationary . / Falling together . . . Mechanism: . . Pulverization* / Controlled Demolition . . . Time/Speed: . . About 10 secs. / About 6.5 secs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (~ free fall) . . (~ free fall) . . . Remnants: . . . . No pancakes . . / . Pancakes . . . . . . . . . . . . (below ground level) . (5-7 floors) They display substantial difference even in gross appearance: On WTC-7, watch YouTube: "This is an Orange" [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk"]WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube[/ame] On the Twin Towers, see: "9/11: Towers of Dust" [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPJUP-Ry7d0"]9/11: The Towers of Dust - YouTube[/ame] Their modes of destruction thus appear to have been different. . . . Debris motion: . Upward & . / . Remaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outward . . . . . Intact . . . Key Difference: . Explosion . / . Implosion If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not. And those who continue to insist that the Twin Towers "collapsed" are revealing themselves. For more proof that the government has been lying to us and that some of those here are defending the indefensible, see "New 9/11 Photos Released", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html
There was no concrete on the outer surface of the building. The steel on the surface of the building was much less then half of the surface area. I'm going to have to ask that you back up your claim with actual data. I'll give you some help. The columns were 476.25mm wide, and the space between them was 558.8mm. Doesn't look good for your argument, does it? Enough unsupported flustering. Back up your claim with data, please. You can start with a study that reproduces the Purdue study, but ends up with your results instead of the Purdue results. That would be something, wouldn't it?
So a thin facade is suppose to demolish a plane moving at 500mph?!? Thanks for proving the only thing scholarly about scholars for 9/11 is the fact they are absolutely incapable of coherent thought. Your posts are a prime example. I am surprised you didn't try to pretend the plane should have just bounced off! Thanks for the entertainment, Jim!
This first claim has already been proven to be moronic bordering on retarded. Are there explosives in the nose of a plane? No. Is there fuel in the nose of a plane? No. Where is the fuel? In the wings. Does fuel explode on contact with air? No. Is the fuel explosive enough to stop a plane moving 500mph? Not even clsoe. Was the WTC solid? Nope. Is a thin fascade of steel enough to stop a 767 going full speed? No. There you go. Facts you cannot refute so you run like the rest of the truthers. Were there explosions in the sub-basement? No. Even Willy R. said so on 9/11. It wasn't until he became a lying piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) truther that his story changed to massive explosions. Want more proof? There isn't a single fire fighter on 9/11 that saw evidence of bombs going off in the basement. It would be there job to know and if it had happened, someone would have reported it. Did Slick Willy R? Nope. Even HE didn't think there were bombs down there at the time or he would have reported them. Were the sprinkler systems severed? Yes. AT THE SITE OF THE IMPACT! No it isn't. You line up far away from the target and keep it centered in your windscreen. Even a complete moron like a truther could do it if anyone ever trusted them enough to let them close to a simulator or (heaven forbid) an actual plane. And how did they do that? Balloons? Mass psychotropic drugs to fool all the witnesses? Did someone perfect 3D holograms viewable from any angle? How did they get the steel around the explosions to bend IN if nothing actually hit it? More questions you will run from. First Wood now Killtown? You run with some real moronic crap if you actually believe what they write! I wouldn't admit to even knowing them, much less believing any of their crap! But hey. It is your credibility. As for seismic proof, several seismic stations picked up the impacts and none picked up the distinct siganture of bombs going off. You lose. AGAIN.
Do you have anything, I mean just one shred of evidence to back this claim up? Any piece of credible evidence or research to say that this is even remotely possible or are you just going to cite yourself or the dental tech Judy Wood again? After citing yourself and trying to direct us to read your fantasy writings, you move onto a different subject and ignore anyone who has refuted your assertions point by point. Then you accuse people who disagree with you of doing the same thing. That is the definition of hypocrisy. The same can be said for you, sport. You have not provided any evidence for anything you have claimed in this forum. All you are doing is citing yourself and trying to push your own writings to enrich your inflated, delusional ego.
I read some of the first responder oral histories last night. William Walsh reported bomb damage in the concourse lobby on pages 5,6 and 7. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110442.PDF
Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110442.PDF Where does he report 'bomb damage' on these pages?
Since Fetzer is already trying to change the subject with a new topic I thought I would list out the two previous issues raised with his premises that have not been properly addressed. 1. The steel in the buildings could not have turned to dust. A. Steel is mostly comprised of unoxidized iron. A thin passivation layer of oxidation prevents this "inner" iron from reacting with oxygen in the environment. B. Iron rapidly oxidizes at room temperature. This rapid oxidation releases large amounts of heat and light. Rapid oxidation is called combustion. In iron we call it a spark. In samples with a high volume to surface area ratio, the heat is conducted away from the reaction fast enough for a passivation layer to form. In samples with a high surface area to volume ratio, it's possible for the entire sample to be consumed. C. Small dust particles have a high surface area to volume ratio. D. If large amounts of unoxidized iron from the towers was reduced to small particles and exposed to oxygen in the atmosphere we would have witnessed the combustion of the iron, or sparks. E. We did not witness evidence of the combustion of iron. 2. An aircraft traveling at 500+ miles an hour would not have been reflected off the side of the WTC structure. A. An aircraft traveling 500+ miles an hour generates an extremely high PSI over a relatively small surface area. B. The PSI generated was higher than the shear strength of the spandrel assemblies in the region of the impact. C. The momentum of the aircraft carried it beyond the sheared spandrel assemblies and outer columns and as a result the aircraft entered the building.
He reported damage, not bomb damage. Blatantly lying like that does nothing to help your credibility, does it. So why, if the lobby damage was bomb damage like you claim, hasn't a single fire fighter actually stepped forward to correct everyone and to have people looking for the people who set the bomb? That is part of their job as firefighters. They would owe it to the firefighters who died that day to make sure everyone involved was found and prosecuted if possible.
Pat, the firefighters weren't in a position to witness a bomb going off. Perhaps you actually think his description fits with the plane damage alone? I wouldn't expect a firefighter to investigate and prosecute but I would expect relevant truthful testimony; the kind which he provided.
He reported damage that I think was from a bomb. Elevator doors were blown off. The glass might have busted on impact - but burning bodies in the doorway? Also, you missed page 7.
Citing fake airplanes and killtown in one post. Well done sir, you nearly hit the stupidity Trifecta. Can we get some space beams to finish the job?
Controlled demolition would not have burned bodies. Controlled demolition does not use fire and heat for destruction: it uses pressure waves. What you think about one firefighters description (and you made it all the way down to W before you found one that fit what you wanted?) does not matter - what matters is evidence. Also, no I didn't. It is quoted in my post.
