Contrived ridicule of conspiracy theories really means ‘Stop questioning, stop thinking’


Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory: just because he’s paranoid doesn’t mean everybody isn’t out to get him.

“Now it’s conspiracy – they’ve made that something that should not even be entertained for a minute, that powerful people might get together and have a plan. Doesn’t happen, you’re a kook, you’re a conspiracy buff!” – George Carlin

By Craig McKee

Every time someone makes fun of the idea of “conspiracy theories” they are exhibiting a conditioned response – like salivating when they hear a bell or believing a TV news program.

When someone asks me if I’m into conspiracy theories, I like to steal from Michael Moore and say, “Only the ones that are true.”

When I’m feeling a bit more energetic, I explain to this person that I’m interested in facts and evidence, and that the label “conspiracy theory” has been deliberately turned into a joke to marginalize anyone who questions how our world is being run and how we’re being lied to about it.

In his 2008 essay “See No Evil” in Online Journal, David Cogswell writes, “Conspiracy theories are not about conspiracies, they are about forbidden thought. The label “conspiracy theory” is a stop sign on the avenues of rational thought and inquiry. It says, ‘Stop here. Entrance forbidden.’”

So how is the term “conspiracy theory” ridiculed and dismissed? One way, of course, is through the news media (by definition, a conspiracy theory is advanced when someone thinks the media aren’t telling the whole story – or any of it). When the media use the term, it’s to describe something “those people think.” The question is always, “Why do they think this?” not: “Are they right?”

But nothing has done more to popularize conspiracies while at the same time marginalizing and ridiculing those who believe they exist than movies and television. Why the contradiction? Because making a movie about a fictional conspiracy does not help us to understand how real conspiracies work or help us to recognize them in real life. Instead, conspiracies are reduced to mere entertainment – in other words, fantasy.

Let’s start with the 1997 thriller Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts. It’s about a wacko conspiracy-obsessed taxi driver named Jerry Fletcher who embodies the worst stereotypes of someone who thinks everything is a secret plot. The twist is that he’s actually a victim of the CIA’s MKUltra mind control program and his instability is the result of what was done to him.

But before we find that out, we are treated to a lampooning of all kinds of “conspiracies.” In the opening of the movie, Jerry rattles off his checklist to any passengers in his cab who will listen – not that they have a choice.

He talks about George Bush and his New World Order speech, and theorizes that it was intended to get “conspiratologists” all excited and therefore destroying their own credibility (the same logic that some in the 9/11 Truth movement use). He tells us that George Sr. is a 33rd degree Mason in addition to being the former CIA director.

Jerry talks about how fluoride being put in the water is intended to take away people’s ability to think freely and creatively and make them slaves to the state. He thinks the Vietnam War was started because Howard Hughes lost a bet to Aristotle Onassis. And he thinks that right-wing militias aren’t concerned about the day UN troops come to take over America, they ARE the UN troops, and “when the time comes they’ll just take over, and we’ll all be toast.”

You get the idea. But here’s the line that really lays it out: When Roberts asks Jerry if he can prove any of his theories, he says, “No, a good conspiracy is an unprovable one. If you can prove it, they must have screwed up somewhere along the line.”

The thing is that in Jerry’s ravings there are elements of both absurdity and truth. But the truth gets lost because it is shown as being just part of Jerry’s paranoia. Oh, did I mention that he makes fun of people who write on the Internet and publish newsletters and “manifestos.” His newsletter, called Conspiracy Theory, has five subscribers – get it?

So the film reinforces every negative stereotype and then adds the twist that Jerry is the victim of a real conspiracy. But even that is undermined by the fact that the bad CIA guy is a “rogue” who the good government agents have been tracking. We’ve seen this dishonest formula in movies like Enemy of the State, The Bourne Ultimatum, Shooter and countless others. It’s always a couple of bad apples that spoil a perfectly benign intelligence apparatus.

Six years before Conspiracy Theory we had Ricochet with Denzel Washington about a cop named Nick Styles who is framed by a psycho killer that he put in prison. At one point, as his life is being pulled apart, Styles sits watching a TV show where allegations against him are being discussed. A paranoid talk show guest goes on a rant about who’s really pulling the strings in our world. Again, truth is drowned by lunacy.

“We believe Nicholas Styles is the victim of a conspiracy, and we know who they are – this insidious group that tears down every African American politician who dares defy their power. We’re talking about the Rockefellers, and the Trilateral Commission who along with the Zionists have been putting AIDS viruses in vending machines all across America!”

The respectable host looks at the camera as if he is sharing a joke with the audience and says, “We’ll be right back.” Styles, who really is the victim of a secret plot, still chuckles about the raving paranoid guy. The message: all references to conspiracies deserve ridicule. Because of the vending machine remark, we get to laugh at the idea of the Rockefellers being part of a conspiracy – when most informed people don’t find that to be a stretch at all. Truth and craziness come as a package.

The third example I’ll give is Woody Harrelson’s over-the-top Charlie Frost character in 2012. This guy makes the other two look cautious. He broadcasts a radio show from his trailer, keeps his maps on his “conspiracy shelf,” and predicts the end of the world while looking bug-eyed. And, as with the other two films, he turns out to be right. But he’s painted as such a ludicrous figure that being right doesn’t bring any credibility to the things he has to say. Oh yeah, he has a blog, too. Those crazy Internet people.

In response to a question from a caller to his show, Charlie says the impending end of the world is something “that could only originate in Hollywood.” It couldn’t be more clear: any secret that gets revealed by a conspiracy theorist could only be true in a movie.

These films show us that conspiracy theories can be true, but this is done in the form of a “twist” on reality. In other words, if we see it in a movie or on a TV show then we can tell someone who thinks these conspiracies are real that, “You’ve been watching too many movies.”

Another message is that even if a conspiracy theorist gets something right, they’re going to get a whole lot more wrong – because they ARE paranoid after all. So really, the idea is to laugh at what they say – even if the odd thing turns out to be true. Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

It is important to point out that most movies that feature conspiracies don’t have a crazy person like the three I’ve listed. In most cases, the conspiracies are deadly serious. But when we go to see a Hollywood thriller, we’re conditioned to expect a departure from what is generally true in the real world.

This brings us to The X-Files, which offers a more subtle form of misdirection. The show basically tells us that just about every conspiracy idea you’ve ever heard about is TRUE! They don’t make fun; they play it straight. But does seeing this lead more people to believe that all of these dark government conspiracies are actually happening? I would argue quite the opposite. The show just gives us one more way to laugh at those who believe that “X-Files-type” conspiracies are real. People can share a joke when they refer to the series’ catch-phrase, “The truth is out there.”

In some ways, Jesse Ventura’s show Conspiracy Theory is an anomaly but in other ways not. On one hand it brings very real conspiracies to our attention (Ventura is a rare voice who questions the 9/11 official story on mainstream news shows). But the presentation buys into all the clichés. It has an over-the-top “We’re not leaving without some damned answers” kind of vibe to it using dramatic and ominous editing, lighting, and writing – almost to the point of self-parody.

It’s really upsetting when people who should know better buy into the ridicule of conspiracy theories and theorists. For example, I have a real problem trusting any member of the 9/11 Truth movement who does this. David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, in their 2011 “Joint Statement on the Pentagon,” write that “the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories.”

In the wake of the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, it seems that the term not only became more common (with so many questioning the official story), but also this seems to be about the same time that the term took on so many negative characteristics.

Some credit is due to the CIA reaction to criticism of the Warren Commission Report in the form of a 1967 memo (CIA Document #1035-960). The memo advised “media assets” how to deal with doubts about the assassination raised by conspiracy theorists and how those doubters could be discredited.

Here’s one interesting line from the document: “Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.”

The ironic thing is that in trying to manage public opinion about conspiracies, the CIA was sending out instructions to supposedly honest journalists who were actually on the Agency’s payroll, misleading the public by writing what the CIA wanted them to write.

Call me paranoid, but isn’t that a conspiracy?

550 comments

  1. From “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK”

    http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

    Abstract

    The phrase “conspiracy theory” harbors an ambiguity, since conspiracies are widespread and theories about them need not be mere speculations. The application of scientific reasoning in the form of inference to the best explanation, applied to the relevant evidence, establishes that the official account of the events of 9/11 cannot be sustained. Likelihood measures of evidential support establish that the WTC was brought down through the use of controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757. Since these hypotheses have high likelihoods and the only alternatives have likelihoods that range from zero to null (because they are not even physically possible), assuming that sufficient evidence has become available and “settled down”, these conclusions not only provide better explanations for the data but are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    1. “Conspiracy Theories”

    We need to come to grips with conspiracies. Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All they require is that two or more persons collaborate in actions to bring about illegal ends. When two guys knock off a 7/11 store, they are engaged in a conspiracy. Most conspiracies in our country are economic, such as Enron, WorldCom, and now Halliburton as it exploits the opportunities for amassing profits in Iraq. Insider trading is a simple example, since investors and brokers collaborate to benefit from privileged information. Ordinarily, however, the media does not describe them as “conspiracies”.1 The two most important conspiracies in our history are surely those involving JFK and 9/11.

    One fascinating aspect of 9/11 is that the official story involves collaboration between some nineteen persons in order to bring about illegal ends and thus obviously qualifies as a “conspiracy theory”. When critics of the government offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a “conspiracy theory”, too. But what matters now is that we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as “conspiracy theories”. It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a “conspiracy theory” in favor of the other. The question becomes, Which of two “conspiracy theories” is more defensible?

    There is a certain ingenuity in combining “conspiracy” with “theory”, because the word “theory” can be used in the weak sense of a speculation, conjecture, or guess to denigrate one account or another for political or ideological reasons without acknowledging that “theory” can also be used in the stronger sense of an empirically testable, explanatory hypothesis. Consider Newton’s theory of gravitation or Einstein’s theory of relativity as instances. The psychological ploy is to speak as though all “theories” were guesses, none of which ought to be taken seriously. Various different cases, however, can present very different problems. Evidence can be scarce, for example, or alternatives might be difficult to imagine.

    Moreover, there are several reasons why different persons might arrive at very different conclusions in a given case. These include that they are not considering the same set of alternative explanations or that they are not employing the same rules of reasoning. The objectivity of science derives, not from transcending our human frailties, but from its inter-subjectivity.2 Different scientists confronting the same alternatives, the same evidence, and the same rules of reasoning should arrive at all and only the same conclusions about which hypotheses are acceptable, which are rejectable, and which should be held in suspense. And, in the search for truth, scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available relevant evidence, a condition called the requirement of total evidence, and is otherwise fallacious.3

    For more, see http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

    1. Dear Dr. Fetzer,

      You have made a career for yourself as a professor of critical thinking and scientific reasoning. As such, you won’t mind this critical comment. Before passing on my opinion, though, allow me to say that I have no issues with the substance of your two lengthy postings.

      You wrote:

      [T]hese hypotheses have high likelihoods and the only alternatives have likelihoods that range from zero to null (because they are not even physically possible)…

      This is an example of imprecise writing that introduces a wider margin of error to your critical thinking and is unscientific in its reasoning.

      The context for this abstract is that “these hypotheses” (plural) refers to speculation that deviates from the official 9/11 story. Indeed, these have large probabilities of being valid, because they can account for more pieces of the evidence.

      The confusion starts with your choice of the plural “alternatives,” which in this context refers to the official story. I will avoid the quibble that the official story has been lock-stepped promoted in the singular: there is only one version, not multiple versions. [Sure, corrections to details and refined speculation to evidence by the government has created some room for multiple versions of a particular scene, but without consequence to the flow or direction of the act, the characters, the theatrical production, or the commercial profits targeted by the endeavor.]

      Your bombastic usage of the phrase “likelihoods that range from zero to null” is what pegs my “unscientific reasoning” meter quicker than an ohmmeter measuring a short-circuit.

      Come on! “Likelihood” is a probability, a number. Even if that number has copious n numbers of zeros to the right of the decimal point before reaching a significant digit x or when engineers would write that significant digit x and multiply it by ten to the negative n power [e.g., x * 10^(-n)], it is still greater than zero if only by a tiniest of nearly imperceptible slivers. Break out your thesaurus to see what words you can find for very small.

      “likelihoods that range from insignificant to negligible
      “likelihoods that range from immaterial to inappreciable
      “likelihoods that range from slime to none
      “likelihoods that range from infinitesimal to tiny
      “likelihoods that range from miniscule to damn close to zero
      “likelihoods that range from teeny-weeny to eentsy-weentsy
      “likelihoods that range from little-bitty to itsy-bitsy
      “likelihoods that range from measly to niggling
      “likelihoods that range from trifle to pittance
      “likelihoods that range from granule to molecule
      “likelihoods that range from ultramicroscopic to subatomic

      The point is, if the government’s official story didn’t have some atom of believability, they would not have been promoting. You shoot your argument in the foot by equating that “little tiny something” to zero or null while at the same time putting on academic airs of it being in some scientific range. In my view, it stilts your whole thesis and makes me roll my eyes while I wonder what other unscientific gems of boastful overconfidence a reader will discover.

      1. One of Senor El Once’s weaker comments. When I am pointing out that events which are impossible have likelihoods that range from zero to null, your response does nothing at all to affect my point. The trajectory at the Pentagon, for example, flying 500 mph skimming the ground is not even aerodynamically possible. Hitting stationary lampposts without its wing being ripped off and its fuel exploding is not even physically possible. Flight 175 being shown flying at around 560 mph in those videos is not aerodynamically possible. The entry into the building was in violation of Newton’s laws and is not physically possible. The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. And buildings that collapsed cannot have been reduced to ground level with no pancakes! I am simply floored that you cannot appreciate the scientific absurdity of the official story.

        The whole case is riddled with impossible events, which is why I like Sherlock’s observation, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth! Even probabilities of zero are normally considered to be consistent with possibilities, even if they are extraordinarily remote. That is the reason I introduce those of nul strength to represent cases that are not even physically possible. Your post strikes me as a stunning example of trading on trivialities to mislead and confound readers. You are posing as if you were an expert to set up or justify the kinds of arguments that would make the events of 9/11 “merely improbable” or “simply unexpected”. Planes that were not even in the air cannot have crashed on 9/11; and planes that crashed on 9/11 cannot have still been in the air four years later! I am sorry, Senor, but you have revealed your true hand.

      2. Dear Professor Fetzer,

        The “range from zero to null” is not a range; it is a singular value or point and should have been never so formulated by a professor of critical thinking and scientific reasoning. It just makes you look silly.

        Accept the criticism to your writing as being valid and move on.

        You write such bombastic text:

        - not even aerodynamically possible
        – not even physically possible
        – not aerodynamically possible
        – violation of Newton’s laws and is not physically possible

        The fact is that each feature (e.g., 500 mph skimming ground) you describe has a probability associated with it, albeit a small one at that. Probabilities multiply to obtain the total probability, and when small numbers are multiplied together they result in even smaller number.

        IF the plane was as per the official story, then the total probability of it being able to do all that is attributed to it approaches rapidly zero. [Should be no disagreement.]

        IF the plane was not as per the official story, then the individual probabilities of it being able to do specific features (e.g., hitting stationary lampposts without its wing being ripped off and its fuel exploding) do not have to be small, and together do not have to rapidly approach zero.

        I am simply floored that you cannot appreciate the scientific absurdity of the official story.

        Professor, dude, like, it ain’t about that. And I’m not arguing for the official story anywhere.

        What it is about is your imprecise language as you attempt high-falutin’ academic speak that deploys mathematics, and failing.

        I am simply floored that you cannot properly apply scientific constructs in your verbiage, and then take such offense with a mere mortal, someone never destined for the hallowed halls and ivory towers of academia points it out.

        You want to act like you’re a professor with whacked out knowledge of science and engineering? Then take a lesson from your colleagues in the computer science department. What do they do (or should they do) when an error is pointed out in their code? They fix the error, and from that point forward it is like the error never existed in all subsequent versions of their code. You should do the same to your text BEFORE it gets published into book form. Ain’t no such thing as a range from zero to null and it has no place in a scholarly paper that wants to be taken seriously.

        1. This guy’s posts are becoming more and more revealing. He has no idea what he is talking about. He has conflated the meaning of “probability” and “likelihood” because he is ignorant of the distinction. Even the Wikipedia entry on “Maximum Likelihood” reveals that I am right and he is wrong. He now disputes a crucial distinction–which I have championed in articles and books–between values of zero (which are usually associated with highly improbable but still possible events) and values of null (which I recommend be associated with events that are impossible to distinguish them from events that are merely extremely improbable).

          I have offered many examples of events that are aerodynamically, physically or otherwise not merely improbable but actually impossible. These include a Boeing 757 flying at 500 mph and barely skimming the ground. That is aerodynamically impossible due to what is known as “ground effect”. He ignores the fact that I have elaborated on these points and accented the importance of the distinction between merely highly improbable events and those that are actually impossible. He ignores the fact that I have published extensively on all these issues in articles and books that were subjected to peer review by domain experts.

          It bothers me tremendously that a pseudo-intellectual like Senor El Once would come here and systematically attempt to undermine distinctions that are crucial to understanding why the official account of 9/11 cannot be sustained. Many of its claims are not even physically or aerodynamically possible, as I have amply illustrated. I am an expert in this domain, he is not. My research is meticulous and copiously documented, his is sloppy and irresponsible. A man who would ignore the crucial distinction between the improbable and the impossible on issues as treacherous and convoluted as 9/11 research must be completely discounted.

      3. “This Guy” who calls himself “Professor Fetzer” wrote:

        This guy… has conflated the meaning of “probability” and “likelihood” because he is ignorant of the distinction.

        Not really, but I’ll cop a guilty plea to make “This Guy” happy. “This Guy” goes on to write:

        a crucial distinction–which I have championed in articles and books–between values of zero (which are usually associated with highly improbable but still possible events) and values of null (which I recommend be associated with events that are impossible to distinguish them from events that are merely extremely improbable).

        “This Guy” doesn’t provide any linked article and book titles to prove his assertion.

        “This Guy” thinks that if he creates his own “Fetzer-ism” for common words or phrases at some point in time, cyberspace, book, or article, that it should then be considered ipso facto the new definition going forward and there be no need to explain to new audiences in a new context what that definition is, because they will automatically know by osmosis. [Happened before with the phrases “no planes” and “video fakery”, now it is happening with “zero” and “null.”]

        Being too lazy to validate it (or not) myself and having no desire to see if “This Guy” is capable of producing a posting with linked titles to back up his boasting, I won’t belabor whether or not “This Guy” has actually championed a difference between values of zero and values of null out in cyberspace. [Hey, I know there’s a difference in computer science, but we’re not talking C++, Perl, or even VisualBasic here. Were we, then those “Fetzer-isms” would confound us even more, because zero is a number and null is an empty or unassigned variable, and ain’t about improbable versus impossible.]

        In “This Guy’s” effort to spam this forum with mind-numbing re-posting of his previous work, “This Guy” has neglected to tailor his writing to this audience, has neglected to make his past writings relevant here [I still don’t know what his point is], and has neglected to provide necessary context or new definitions. Because of this, standard & common definitions apply which equate “zero” with “null” as well as “likelihood” with “probability.” Q.E.D.

        It bothers me tremendously that a pseudo-intellectual like Senor El Once would come here and systematically attempt to undermine distinctions that are crucial to understanding why the official account of 9/11 cannot be sustained.

        It bothers me tremendously that “This Guy” likes to write a lot of nonsense, strawmen, and flame-bait that are unbecoming of a university professor.

        “A pseudo-intellectual like Señor El Once”? Oooooh. I like it. I shall now make it my new signature.

        I am an expert in this domain, he is not.

        Ooops! With all of my interjections, “This Guy” lost me. An expert at the domain of being a pseudo-intellectual? No, that’s can’t be it.

        “This Guy” is good at appealing to his own authority. Too bad the domain in question is “Truth & Shadows.”

        My research is meticulous and copiously documented, his is sloppy and irresponsible.

        Oooooh. “This Guy” would have had me cornered with that one…

        … If only I had research papers, books, articles, radio programs, etc. that I could cough up that show how sloppy and irresponsible my research is. I don’t, because I’m just a pseudo-intellectual. Too bad. Fail.

        As much as I hate to be disagreeable, but as but one example, “This Guy’s” research into holograms is far from being “meticulous and copiously documented” and in fact has been proven “sloppy and irresponsible” in this very domain. Go figure.

        A man who would ignore the crucial distinction between the improbable and the impossible on issues as treacherous and convoluted as 9/11 research must be completely discounted.

        Oooooh. “This Guy” is good at making strawmen arguments. This humble pseudo-intellectual was not ignoring any such distinction. Sheeeeeet. I was just pointing out your sloppy and irresponsible writing mistake of not providing the “Fetzer-ism” definitions for zero and null.

        And with those “Fetzer-ism” definitions in hand, does the original re-written passage make any sense?

        … the only alternatives have likelihoods that range from zero [improbable] to null [impossible]

        Yep, makes sense. But why “This Guy” didn’t write that from the beginning and bullies me as his shoddy defense of his own sloppy and irresponsible mistake?

        … must be completely discounted.

        Oh, that’s right. Makes sense now.

        Geez, this merry-go-round could have been avoided if “This Guy” called Dr. Fetzer wasn’t such a pompous ass, full of himself, bully professor and could simply “embrace his mistake” with a simple:

        By jove, you’re absolutley correct, Mr. El Once! My re-posting wasn’t clear and lacked both context and clarity that would bring new audiences up to speed with my point. To the layman and pseudo-intellectuals in this “Truth & Shadows” audience, likelihood and probability would indeed be considered one and the same and interchangeable, as would zero and null. After all, null is the German word for the Engish zero. Quite sorry. I’ll be sure to clarify things better. No hard feelings, eh?

        Really truly this time. Q.E.D.

        // a pseudo-intellectual

        1. Anyone who thinks about it realizes that the use of “zero” to designate both outcomes that occur extremely rarely and outcomes that cannot occur at all harbors an ambiguity. Those of us who do philosophy take pains to differentiate between different cases, while those who do not love to trade in ambiguities and vagaries, as in the case of Senor El Once.

          Since he can’t understand the difference between probabilities and likelihoods, as we have seen, that he can’t appreciate the difference between probability values of zero and of null should come as no surprise. Just think about it. These are OBVIOUSLY distinctions that need to be drawn. I draw them. He does not. What does that tell you about our intellects?

      4. Dear Dr. Fetzer wrote:

        Anyone who thinks about it realizes that the use of “zero” to designate both outcomes that occur extremely rarely and outcomes that cannot occur at all harbors an ambiguity.

        True. But this was not Dr. Fetzer’s intent when he wrote:

        … the only alternatives have likelihoods that range from zero to null…

        His intent was to be cute in an academic-style paper re-purposed for a non-academic audience,” and I called him on it.

        And rather than cutting me off at the pass with an eloquent “mea culpa” and promises to fix it, narcissistic Dr. Fetzer regularly attempts to turn it around and flame the messenger. Conduct unbecoming of the honors that he boasts about having.

        Dr. Fetzer wrote:

        Those of us who do philosophy take pains to differentiate between different cases…

        I have highlighted the key to Dr. Fetzer’s failure to communicate well in this forum. He thinks that the audience and participants on Truth & Shadows are made up entirely of “those who do philosophy.” [Dr. Fetzer did his PhD in this. Certainly, Mr. Rogue has extensive interests here. To a much much lesser extent, comes little ole’ me, who was recently flattered by an impromptu promotion from a much lower rank to the grand distinction of “a psuedo-intellectual.”]

        As a result of Dr. Fetzer’s inability to fully appreciate the clarification needs of the audience here, he feels free to use his own lingo first unexplained, to rely on his faulty assumptions of “common” understanding of terms, to muster a truly blustery and ludicrous defense, and to bully all who don’t have his “piled-high-&-deep” (PhD) credentials but have the cajones to say: “I don’t get it. A range of zero to null is a big singular zippo, nada, nothing.”

        … while those who do not [do philosophy] love to trade in ambiguities and vagaries, as in the case of Senor El Once.

        The ambiguities and vagaries are entirely Dr. Fetzer’s doing, created by his first lengthy posting here and merely pointed out.

        Ask people in the grocery store about the “likelihood” of rain or the “probability” of rain, the answers will start trending identically, due to the common non-technical understanding of the terms. Conversely, when a panhandler asks people for spare change and the answers come back “I got: zero, null, nada, nothing, zilch, zippo, …”, the panhandler and those people asked will understand these terms to be equivalent.

        Because nobody bests a university blowhard professor in what he thinks is a debate on philosophy and his home court when it is really a debate on his poor choice of words for the audience [my home court], his chest-poundings about justifying sucky clarifications required early in his writings in this forum for this audience continue:

        These are OBVIOUSLY distinctions [between probability values of zero and of null] that need to be drawn. I draw them. He does not. What does that tell you about our intellects?

        Too bad that Dr. Fetzer drew them too late. Too late for this forum here. Too late for the web page (unless Dr. Fetzer knows how to change web pages). Too late for the publication in his book.

        And I’m sure the latter is what is bugging him the most. Nothing worse for an author to know that an error or an unclarity cannot be fixed in the hundreds of thousands [I assume] of his books that were printed and in bookstores & libraries everywhere, to serve as a constant reminder to old and new readers for generations to come that the author is fallible… on simple shit, no less, and shit that a professor of critical thinking shouldn’t be spewing out.

        I was originally going to write:

        Dr. Fetzer really doesn’t want to know the answer to his question: “What does that tell you about our intellects?” Consider it rhetorical with a margin of error in the range from zero to null [with standard, non-technical, non-statistical, non-philosophical definitions for zero and null applying.]

        But I would have been wrong, had I written such a statement and held it up as my final position.

        We need to distinguish between “knowing an answer (as feedback to improve personal behavior)” and “not caring about an aswer except in being able to use it as an opportunity to engage in a flame war.” The latter is where Dr. Fetzer has proven to “add value” to this blog.

        // a psuedo-intellectual

    2. Swamp – Swamping – Flooding – Rhetorical Deluge – Chest Beating – Arrogance – Hubris – Hooting Ululations – Fetzerisms – Tooting ones own horn…etc etc etc….

      A jaw tightening bitch wrench of mind numbing blather.

      Do we need anymore when twice as much is just as little?

      ww

  2. 2. Scientific Reasoning

    Scientific reasoning characterizes a systematic pattern of thought involving four stages or steps, namely: puzzlement, speculation, adaptation, and explanation.4 Something occurs that does not fit comfortably into our background knowledge and expectations and thus becomes a source of puzzlement. Alternative theories that might possibly explain that occurrence are advanced for consideration. The available relevant evidence is brought to bear upon those hypotheses and their measures of evidential support are ascertained, where additional evidence may be obtained on the basis of observation, measurement, and experiment. The weight of the evidence is assessed, where the hypothesis with the strongest support is the preferable hypothesis. When sufficient evidence becomes available, the preferable hypothesis also becomes acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.5

    Among the most important distinctions that need to be drawn in reasoning about alternative scenarios for historical events of the kind that matter here are those between different kinds of necessity, possibility and impossibility.6 Our language imposes some constraints upon the possible as functions of grammar and meaning. In ordinary English, for example, a freshman is a student, necessarily, because to be a freshman is to be a student in the first year of a four-year curriculum. By the same token, it is impossible to be a freshman and not be a student. The first is a logical necessity, the second a logical impossibility. Since a conspiracy requires at least two conspirators, if there were not at least two conspirators, it is not logically possible that a conspiracy was involved; if there were, then necessarily there was.

    More interesting than logical necessities, possibilities and impossibilities, however, are physical necessities, possibilities and impossibilities.7 These are determined in relation to the laws of nature, which, unlike laws of society, cannot be violated, cannot be changed, and require no enforcement. If (pure) water freezes at 32° F at sea level atmospheric pressure, for example, then it is physically necessary for a sample of (pure) water to freeze when its temperature falls below 32° F at that pressure. Analogously, under those same conditions, that a sample of (pure) water would not freeze when its temperature falls below 32° F is physically impossible. And when a sample of (pure) water is not frozen at that pressure, it is justifiable to infer that it is therefore not at a temperature below its freezing point of 32° F.8

    Laws of nature are the core of science and provide the principles on the basis of which the occurrence of events can be systematically explained, predicted, and retrodicted.9 They therefore have an important role to play in reasoning about specific cases in which those principles make a difference. In legal reasoning, for example, the phrase, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, means a standard of proof that requires subjective conviction that is equal to “moral certainty”.10 In the context of scientific reasoning, the meaning of that same phrase is better captured by the objective standard that an explanation is “beyond a reasonable doubt” when no alternative is reasonable. Notice that the falsity of hypotheses that describe the occurrence of events that are physically impossible is beyond a reasonable doubt.11

    3. Probabilities and Likelihoods

    An appropriate measure of the weight of the evidence is provided by likelihoods, where the likelihood of an hypothesis h, given evidence e, is determined by the probability of evidence e, if that hypothesis were true.12 Hypotheses should be tested in pairs, h1 and h2, where the relationship between the hypotheses and the evidence may be regarded as that between possible causes and effects. Thus, suppose in a game of chance, you were confronted with a long series of outcomes that would have been highly improbable if the coin were symmetrical (if the dice were fair, or if the deck was normal). If such a run would be far more probable if the coin were bent (if the dice were loaded, if the deck was stacked), then the likelihood that the coin is bent (the dice are loaded, the deck is stacked) is much higher than the likelihood the coin is symmetrical (dice are fair, deck is normal).

    A better grasp of probabilistic reasoning follows from distinguishing between two kinds of probabilities as properties of the world. The first is relative frequencies, which simply represent “how often” things of one kind occur in relation to things of another kind. This includes averages of many different varieties, such as the average grade on a philosophy exam in a course on critical thinking. The second is causal propensities, which reflect “how strong” the tendencies are for outcomes of a certain kind to be brought about under specific conditions.13 Frequencies are brought about by propensities, which may differ from one case to another. When the class averages 85 on the first exam, that does not mean every student scored 85 on the exam. It might even be the case that no student actually had that score. But each students’ own score was an effect of his propensity to score on that exam.

    It can be easy to confuse “how often” with “how strong”, but some examples help to bring their difference home. Canoeing on the Brule River in Wisconsin is not a hazardous pastime, but a 76-year old woman was killed on 15 July 1993 when a tree that had been gnawed by a beaver fell and landed on her. The tree fell and hit the woman on the head, as she and her daughter paddled past it.14 The tree was about 18 inches in diameter and 30 to 40 feet tall and stood about 10 to 20 feet up the river bank. So while hundreds and hundreds of canoeists had paddled down the Brule River before and escaped completely unscathed, this woman had the misfortune to be killed during “a freak accident”. It was improbable in terms of its relative frequency of occurrence yet, given those particular conditions, the causal propensity for death to result as an effect of that specific event was great.

    When the same causally relevant conditions are subject to replication, then the relative frequencies that result tend to be reliable evidence of the strength of the causal propensity that produced them. But when those conditions can vary, how often an outcome occurs may not indicate the strength of that tendency on any specific trial. We commonly assume smoking diminishes life spans, which is usually true. But a 21-year old man was confronted by three thugs who, when he failed to respond quickly enough, shot him. He might have been killed, but a metal cigarette lighter deflected the .25-caliber bullet and he lived.15 Once you appreciate the difference, three principles that relate probabilities of these kinds become apparent, namely: that propensities cause frequencies; that frequencies are evidence for propensities; and that propensities can explain frequencies. But it depends on the constancy of the relevant conditions from one trial to another.16

    For more, see http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

    1. Dear Dr. Fetzer,

      I wrote earlier:

      … [A]llow me to say that I have no issues with the substance of your two lengthy postings.

      I take that back, because I wrote it without reading your second posting.

      I have an issue with the substance of the second posting, because it was lacking as you blindly re-purpose snippets of a “new penultimate draft of a chapter” without even the courtesy of (a) removing the footnote numbers or (b) providing the details of the footnote number.

      Moreover, it is mired in academic gobbly-gook explained poorly:

      An appropriate measure of the weight of the evidence is provided by likelihoods, where the likelihood of an hypothesis h, given evidence e, is determined by the probability of evidence e, if that hypothesis were true. [12]

      12. Formally, L(h/e) = P(e/h), that is, the likelihood of h, given e, is equal to the probability of e, given h. For propensities as opposed to frequencies, the formula may be expressed as NL(h/e) = NP(e/h), that is, the nomic likelihood of h, given e, equals the nomic probability of e, given h. See Fetzer (1981), (1993), and (2002).

      And as I contemplate this more fully, it looks like your overlay of the mathematics of Likelihood Ratios onto conspiracy theories is faulty and has a woefully inadequate explanation (reflective of author’s understanding?), if it isn’t outright wrong.

      Know your audience.

      This is not an academic forum. In non-technical parlance, “likelihood” is usually a synonym for “probability.” Probability ≠ Likelihood in statistics, though:

      Likelihood is the chance … that the reality you’ve hypothesized could have produced the particular data you got.

      Probability reasons the other way around… It’s the chance that the reality you’re considering is true, given the data you have.

      //

      1. This is another dissembling post from someone I once thought was a serious participant. I happen to have archived the article before it was published in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), where it appears on pages 43-74. Since I have provided a link to the article, which includes the endnotes, anyone–even including Senor El Once–could verify their presence:

        NOTES

        1 The recent indictment of former Speaker of the House Tom DeLay for money laundering and the investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for insider trading are even being referred to as “conspiracies”. See “Big money, big influence, big trouble”,
        Duluth News Tribune (4 December 2005). See also Section 13 below.

        2 Properties whose presence or absence depends upon and varies with different observers or thinkers are said to be “subjective” (Fetzer and Almeder 1993, p. 99). Beliefs are “rational” when they satisfy suitable standards of evidential support with regard to acceptance, rejection, and suspension (Fetzer and Almeder 1993, pp. 13-14).

        3 Some relevant evidence may not be available and some available evidence may not be relevant (FetzerandAlmeder 1993, p. 133). The fallacy that results from picking and choosing your evidence (call it “selection and elimination”) is known as “special pleading”, a common practice by editorial writers, politicians, and used-car salesmen.

        4 Some alternative models of science include Inductivism, Deductivism, Hypothetico- Deductivism, Bayesianism (which comes in many different kinds), and Abductivism, whose alternative strengths and weaknesses are assessed in Fetzer (1981), (1993), and (2002). The most defensible appears to be Abductivism, which is adopted here.

        5 Acceptance within scientific contexts is “tentative and fallible” because new evidence or new hypotheses may require reconsideration of inferential situations. Conclusions that were once accepted as true may have to be rejected as false and conclusions once rejected as false may have to be accepted as true, as the history of science progresses.

        6 In philosophical discourse, differences like these are known as “modal” distinctions.

        7 And an event is historically possible (relative to time t) when its occurrence does not violate the history of the world (relative to t). Historical possibility implies both physical and logical, and physical implies logical, but not conversely. See Fetzer and Almeder (1993). For a detailed technical elaboration, see Fetzer (1981), pp. 54-55.

        8 Some natural laws are causal and others are non-causal, while causal laws can be deterministic or indeterministic (or probabilistic). On the differences between kinds of laws, see Fetzer (1981), (1993), and (2002). Laws of society, such as speed limits on highways, of course, can be violated, can be changed, and require enforcement.

        9 Scientific explanations of specific events explain why those events occur through their subsumption by means of covering laws. Predictions and retrodictions offer a basis for inferring that an event will occur or has occurred but, depending upon their specific form, may or may not explain why. See Fetzer (1981), (1993), and (2002).

        10. The term “proof” sometimes simply refers to specific evidence or an illustration of a principle or theorem, as in the case of a laboratory experiment. For a discussion of the meaning of “proof” in legal contexts, abstract contexts, and scientific contexts, see James H. Fetzer, “Assassination Science and the Language of Proof”, in Fetzer (1998).

        11. Thus, the stage of adaptation (of hypotheses to evidence) entails the exclusion of hypotheses that are inconsistent with the evidence. Like acceptance, rejection in science is also tentative and fallible, since the discovery of new alternatives or new evidence may require rejecting previously accepted alternatives, and conversely.

        12. Formally, L(h/e) = P(e/h), that is, the likelihood of h, given e, is equal to the probability of e, given h. For propensities as opposed to frequencies, the formula may be expressed as NL(h/e) = NP(e/h), that is, the nomic likelihood of h, given e, equals the nomic probability of e, given h. See Fetzer (1981), (1993), and (2002).

        13. Strictly speaking, relative frequencies are collective properties that do not belong to its individual members,while propensities are distributive properties that belong to each of its members, but may not be the same for every member in the collective. Under constant conditions, relative frequencies are evidence for causal propensities.

        14, “Woman canoeing Brule River is killed in freak accident”, Duluth News Tribune (16 July 1993), p. 1A. If those same unusual conditions were to be replicated over and over, of course, the relative frequency for death while canoeing would become extremely high. Enthusiasm for paddling the Brule River would no doubt diminish.

        15. “Cigarette lighter saves man from a bullet”, National Enquirer (6 July 1993), p. 21. In another case, a man who walked away unharmed after his truck hit a utility pole was killed as he left the crash scene, stepped on two downed power lines, and was electrocuted. His luck had run out. Duluth News Tribune (11 October 1993), p. 2D.

        16. The sequences of cases that make up collectives are properly envisioned as sets of single cases, where the cause of each single case is the propensity that was present on that occasion. Laws of nature describe what would happen for any single case of the kind to which it applies up to the values of its propensities (Fetzer 1982, 1991, 2002).

        And for my most recent extract from “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories'”, see these:

        36 The identity of the alleged hijackers remains very much in doubt. Nila Sagadevan, “9/11—The Real Report” (forthcoming), has observed that none of the names of the Arabs who are supposed to have committed these crimes are included in the flight manifests for any of the planes. Others, such as Griffin (2004, 2005), have observed that not only were fifteen of the nineteen from Saudi Arabia and none from Iraq, but five, six, or seven of those alleged to have been involved have turned up alive and well in Saudi Arabia. The FBI has not bothered to revise its list, but it should be apparent that the probability that they died in the crash, yet are still alive, is null.

        37 A French human-rights activist and an investigative journalist, Thierry Meyssan, was among the first to observe that the government’s account of the attack upon the Pentagon did not comport with the evidence. He published two of the earliest books on 9/11, Pentagate (2002a) and 9/11: The Big Lie (2002b). Meyssan has been the target of many attacks, including by James S. Robbins, “9/11 Denial” (2002), whose rebuttal consists of two assertions, “I was there. I saw it.” Whatever he may have thought he saw does not affect the evidence Meyssan emphasizes. See, for example, the web site http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentaone/erreurs_en.htm.

        38 Notice that the magnitude of the differences that are involved here is very large (http://reopen911.org/Core.htm). The melting point of iron is 2795° F, but steel as a mixture has a melting point dependent upon its composition. Typical structural steel has a melting point of about 2,750° F. The maximum temperature of air-aspirated, hydrocarbon fires without pre-heating or pressurization is around 1,520° F, as Jim Hoffman has advised me in personal correspondence. Underwriters Laboratory had in fact certified that the steel used in construction could withstand temperatures of 2,000° F several hours before even any significant softening would have occurred. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104.easilywithstood.htm)

        39 It certainly would not have melted at the lower temperatures of around 500° F to which, UL estimated, they were exposed, given the conditions present in the towers. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104.easilywithstood.htm) Nor would they have melted at temperatures as high as 1,200° or 1,300° F, as other estimates suggest (Griffin 2004, p. 13). The hottest temperatures measured in the South Tower was about 1,375° F, far too low to cause the steel to melt. (See below.)

        40 In the case of 9/11, as in the case of JFK, physical impossibilities lie at the core of the cover-up. What is impossible cannot happen, but many people are able to believe impossible things, especially when they are unaware of the laws that are involved and the specific conditions that were present. Gullibility tends to be a function of ignorance.

        41 Griffin (2004), pp. 26-27. Griffin’s latest study, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: A Christian Theologian’s Analysis” (forthcoming), adds even more. As Frank A. DeMartini, who was project manager for the construction of World Trade Center 1, during an interview recorded in January 2001, explained, “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it—that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting” (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104designedtotake.htm). Three other engineers involved in the project—Lee Robertson, Aaron Swirski, and Hyman Brown—offered similar opinions (http://www.rense.com/ general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm). DeMartini died at the towers on 9/11.

        42 Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction, who was involved in the process of clearing the site, reported seeing pools of “molten steel”, an observation that was confirmed by Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who said they had been found at the subbasement level as low as seven levels down. Moreover, those pools remained “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed” (http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seis-mic_.html). These extreme temperatures would not result from either burning fuel or collapse due to the “pancake effect”, which would have propensities of zero or null, but would be expectable effects of the use of powerful explosives to bring them down.

        43 Indeed, most of these features would have a null propensity on the official account. Hufschmid(2002), for example, suggests that, if the collapse had involved a “pancake” effect of one floor falling and overwhelming the capacity of the lower floor to support it, that should have taken 1/2 second per floor. For all 110 of the floors to collapse—it would not matter which collapsed first or where the planes had hit—therefore, would have taken about 55 seconds. The buildings actually fell in approximately 14 seconds, around the speed of free fall through air for objects encountering no resistance at all. That this should occur on the official account is not even remotely physically possible.

        44. See, for example, http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html. This site includes many important studies of the Pentagon crash, such as a set of PowerPoint studies by Jack White. It also includes the links to many of the reports cited in this chapter, including “Hunt the Boeing!”, which presents Meyssan’s analysis in a series of photographs. I have found that links to evidence that contradicts the government’s account do not always work normally, however, and sometimes just simply disappear. Similar photographs are found in Meyssan (2002a), color photo section, pp. VI-VII.

        45. A photograph is archived at http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html. The opening appears to be about 10 feet high and roughly 16 or 17 feet wide, or not much larger than the double-doors on a mansion. Notice several unbroken windows in the impact area and the lack of collateral damage. According to A.K. Dewdney and
        G. W. Longspaugh, the maximum diameter of the fuselage is about 12 feet, 4 inches, with a wingspan of 125 feet (http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm). They found, “The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit an entire Boeing 757″” and “Wings that should have been sheered off by the impact are entirely absent. There is also substantial debris from a much smaller jet-powered aircraft inside the building.” They conclude with a “high degree” of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon and with a “substantial degree” of certainty that it was struck by a small jet, like an F-16.

        46. Bloggers observed the proliferation of inconsistent stories about what happened at the Pentagon, where some were saying that the wing hit the grass and it “cartwheeled” into the Pentagon, others saying that it “nose dived” into the Pentagon, others saying that it flew “straight into” the Pentagon, others saying that it hit the helicopter pad and the wreckage flew into the Pentagon: “Why so many different stories? Are these people seeing different things?” (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread71124/pg11). The Pentagon said the crew of a C-130 had watched the attack take place while circling Washington, D.C. (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/C130sawF772P.html).

        47. Go to http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm for a photograph of the construction. Compare it with other photographs of the lawn, which can be found at http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html, including in the PowerPoint studies of Jack White. The lawn seems to be as smooth as a putting green.

        48. Slide 20 of Jack White’s PowerPoint studies displays two photographs of the same piece of “aircraft debris” with two different backgrounds (http://www.assassination-science.com/911links.html). Another study supporting the impossibility of a Boeing 757 having passed through that entry point includes photos not only of the same piece of alleged debris but others showing two men in suits carrying what appears to be the same or similar pieces and, interestingly, an enormous box being carried from the site by six or eight servicemen, who have covered it up completely by using blue and white plastic tarps (http://www.geocities.com/s911surprise3b/american_airlines_flight_77/).

        49. Arguments for the official government account tend to emphasize eyewitnesses who said that they saw a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. (See note 37 above.) But the physical evidence overwhelmingly outweighs the contrary eyewitness evidence, since it is not physically possible that an aircraft of those dimensions hit the building at that location and left no evidence. Think of driving a car through your front door for a comparision. The air controller’s report, by contrast, was a group response by professional experts.

        Since these notes are present in the article I have linked and the article itself appears in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), I have to ask what’s going on with Senor El Once. He is trying to undermine the clear distinction I have drawn between probabilities of the value zero and those of value null, the importance of which is well-illustrated in these notes. I am forced to conclude that either he was aware of this before he posted and is trying to undermine serious research on 9/11 or he was not and is displaying his incompetence.

      2. Senor El Once ignores that this article appeared in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) in the same form on pages 43-74 and that all of the accompanying notes are found in the source cited. Since he is also ignorant of the principles of likelihood and how likelihoods and probabilities are related, I am forced to conclude that either Senor El Once knows better and is deliberately misleading the target audience here or he knows no better, in which case his incompetent has been demonstrated.

        This is not a question of informal usage in ordinary language, where “likelihood” and “probability” are often interchangeable. It is a matter of the principles that govern scientific reasoning, which is an area of specialization for me. Here is an entry from Wikipedia, which reflects the correctness of my identification of the likelihood L of an hypothesis h on evidence e with the probability of evidence e on the assumption that hypothesis h is true, on which I have published extensively:

        MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood

        In statistics, maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) is a method of estimating the parameters of a statistical model. When applied to a data set and given a statistical model, maximum-likelihood estimation provides estimates for the model’s parameters.

        The method of maximum likelihood corresponds to many well-known estimation methods in statistics. For example, one may be interested in the heights of adult female giraffes, but be unable to measure the height of every single giraffe in a population due to cost or time constraints. Assuming that the heights are normally (Gaussian) distributed with some unknown mean and variance, the mean and variance can be estimated with MLE while only knowing the heights of some sample of the overall population. MLE would accomplish this by taking the mean and variance as parameters and finding particular parametric values that make the observed results the most probable (given the model).

        In general, for a fixed set of data and underlying statistical model, the method of maximum likelihood selects values of the model parameters that produce a distribution that gives the observed data the greatest probability (i.e., parameters that maximize the likelihood function). Maximum-likelihood estimation gives a unified approach to estimation, which is well-defined in the case of the normal distribution and many other problems. However, in some complicated problems, difficulties do occur: in such problems, maximum-likelihood estimators are unsuitable or do not exist.

      3. Dear Professor Fetzer writes:

        I am forced to conclude that either Senor El Once knows better and is deliberately misleading the target audience here or he knows no better, in which case his incompetent has been demonstrated.

        Such mutually-exclusive pitter-patter. Why only two hypotheses or two options?

        Here’s a third option.

        Dr. Fetzer’s grasp of statistics and mathematics (and physics and science) is weak [not being his BS, MS, or PhD emphasis], which is why his explanations of such are not convincing, lame, and in cases with errors.

        And to cover his tracks, he throws into his text gargon to make it skim as being scientific and scholarly. Only upon a closer reading does the truth come out.

        Here is an entry from Wikipedia, which reflects the correctness of my identification of the likelihood L of an hypothesis h on evidence e with the probability of evidence e on the assumption that hypothesis h is true, on which I have published extensively.

        I am force to conclude that either Professor Fetzer doesn’t have a point to make with his re-purposed postings of his earlier work, or has demonstrated his incompetence at writing for a specific target audience by being unable to destill it down to understandable and RELEVANT text.

        Reeks more of Professor Fetzer marking his territory than of him making a meaningful, relevant, or convincing statement.

        //

        1. There is enough here already for everyone to drawn their own conclusions. That rogue1 has shown up to endorse the false depictions of Senor El Once is extremely revealing. That the Senor does not understand the differences between the improbable and the impossible is sufficient grounds to reject him as a muddled thinker. That he cannot respond to case after case in which it makes a difference reveals him as a sloppy in his research. They are clearly trying to muddy the water with ad hominems when we are making real progress. I am going to do my best to avoid them, because their modus operandi is already apparent.

      4. “This guy’s posts are becoming more and more revealing.”~Dr F

        Señor El Once,

        You know you are on the right side of the fence when Fetzer refers to you as “this guy”…Lol

  3. Regrettably, the powers that be have done an outstanding job of mass conditioning that elicits the too common knee-jerk response to anything that sounds like a plan of powerful people. George Bush’s famous warning of “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories regarding the attacks of September 11″ was the epitome of “stop questioning, stop thinking”.

    David Ray Griffin has some additional insight on this subject in this video I made here:

      1. Yea Sharif, I agree with you on such futility as an appeal to the NYTimes, congress etc.

        I think even DRG may have finally seen the futility in that. After eleven years of nothing but spin from all MSM corners, it is damned obvious that such revelations are a systemic taboo.

        I have recognized this for at least thirty something years.

        \\][//

  4. A friend of mine who reads detective books tells me that all take take, without question, 9-11 as a government conspiracy. So, we have truth buried in fiction.

    But might not some readers be stimulated, thereby, to re-think 9-11?

    1. Yes, I guess they might, depending on how the subject was treated. I agree that truth is buried in fiction, but that doesn’t guarantee that the truth will be easily distinguishable from the fiction by the average person. Take the example of the very weak thriller Capricorn One, which is based on the premise that the U.S. government faked a Mars landing because they couldn’t pull the mission off. The way the story is executed is so silly and implausible that the central idea seems really crazy. But is it?

      In this case, even if the actual Moon landing were a hoax, a movie like this would not convince anyone. It might even discourage the idea.

      1. good article, craig, thanks.

        i don’t wholly agree that moviegoers will necessarily come away from a movie like “conspiriacy theory” with the view that anyone who believes a conspiracy theory must be a nut. what i (most probably in the minority) came away with from that movie (which i very much like–especially the “catcher in the rye” hook which reflected the manchurian-candidate mindset of john lennon’s alleged assassin, mark david chapman) is that “jerry may be a little whacky, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.” in other words, “you might want to listen to what the madman has to say, because he may be right.” just how many people come away from these kinds of movies with x vs y vs some other viewpoint would be the good subject of an honest poll.

        in march 2011, as part of the “investigate building 7″ presentation in west hartford connecticut (a portion of which i helped coordinate), a panel of journalists seriously addressed the “conspiracy theory” issue, as you have done in your article. go to this link http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20110419073735183
        and scroll down to the part whose descripiton is pasted below. i think you (and readers here interested in this topic) may find it to be very interesting.

        –d

        Failure to Report: A Panel Discussion Among Journalists 3/26/11

        Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media, Culture and Communication at NYU
        Leslie Griffith, Journalist
        Craig Unger, Author
        Dick Russell, Author

        This panel will address the US media’s tendency to look away from major stories of all kinds by dismissing them as mere “conspiracy theories.” First will be a discussion the press’s silence on the strange collapse of Building 7, and the panelists will move on from there to discuss other mysteries or scandals that, although they merit serious investigation, are either laughed off or ignored. Among these forbidden stories are the “OctoberSurprise” of1980, the fate of TWA Flight 800,the CIA’s reported drug dealing in America’s inner cities, the Oklahoma City bombing and the epidemic of widespread election fraud since 2000.

        1. I’ve just watched the first few minutes of the panel discussion you offered the link for and I’m hooked. Fascinating stuff, and lots I want to follow up on.

          On the movie, I think the opening few minutes, when we get Jerry’s list of theories, removes virtually all credibility that he might conceivably have. By going over the top as they did, they reinforce the idea that even if Jerry isn’t always wrong, most of his ideas are not part of the real world. And it’s how they deliberately take elements of truth (fluoride in the water, New World Order, etc.) and make them ridiculous that really shows the intent. It’s also how nothing is put in context that reveals this. Nothing Jerry talks about relates very well to anything else he talks about. They’re just an assortment of off-the-wall “theories” that don’t point to a wider pattern. That’s my take, anyway.

          Thanks again for the great links.

      2. you’re welcome, craig. glad to hear that the presentation is resonating.

        i hear you on the intent, and that may very well be. it may also be a subconscious thing, i.e., so ingrained are the moviemakers with that attitude, it just comes out that way. and/or that this kind of belittling approach is what sells in hollywood (not always, obviously, withness olvier stone’s “jfk” and hopefully soon bill pepper’s “orders to kill”).

        what i’m saying is that whatever the intent of the “conspiracy theory” moviemakers, not everyone will have the same reaction, just like not everyone is taken in by the official conspiracy theories. the percentages of people who will come away feeling this way or that, i can only guess at.

        1. You could be right that some of the motivation could be subconscious. Movies, as well as being works of art (at their best), are products of the society that made them. I wrote a column for a newspaper in 1998 in which I compared Enemy of the State (1998) with Three Days of the Condor (1973). My point then was the the 1970s were a period of distrust in institutions, and the latter movie reflected that. The system was on trial more than just individuals. Enemy was completely different. It was just bad individuals and the system got a pass.

      3. Hi Dennis,

        I have to say the CONSPIRACY THEORY is one of my favorite films…

        I think the bottom line message is; appearances aren’t what they seem.

        Jerry obviously isn’t ‘crazy’ – Jerry has been mind-fukked by the system. I think the film was brilliant in the zany beginning to draw us deeper into the tragic character created by MK mind control regimen.

        I think that Gibson himself in a conspiracy theorist, and is in fact a victim of a conspiracy against him by Hollywood. But that would be a long drawn out discussion to parse out.
        . . . . . .

        Thanks for the URL to those building 7 videos.

        ww

        1. Hybridrogue,

          Wow, I guess we see this movie VERY differently. I think it’s important to reiterate that the government guy who did this to Jerry was ONE BAD GUY who wasn’t following overall government policy. The agents who help Jerry are clearly portrayed as good guys. The government gets let off the hook because we focus on individuals and not the system. And on the opening scene, I’ve pretty much made my case there already. I don’t think the zany beginning did anything other than ridicule the idea of conspiracy theories – even if this ONE turned out to be true.

      4. Craig, as far as the film CONSPIRACY THEORY is concerned, I do see your point as to the ending…but I still like the movie. I think it revealed a whole lot, even if compromised by it’s ending.

        We may never know for sure if that ending was a rewrite demanded by the studios, or distributors or not. One way or another I don’t think it made or broke anyone becoming or giving up on their adherence to conspiratorial thinking.

        Sneaking things through the gates can be a tough job. It is more than THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST that has turned Gibson into a public ghoul by the MSM.

        ww

      5. ww,

        thanks for the feedback. agreed that a bottom line message of “conspiriacy theory” is that appearances aren’t always what they seem.

        i haven’t much knowledge re gibson himself being a conspiracy theorist, or whether he is in fact a victim of a conspiracy against him by Hollywood. not up on the scandal he went thru but seem to recall him being branded anti-semetic.

        you’re welcome to the URL to the building 7 videos.

        you’ve mentioned your blog on these pages a couple of times. can we get the url to that?

        –d

  5. Very thoughtful article. I’ll add a note of hope, Thanks to the 9/11 conspirators’ decision to televise their false flag, dissidents (the scientific term for conspiracy theorists) now have a very convenient tool to turn the ridicule around. Behold notorious 9/11 faithkeeper Alexander Baron’s masterful exposure of his intellectual abilities (or rather limitations) as the paradigm of the 9/11 myth made such an impression on his brain that he fanatically expects the whole world to conform to it: http://www.global-platonic-theater.com/Censors,%20Handling/Challenging%20on%20Baby%20Step/baron.htm

    Love,

  6. This is quite a refreshing read, especially in light of our friends over at truthaction who keep bumping that “shit conspiracy theorists say” thread up to the top.

    Craig, didn’t you say to me that back when Snowcrash was submitting comments to this blog, his IP address was clearly originating from the USA and not the Netherlands?

    1. Dear Mr. Syed, you wrote:

      [An] IP address was clearly originating from the USA and not the Netherlands.

      Not conclusive of physical whereabouts, I’m afraid.

      I work for a multi-national corporation. I’ve noticed that when I google things or do google maps from work, it first assumes that I am physically in the city of my corporation’s headquarters (I am not), judging from the advertisements or starting destinations… thanks to my corporation’s IT department in routing network services through their servers and their IP addresses.

      When I post from work, my snagged IP address will not reflect where I am at geographically.

      If SnowCrash works for a “multi-national corporation” (which the military industrial complex sort of is, even if taken to the granular level of branch of the military or government agency they are multi-national), just doing his job from his cubicle in a remote office whose internet transactions are routed through “corporate” servers could hide his posting location.

      If I were to speculate on someone’s whereabouts, I would focus on more clues from their writings that would indicate awareness to a foreign country, foreign culture, foreign language, foreign interactions, and foreign concerns where they presently are seeping into their being and thus their expressions, their analogies, their examples, etc.

      From my small direct interactions with SnowCrash and from reading many others, he writes too well to be a non-native English speaker and doesn’t provide a perspective as if he was out-and-about in that foreign culture. My speculation: If we take him at his word that he is overseas, then he is sequestered in some sort of a little America outpost that keeps the Amerikana lifestyle propagated and insulated common for those in the military and US govt service overseas. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad is that cultural isolation in a foreign land taken to an extreme.

    2. Yes, I did mention that about Snowcrash. I actually had written a paragraph about the “Shit conspiracy theorists say” thread at truthaction but ended up leaving it out. I was concerned about keeping the focus of the article. But another article could be written just about truthers who mock conspiracy theories.

      Since Snowcrash reads this site (we know that because he called me a “retard” on his “shit” thread, along with numerous other names), so maybe he’ll offer us an explanation for his U.S. IP address. I didn’t know people (adults at least) still used the term “retards.” Maybe SC is the only one. I hope so.

  7. Nice article Craig and it frustrates me how the term “conspiracy theorist” is thrown about along with “tin foil hat” and you know the rest of them.

    I have noticed recently that most people have extraordinary faith in “The News” – they know politicians lie and that a lot of huge stories in the news turn out to be complete fabrications (9/11 Anthrax and Irag for example) but almost like goldfish they tune in every night to be told what to think. They can be manipulated into demanding “something must be done” at the drop of a hat and they never seem to learn.

    As the people of the old Soviet Union used to say, both USA and USSR has propaganda – the difference is that in the USSR the people know it is propaganda.

    What is shocking now is the unanimity of the supposedly free press in pushing the same agenda – in Syria it is “Rebels good, Government bad” – so that you see virtually the same slanted news stories across all newspapers, whether they are “left” or “right”.

    And anyone who dares to read away from the mainstream and find out pieces of real truth – well they are a conspiracy theorist.

    1. Yes, it’s a very effective system for keeping people in the dark about what the globalist psychopaths are up to. People have this smug idea that they’re so smart that they’ll be able to see through any deception – which makes them very easily manipulated. Your USSR/USA comparison is very apt.

  8. A great movie to watch which in my view counters the usual BS in most movies is “Wag The Dog”. Fantastic film that should be seen by all.

    I will have to disagree somewhat with you Craig on lumping in Shooter with the rest. In the film at the end we find out that the “rouge operatives” are actually protected from the very top levels of government which is why Swagger has to hunt them down himself. Shooter is a must see film in my book but it is poorly named it should have been titled “How To Manufacture An Oswald”. Other than that issue the film is outstanding.

    Great article Craig.

    1. Adam,

      Thanks. I’ll check out Shooter again before reacting to your point. I’ve just seen it once, a few months ago.

      Wag the Dog is another story. This is a film I will write an entire post on at some point. The film is very revealing on some levels in the way that both of us would like – one being the mindlessness of the media. But the whole staged war thing is done to overcome an electability problem for the president. The “production” of the war is portrayed as a special event, rather than business as usual. The film doesn’t question the very foundations of the system, it just shows how easily that system can be manipulated. Also, doing it as satire makes it seem exaggerated when in many ways it’s not.

    1. Dear Mr. Ruff Adam,

      In my multiple laps around the 9/11 block, I have been dealt rhetorical blows at times that would seem at first reading to be crippling. In deed, were I in a social gathering among friends or colleagues and had someone’s identical ad hominem rant been verbally aimed at me, I would have been caught tongue-tied and flat-footed with no witty comeback while the ranter high-five’s his lackey’s with their agreeing “b-b-b-b-bur-r-r-rn!” or “sco-o-o-o-o-ore!” yelps.

      Online can or ought to be more contemplative. From my moments of pause in contemplating the “burn”, the divine inspiration that came to me was: “embrace it!” This is applicable on so many levels of meaning.

      A logical derivative of “embrace it!” is “own it!”

      “Bat-shit crazy” I probably already am, because it is a fitting explanation for thinking that expressing my meager opinion that uses evidence and science properly-applied would ever sway the juggernaut of media-hyped patriotism regarding talking-point opinions on where in the world “the next parking lot should be nuked into place” (or other equally brain-dead tough-talking expressions.)

      I discovered that when I owned the slur, it couldn’t be added to or enhanced by the opponent without it reflectively making them look like unoriginal and repetitive idiots and weakening the slur itself: a real two-for-one deal.

      When someone calls me a conspiracy theorist (which really means nutjob) I call them a koolaid drinker (meaning they will swallow any BS fed to them).

      With respect to 9/11, I often deployed as the opposite of the “conspiracy theorist” slur the phrase “coincidence theorist” until our Saint Dr. D.R. Griffin started pointing out that the official story is also a “conspiracy theory.” Thus, the divine inspiration along the “embrace it” lines would be to not start new tracks & attacks (e.g., “koolaid drinker”, “coincidence theorist”), but to put a period at the end of the existing track: “You are a conspiracy theorist, too.”

      //

    2. Yes, I think a psychological study of those people who believe everything they’re told would be more appropriate than any attempt to lump “conspiracy theorists” together by trying to figure them out as a group.

  9. Good article Craig.

    One thing that strikes me about all the Bernaysian tactics- much/most of the ridicule and abuse of late has been coming from ALLEGED “truth-seekers” on the anti-Pentagon-research ‘Propaganda Team’ like the “neurologically impaired” Snowjob de Boer and “Brian Good.” I have heard/read little to nothing recently from the J-refugees and the mainstream “media” (although much like peering deep into the moist, malodorous recesses of a portable self-contained toilet while taking several deep breaths- I avoid the Forum of Magicians and Illusionists at all costs). I think several of your readers watched how that all-too-familiar scenario played out on the 911oz “truth” forum many months ago. And ultimately- once one resorts to the baboonistic tactics of the J-refugees- is there any real difference between Randi’s Kids and the self-described ‘9/11 Truth Police’ when they both spew the same ridicule and bile as their sole ‘stock in trade?’

    I’m of the opinion that we should call a spade just that and refer to the often San Francisco[or sometimes Australia]-based ‘Propaganda Team’ as the “9/11 Attack Movement,” the “9/11 Ridicule Movement,” or perhaps “Gregg & Vicky’s 9/11 Bully Movement (G & V’s 9/11 B.M. anyone??)” Theirs is at least as bad if not worse than the continual mainstream news, movie, newspaper, internet, etc. ridicule of genuine truth-seekers that this article describes so well. At least the genuine truth-seeker knows what to expect after all the post-JFK-assassination decades’-worth of abuse from the mainstream media and WHICH ‘corner’ that comes from…

    Keep up the good work/writing Craig- yours is one of the few ‘truth’ websites I even read anymore, and it often makes me think about things/events (that is when certain uber-posters aren’t ever so high atop their agendistic ‘merry-go-round soapboxes’ hawking their ‘wares’ with the fervor of competing religious missionaries…).

    1. Hello Mr Boz!

      Hope to hear more from you here. I miss the craic!

      @Craig

      Excellent (and refreshing) article mate.

      I think it’s interesting that there seems to be an obscure distinction between what’s actually labelled a “conspiracy theory” and what isn’t.

      9/11, JFK and OKC fall under “conspiracy theory” while say, the mass murder of Catholics in Belfast during the 70s and 80s at the hands of the “Shankill Butchers” under the wing of British intel doesn’t get the same treatment.

      Or the proactive setting up of global fascist states in Europe, South America, Africa and the Middle East resulting in millions of deaths avoids this label.

      Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip, MKUltra. They are “conspiracy facts”. Powerful individuals conspired to rescue the “cream” of German scientists to “fight” the communists. These same people were involved in the MKUltra experiments.

      9/11 will become a “conspiracy fact”. The “conspiracy theory” label is just to soften the blow when that day does come. And mainstream suckers will see it in the same way as Operation Paperclip and MKUltra. Bury their heads in the sand and take it up the rear end.

      1. Yes, it seems like people are more willing to call something a conspiracy when it’s a definable event as opposed to something that happened over a period of time. That distinction is false, of course.

  10. The indefensible posts by Senor El Once lead me to elaborate further on critical thinking about 9/11 (from http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.pdf). Consider further:

    7. The Case of 9/11

    It has taken nearly 40 years for the deception to have been decisively settled on the basis of objective scientific evidence. In the case of 9/11, however, we are vastly more fortunate. As a consequence of inquiries by Nafeez Ahmed (2002), Thierry Meyssan (2002), Paul Thompson (2004), Michael Ruppert (2004), and David Ray Griffin (2004, 2005), among others, we already know that the official account of 9/11 cannot possibly be correct. That account contends that 19 Arabs, with feeble ability to pilot aircraft, hijacked four airliners and then executed demanding maneuvers in order to impact the World Trade Center and the Pentagon;36 that the damage created by their impact combined with the heat from burning jet fuel brought down WTC1 and WTC2; that WTC7 was the first building in history to be brought down by fire alone; and that the Pentagon was struck by United Flight 77, which was a Boeing 757.37 The basic problem with this “conspiracy theory”, as in the case of JFK, is that its truth would violate laws of physics and engineering that cannot be transgressed.

    The extremely high melting point of structural steel (about 2,800° F) is far above the maximum (around 1,500° F) that could have been produced by jet fuel under optimal conditions. Underwriters Laboratory had certified the steel used in the World Trade Center to 2,000° F for up to six hours.38 Even lower maximum temperatures result after factoring in insulation, such as asbestos, and the availability of oxygen.39 Since steel is a good conductor, any heat applied to one part of the structure would have been dissipated to other parts. WTC1, the North Tower, was hit first at 8:46 AM/ET and collapsed at 10:28 AM/ET, whereas the South Tower, hit second at 9:03 AM/ET, collapsed at 9:59 AM/ET. They were exposed to fires for roughly an hour and a half and an hour, respectively. Insofar as most of the fuel was burned off in the gigantic fireballs that accompanied the initial impacts, that these towers were brought down by fuel fires that melted the steel is not just improbable but physically impossible.

    Most Americans may not realize that no steel-structure high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire in the history of civil engineering, either before or after 9/11. If we assume that those fires have occurred in a wide variety of buildings under a broad range of conditions, that evidence suggests that these buildings do not have a propensity to collapsed as an effect of fire. That makes an alternative explanation, especially the use of powerful explosives in a controlled demolition, a hypothesis that must be taken seriously. Indeed, there appear to be at least ten features of the collapse of the Twin Towers that are expectable effects of controlled demolitions but not from fires following aircraft impacts.41 They include that the buildings fell about the rate of free fall; that they both collapsed virtually straight down (and into their own “footprints”); that almost all the concrete was turned into very fine dust; that the collapses were complete, leaving virtually no steel support columns standing; that photographic records of their collapse relect “demolition waves” occurring just ahead of the collapsing floors; that most of the beams and columns fell in sections of 30′ to 40′ in length; that firemen reported hearing sequences of explosions as they took place; that seismological events were recorded immediately prior to collapse; and that pools of molten metal were observed in the subbasements for weeks after.42

    The situation here is analogous to what we encountered with multiple indications of Secret Service complicity in setting up JFK for the hit. Suppose, as before, we adopt a value of 1 time in 10 for any one of these features to occur as a causal consequence of an aircraft impact and ensuing fire. We know that is a fantastically high number, since this has never occurred before or since. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume it. Then if we treat these features as having propensities that are independent and equal, for those ten features to have occurred on any single event of this kind would have a propensity equal to 1 over 1 followed by ten zeros, that is, 1/10,000,000,000, which is one chance in ten billion! Of course, since there were two such events—given TWC1 and TWC2—the probability that they would both display these same ten features on the very same occasion is equal to the product of one in ten billion times one in ten billion, which is 1 over 1 followed by twenty zeros, or 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000. This is a very small number. And these calculations assume values that are far too high.43

    8. 9/11: The Pentagon

    The Pentagon case should be the most accessible to study, since it only depends upon observations and measurements, which are the most basic elements available for any scientific investigation. Indeed, photos taken prior to the collapse of the Pentagon’s upper floors supply evidence that, whatever hit the Pentagon, it cannot possibly have been a Boeing 757.44 The plane was 155′ long, with a wing span of 125′ and stood 36′ high with its wheels retracted. The initial point of impact (prior to the collapse of the floors above) was only about 10′ high and 16′ wide, about the size of the double- doors on a mansion. A meticulous engineering study with careful measurements has been conducted that offers powerful evidence that the official story cannot possibly be correct. The damage done appears to have been inflicted by a smaller aircraft, such as an F-16, or by the impact of a cruise missile, as an alternative possibility. The amount of damage is simply not consistent with what would have occurred had the building been hit by a plane with the mass and the dimensions of a Boeing 757.

    Unofficial variations on the official account include that the Boeing 757 first hit the ground and then bounced into the building, that the plane’s engines plowed across the lawn before it entered the building, or that its right wing-tip hit and caused it to “cartwheel” into the Pentagon.46 None of these accounts is remotely consistent with the smooth, green, and unblemished lawn. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that the Secretary of Defense had the lawn resurfaced as though it had been damaged during the attack. Photographs of the lawn were taken immediately after the attack that demonstrate it was not damaged at all.47 Anyone who only viewed the lawn after its reconstruction, however, would be more likely to accept the official account. And it is of more than passing interest that far more damage could have been caused by less demanding maneuvers if the plane had been crashed through the roof of the building as opposed to hitting a newly reconstructed wing that was largely bereft of personnel and records—as though the “terrorists” wanted to inflict minimal damage.

    Had a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, it would have left massive debris from the wings, the fuselage, the engines, the seats, the luggage, the bodies, and the tail. Take a look at photographs taken shortly after the impact before the upper floors fell, however, and you will observe none of the above: no wings, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no bodies, no tail. It does not require rocket science—or even the calculation of any probabilities—to recognize that something that large cannot possibly have fit through an opening that small and left no remnants in the form of wings sheered off, debris scattered about, and so on. One piece of fuselage alleged to have come from the plane appears to have been planted evidence, which was moved around and photographed in more than one location.48 But if massive debris from the fuselage, wings, engines, seats, luggage, bodies, and tail were not present at the scene, the scene cannot have been of the crash of a 757. The argument involved is about as simple as they come.

    The principle of logic involved is known as modus tollens, which states that, if p then q, but not q, then not p. If q must be true when p is true, but q is not true, then p is not true, either. This is an elementary rule of deductive reasoning, employment of which is fundamental to scientific investigations. If you want to test an hypothesis, deduce what must be true if that hypothesis is true and attempt to ascertain whether those consequences are true. If they are not true, then the hypothesis is false. Q.E.D. If a Boeing 757 had hit the Pentagon, as the government has alleged, it would have left debris of specific kinds and quantities. Photographs and measurements show no debris of those kinds and quantities. As long as these photographs are authentic and those measurements are correct—which concerns the quality of the evidence for not q and appears to be rather difficult to dispute—then no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.49

  11. Just for the record, Senor El Once, who has gone out of his way in attempts to obfuscate and obscure the crucial distinction between the highly improbable and the impossible, and I cannot both be on the “up and up”. If I am a 9/11 truth seeker, then he is not; and if he is a 9/11 truth seeker, then I am not. There is ample evidence here which is which.

    NOTES

    1 The recent indictment of former Speaker of the House Tom DeLay for money laundering and the investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for insider trading are even being referred to as “conspiracies”. See “Big money, big influence, big trouble”, Duluth News Tribune (4 December 2005). See also Section 13 below.

    2 Properties whose presence or absence depends upon and varies with different observers or thinkers are said to be “subjective” (Fetzer and Almeder 1993, p. 99). Beliefs are “rational” when they satisfy suitable standards of evidential support with regard to acceptance, rejection, and suspension (Fetzer and Almeder 1993, pp. 13-14).

    3 Some relevant evidence may not be available and some available evidence may not be relevant (Fetzer and Almeder 1993, p. 133). The fallacy that results from picking and choosing your evidence (call it “selection and elimination”) is known as “special pleading”, a common practice by editorial writers, politicians, and used-car salesmen.

    4 Some alternative models of science include Inductivism, Deductivism, Hypothetico- Deductivism, Bayesianism (which comes in many different kinds), and Abductivism, whose alternative strengths and weaknesses are assessed in Fetzer (1981), (1993), and (2002). The most defensible appears to be Abductivism, which is adopted here.

    5 Acceptance within scientific contexts is “tentative and fallible “because new evidence or new hypotheses may require reconsideration of inferential situations. Conclusions that were once accepted as true may have to be rejected as false and conclusions once rejected as false may have to be accepted as true, as the history of science progresses.

    6 In philosophical discourse, differences like these are known as “modal” distinctions.

    7 And an event is historically possible (relative to time t) when its occurrence does not violate the history of the world (relative to t). Historical possibility implies both physical and logical, and physical implies logical, but not conversely. See Fetzer and Almeder (1993). For a detailed technical elaboration, see Fetzer (1981), pp. 54-55.

    8 Some natural laws are causal and others are non-causal, while causal laws can be deterministic or indeterministic (or probabilistic). On the differences between kinds of laws, see Fetzer (1981), (1993), and (2002). Laws of society, such as speed limits on highways, of course, can be violated, can be changed, and require enforcement.

    9 Scientific explanations of specific events explain why those events occur through their subsumption by means of covering laws. Predictions and retrodictions offer a basis for inferring that an event will occur or has occurred but, depending upon their specific form, may or may not explain why. See Fetzer (1981), (1993), and (2002).

    10 The term “proof” sometimes simply refers to specific evidence or an illustration of a principle or theorem, as in the case of a laboratory experiment. For a discussion of the meaning of “proof” in legal contexts, abstract contexts, and scientific contexts, see James H. Fetzer, “Assassination Science and the Language of Proof”, in Fetzer (1998).

    11 Thus, the stage of adaptation (of hypotheses to evidence) entails the exclusion of hypotheses that are inconsistent with the evidence. Like acceptance, rejection in science is also tentative and fallible, since the discovery of new alternatives or new evidence may require rejecting previously accepted alternatives, and conversely.

    12 Formally, L(h/e) = P(e/h), that is, the likelihood of h, given e, is equal to the probability of e, given h. For propensities as opposed to frequencies, the formula may be expressed as NL(h/e) = NP(e/h), that is, the nomic likelihood of h, given e, equals the nomic probability of e, given h. See Fetzer (1981), (1993), and (2002).

    13 Strictly speaking, relative frequencies are collective properties that do not belong to its individual members, while propensities are distributive properties that belong to each of its members, but may not be the same for every member in the collective. Under constant conditions, relative frequencies are evidence for causal propensities.

    14 “Woman canoeing Brule River is killed in freak accident”, Duluth News Tribune (16 July 1993), p. 1A. If those same unusual conditions were to be replicated over and over, of course, the relative frequency for death while canoeing would become extremely high. Enthusiasm for paddling the Brule River would no doubt diminish.

    15 “Cigarette lighter saves man from a bullet”, National Enquirer (6 July 1993), p. 21. In another case, a man who walked away unharmed after his truck hit a utility pole was killed as he left the crash scene, stepped on two downed power lines, and was electrocuted. His luck had run out. Duluth News Tribune (11 October 1993), p. 2D.

    16. The sequences of cases that make up collectives are properly envisioned as sets of single cases, where the cause of each single case is the propensity that was present on that occasion. Laws of nature describe what would happen for any single case of the kind to which it applies up to the values of its propensities (Fetzer 1982, 1991, 2002).

  12. I very much enjoyed this article Craig.

    I’ll have to say that the “Conspiracy Theorist” tag never bothered me in itself. I admit to holding the conspiracy view of history, as it is in fact the most rational view tho hold.

    I have pointed out before that the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE is the most eloquent conspiracy theory ever penned by mankind. As it is also held up as the most eloquent political document ever penned, I consider being considered a conspiracy theorist as a high compliment.

    The fact that the Public Relations Regime has again turned language upside down with Orwellian Newspeak persistence, I agree with the term “coincidence theorist” as the antithesis to ‘conspiracy theorist’.

    I will not join in the specifics of the argument, however I do agree with Señor El Once in his critiques of Fetzer – whom I have come to find such a bore that I can’t bear to even peruse his commentary any more.

    Academia is a factory manufacturing trinkets for the Menagerie of the Global Imperium.

    ww

    1. Hybridrogue,

      If the term was meant in the neutral sense it once was, then I’d have no problem with it either. The issue for me is that the concept has been corrupted to mean people who imagine things with no proof or even no reasonable cause to suspect them.

      So I’m with you. I’m proud to be a conspiracy researcher or a student of the conspiracies that are so important in driving our world. But that term has become a big obstacle for all of us. And popular entertainment is playing a powerful role in reinforcing this false paradigm.

      I do love the idea of a “coincidence theorist”. It goes right along with my long-held belief that studying those interested in conspiracies would not be nearly as interesting as studying those who reject them out of hand.

    2. Notice the abundance of ad hominems and the absence of logic and evidence. It is a common practice among those who want to mislead an audience to have one of them make a post and the other endorse it. Since I have already exposed Senor as a pseudo-intellectual, draw your own conclusions about the guy endorsing him.

      1. “Dr” Fetzer,

        Have no doubt sir, the only one you “expose as a pseudo-intellectual” is yourself.

        Yes I am certain all here are capable of drawing their own conclusions. As it is written, let it be done.

        Again you, a so-called ‘Professor’ of logic, misframe the meaning of the term ‘ad hominem’, and pretend at ‘logic’ and scientific integrity, when any who know your record in debate on applied physics knows who the pretender is on this forum.

        ww

        1. You long-since blew your cover, rogue. We all know who you are. That you are endorsing rubbish from Senor El Once speaks volumes. He is simply sloppy, but you do it by design.

      2. You got a mouse in your pocket Fetzer?

        Or are you speaking the Queen’s lexicon?

        “We”? who the fluk is “we” Fetzer?

        Maybe it’s that little bird that keeps knocking down airplanes…??

        Or the mass-differential twins?

        How’s your corpus callosum functioning these days?

        ww

  13. To Adam (Ruff):

    I watched the last half hour of Shooter again (that’s when the important things are said) and I’m going to have to disagree with your view. I agree that it’s an excellent piece of entertainment, but I’m afraid it’s guilty of everything I wrote about Enemy of the State and the Bourne films.

    While you’re right that government higher-ups are implicated in wrongdoing, the film still comes down to bad people going against the country’s interests for their own selfish reasons.

    There are two key scenes: the first is on the mountain top when Ned Beatty tells Mark Wahlberg it’s about haves and have-nots. So far, so good. But then he says, “There are only so many places at the table.” In other words, do Americans want to be the haves or the have-nots? A false choice, in my opinion. The comment is very reminiscent of Cliff Robertson telling Robert Redford in Three Days of the Condor that the people expect their government to make sure they have oil to heat their homes, etc., no matter what it takes.

    Then the clinching scene is after Wahlberg has been captured and he is brought to the Attorney General’s office for a meeting. The whole thing comes down to Danny Glover being a bad guy and the AG not liking it one bit but not being able to do anything because the crimes took place in another country. Walhberg is set free, however.

    Would this “Oswald” really have been allowed to walk away? And the climactic scene has (SPOILER ALERT!) Wahlberg killing all the bad guys. Problem solved. It’s the same pattern: bad guys manipulating a flawed but well-intentioned system.

    1. Craig,

      We discuss what is called “Predictive Programming” from the land of Hollywood on my own blog quite a bit. It is an issue worth grasping – something you touch upon when speaking to the X-Files. Especially that ‘Lone Gunman’ episode with the airliner headed for a collision with the WTC towers on autopilot.

      The opening and closing burlesque at the London Olympics is well worth analyzing as far as ILLUMINATI symbology, ritual, and imagery. A “revelation of the method”, and a subconscious ushering in of the New World Order, right there from headquarters; The City of London.

      ww

      1. Willy,

        You may notice that one of the tags for my current article is “predictive programming.” It is definitely a major interest of mine – especially in how it applies to 9/11. In fact, it is something I’ve been researching very actively in the last year to 18 months. I’m very anxious to read what you’ve been discussing on your blog. The real meat of what I’ve come to believe about predictive programming has only been touched on here so far, but I have a lot more to say. I’m sure it wouldn’t be unfamiliar territory to you for me to say I believe that the timing of Conspiracy Theory (1997), The Lone Gunmen (2001), and dozens of other films was not random.

        I’d be interested in your reaction to a piece I wrote last summer that is related to this:

      2. Or the very first spoken lines in Gibson’s THE PATRIOT:

        “Nine pounds eleven ounces”…[he just weighed a rocking chair he was building]…

        A preview of “the PATRIOT ACT” as a patriot act screen play…?

        Even the Simpson’s had a scene with the towers and 9/11 on a theater marquee or a flyer on a table or something…I can’t remember the exact image.

        I’ll see if I can collect some URLs to the COTO pieces dedicated to the predictive programming for 9/11 in particular.

        The newest one on the Olympics ILLUMINATI symbolism is interesting:

        http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/the-illuminati-closes-the-2012-olympics-with-hellfire/

        ww

        1. The Simpsons one is amazing. And there is SO much more. It is my belief that many Hollywood films were used to prepare us to accept the official story of 9/11. They were also intended to preview what the elites had planned for us.

    2. I can see your argument Craig and I see your reasoning but if you watch the beginning of the film (spoiler alert) when Swagger sits down at his computer he says “let’s see what bullshit they are trying to sell us today” as he puts the book on his desk. Take a look at the book and see what it is! It is the 9/11 commission report. Now also in the film we see that “the bad guys” are getting their information directly from the top secret levels of the CIA and FBI which implies they are well placed there too. The “bad guys” also draw their troops directly from US special forces and apparently have access to as many as they want implying again that they have control at the top levels of the armed forces as well. The FBI is also shown to be corrupt throughout the film as they turn against their own agent because he was too close to the truth.

      I still have to argue with you Craig the film does not portray Swagger as crazy in fact quite the opposite. Consider also the scene with the gun expert who comes right out and says the JFK official story is BS and he knows immediately that Swagger was set up just like Oswald. This film puts as much truth in it that can be gotten away with and still be released.

      As to Wag The Dog I agree for the most part with your assessment but I look at the film as an expose of the method used to manipulate the masses. In that respect it does a great job.

      1. I will watch the whole film again to get the full effect, but what I notice about a lot of films of this type is that they really reveal a lot about the corrupt system, but then they cop out in the end by directing our attention to “bad people.” I feel this is what Shooter does, too. That scene in the AG’s office at the end kind of undercuts all the good stuff in the early part. But I’ll give it another look.

        Wag the Dog does good things, as you mention, but again it concerns me when they let the real perps off the hook. By the way, do you know the theory about Stanley Kubrick and the moon footage? And do you know about the connection to Wag the Dog?

      2. Yes I do know some things about the Kubrick connection to the moon landing but not a lot. I have done a fair bit of looking at the evidence surrounding the moon landing but I would love to hear more about it and what you have uncovered.

        I do see your argument about Shooter Craig. It has a lot of merit but my view is that the film does suggest a deeper systemic problem beyond the bad guys although I admit it is perhaps too subtle a suggestion. If I am not mistaken though the Glover character bascically says at one point that he is just a cog in the wheel of a much bigger machine and if he were gone there would be an immediate replacement. I have to watch it again to see if I am right about that part. Good argument though Craig! Well done.

        1. I would recommend a series of articles called “Wagging the Moondoggie” by Dave McGowan. It’s very entertaining and full of fantastic information about the alleged moon landing. On the Kubrick connection:

          It is alleged by some, including filmmaker Jay Weidner, that Kubrick shot the moon footage. Of course he would never be able to take credit for this. When Kubrick signed on to make Eyes Wide Shut, it was in his contract that the film would be released on July 20, 1999 – 30 years to the day after the landing of Apollo 11. Kubrick died of a heart attack before EWS could be released and some of
          Kubrick’s film never made it into theatrical version because it was edited after his death. This film is about a secret society that wields tremendous power and doesn’t hesitate to have people killed. Some suspect that Kubrick himself was murdered.

          Here’s the cool part. In Wag the Dog, Dustin Hoffman plays a producer named “Stanley” who produces a war and later wants to take credit for his work. When he won’t keep quiet, they kill him and announce he had a heart attack.

          Here’s the link for part 1 of Wagging the Moondoggie: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

          1. “Wagging the Moondoggie” is terrific stuff. I interviewed Jay Weidner on “The Real Deal” not long ago. MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012:

            Jay Weidner
            Apollo Fakery & Stanley Kubrick

            [audio src="http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-jay%20weidner.mp3" /]

      3. I have done a lot of looking into the ‘connection’ of Kubrick and the ‘faked moonlanding’

        Being a great fan of Kubrick, and also a professional in cinematic special effects, I have to put a damp rag on this one. I just went through an argument on this very question on another blog. There is no convincing those who have made their mind up on this. But the arguments for this theory are weak and weaker on a curve.

        The best argument had to do with the front projection screen for the opening scenes with the ape men – that parallel lines could be detected in close examination of scenes and stills from the film. This is simply untrue:

        2001 A Space Odyssey was shot in Super Panavision 70 (which uses a single-strip 65 mm negative)

        The story about parallel lines being detected in the background of the shots in the beginning, are urban legend, and impossible when it is understood how the luminous screens were actually constructed for the front projection shots.

        The expansive backdrops for the African scenes required a screen 40 feet tall and 110 feet wide, far larger than had ever been used before. When the reflective material was applied to the backdrop in 100-foot strips, however, they discovered variations at the seams of the strips led to obvious visual artifacts, a problem that was solved by tearing the material into smaller chunks and applying them in a random “camouflage” pattern on the backdrop.

        The existing projectors using 4 by 5 inch transparencies resulted in grainy images when projected that large, so the 2001 team worked with MGM’s Special Effects Supervisor, Tom Howard, to build a custom projector using 8 by 10 inch transparencies, which required the largest water-cooled arc lamp available.[See: The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey]

        Also:

        The Hasslebad 500C {6×6 format} was fully capable of an aperture/focal setting of infinity. This means in practical use, from about 6ft out the picture would be in focus to infinity.

        ww

      4. Let me add here that I do think that Kubrick was revealing many many things in his perfectionist approach to film making – even going back to Spartacus, wherein he plainly shows one of the earliest ‘false flag’ operations staged by a ruling class, that of manipulating and causing panic to the Roman population by driving Spartacus and his slave army from his escape route to the sea – allowing the excuse for the Praetorian Guard to cross the Rubicon and enter the city state.

        Of course Eyes Wide Shut is the be all and end all of his expose of the global elite and their secret society network. I do believe Kubrick was assassinated. If he was allowed to go on…to speak to the film in interviews and such, well too much would have been said.

        He may have had an idea that his time was just about up.

        ww

      5. Oh I think there is definitely a mystery bound up in a conspiracy revolving around the Apollo missions, but I don’t think it has to do with faked missions.

        I think it has to do with what was actually encountered on the moon.

        Anyone who has seen the televised interview with the first astronauts soon after splashdown, would notice that all three are ‘in space’…Neil Armstrong is virtually twitchy and several times goes into total gibberish when asked questions.

        I think they came face to face with not only artifacts, but were warned off. That is why the abrupt ending to the Apollo program.

        ww

      6. Do I think all the images taken on the moon were authentic?

        Yes.

        Do I know that there are shots of practice runs shot in the New Mexico desert?

        Yes.

        I think that the Apollo missions actually went to the moon.

        ww

      7. Craig,

        I would have to search through so many files from so far back on this moon business…

        I think most of that research is gone with my last computer that got slammed at the core.

        If you don’t mind, I will leave my comments on the subject as they are. I have had a great interest in this at one time. It has waned. I think those who currently find it fascinating should look into it as far as they can. I have no problems with others coming to different conclusions on this.

        Just remember to keep some perspective, and don’t buy it all hook line and sinker without considering looking for counter evidences.

        As with the video fakery 9/11 topic – get some knowledge of photography, cinema-photography, and by all means space science.

        ww

      8. Wagging the Moondoggie states that all of the original footage of the moonwalk of Apollo 11 is missing.

        This is a misrepresentation of the truth of this matter. What is missing is the SSTV format backup tapes that were made in case transmission was unsuccessful in the original live broadcasts.

        These tapes are not missing, they were taped over for other missions, and other needs by NASA.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

        I find it beneficial to check on things like this, because it is in slight fudging of points all built in sequence that can make a seeming strong argument out of dubious bullshit.

        As I said I would bow out of this argument, I will – I just thought I would add this observation as a clue to how to dig under the assertions and not take them at face value.

        ww

      9. Craig, thank you for recommending Dave McGowan.

        Dave is absolutely my favourite author. All of his work is truly brilliant. He is a wonderful researcher.

        For those interested in a fascinating trip down the celebrity rabbit hole, I would highly recommend “Inside the LC – The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippy Generation”.

        Teaser – Who was the father of Jim Morrison from The Doors and why is that significant?

      10. Well that’s the kicker Craig,

        NASA didn’t tape over the moon tapes…they thought they may have because they couldn’t be found.
        . . . . . . . . . .

        Carmelo Amalfi, Lost Moon landing tapes discovered, Cosmos (magazine), Nov 1,2006

        ^ They were nearly thrown out with the rubbish. But a last minute search instead has scientists in Western Australia dusting off several boxes of ‘lost’ NASA tapes which record surface conditions on the Moon just after Neil Armstrong stepped into space history on 21 July 1969.

        Last week, up to 100 tapes, clearly marked “NASA Manned Space Center”, turned up after a search in a dusty basement of a physics lecture hall at Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Western Australia.

        . . . . . . . .. .

        They were actually able to restore the moonwalk footage and much more.

        ww

      11. It should be remembered that NASA was radically defunded at one point, and was in a state of partial disintegration.

        Picture someone living in a mansion, the highlife…who for whatever reason looses their fortune, and ends up in public housing, all of their once beautiful precious possessions end up in thrift shops for pennies, etc.

        Even these Mars explorations are being done on a shoestring compared to the heydays of Apollo and Gemini.
        …..

        Now I provided that wiki article…there are further leads there for anyone willing to take a chance on popping a favorite balloon.

        ww

        1. For me, the Moon landing has only recently become a balloon of any kind, so I’m not wedded to any one position. But I must confess that after reading the entire Wagging the tseries and seeing films like What Happened on the Moon, I’m finding it hard to imagine that the images were really shot on the Moon. That doesn’t mean I agree with every point made to support that position, just that I have yet to hear persuasive arguments against many of them.

          I’m puzzled by the indications of secondary light sources, primary light sources that appear much too close to be the sun, discrepancies between TV and film images of the same event, the incredible quality of the images (composition, etc.) given the limitations of no viewfinder, pressurized gloves, etc., the absence of stars in any of the images, anomalies and inconsistencies concerning the landing sites (backgrounds that appear and reappear in other locations), the lack of a blast crater under the LEM, etc. In addition, there’s McGowan’s detailing of the state of the American program as compared to the Soviet one and how the U.S. managed to leap ahead very suddenly.

          Don’t feel obligated to get into the discussion if it’s a subject you’d rather leave to others, but those are just a few of my concerns about the “official story.”

      12. “Who was the father of Jim Morrison from The Doors and why is that significant?”

        Is there anyone familiar with the concept of ‘Blood Liable’ and the concepts of ‘guilt by association’ and these barbaric medieval concepts having been gotten beyond for a period of time. It seems the concepts are again becoming acceptable in this postmodern world.

        The Hippie Days….perhaps you had to have been their to get it…???

        No one seems to grasp a simple thing like the generational rebellion against the ways of ones father anymore.

        My parents literally disowned me for my attitudes and lifestyle in the 60s and 70s, and my rejection of the mores and attitudes of ‘the greatest generation’ with their militarism, American Exceptionalism and up-tight sexual outlook.

        These after the fact theories about the Hippie Generation are generally simplistic bunk that lump everyone into a generic profile, giving no heed to the realities of vast spreads of personality traits, individual variance of lucidity, talents and outlook.

        I lived in Laurel Canyon in the 70s, at several locations. I knew that culture well – one thing that was very common among us was how opposite our views and morals were to our parents generation.

        Those who would assume that Morrison was an ‘agent’ of some sort because his dad was an admiral are viewing things from a stunted, naive, and simplistic perspective. I’ve read some of the McGowan series on Laurel Canyon…it’s like a 1940s archaeologist trying to visualize “being there” amongst the Cro Magnon of prehistory – ludicrous actually.

        ww

      13. Consider also the scene with the gun expert who comes right out and says the JFK official story is BS and he knows immediately that Swagger was set up just like Oswald.

        I loved the bit where this same old guy says “the moment you think you’ve got it figured out, you’re wrong”

        I have to agree with Craig on this one Adam. Hollywood is always going to go for the “rotten egg” analogy.

        It’s just like any film made about Ireland. “Why can’t we all get along”, sectarian plots where the British were simply trying to keep the animals apart.

        Even WW2 movies where genocide (by starvation) of Bengal where an embargo of the rice trade (by Churchill) lead to over 4 million deaths. Or the carpet firebombing of Dresden lead to over 100,000 deaths over a couple of days.

        The early Hitler regime was looked upon with jealousy by US corporations along with that of Franco in Spain and Mussolini in Italy. Elements in the US tried to stage a fascist coup only to be exposed by General Smedley who they tried to enlist.

        The “western films” gloss over the fact that entire nations were wiped out from extinction of their food source (bison), to marauding genocidal attacks to the first known instance of chemical warfare when cholera diseased blankets were given to tribes as “peace offerings”.

        All of he films had “rotten egg” elements but the government was portrayed as either benevolent or helpless.

        What I find hard to comprehend is that those that enlist to the FBI/CIA at whatever level with half a brain must be aware of some of the shit these people have enabled over the decades. The only CIA whistleblower I’ve ever given credence to was Philip Agee (simply because he defected to Cuba – Castro is sharp as a tack). Though I could be wrong!

        When I finish up on a project I’m working on, I’m going to post the history of these people at Pilots. I think the decades leading up to 9/11 must be studied to
        get an understanding of just how devious and arrogant these psychopaths are.

  14. I wish that just once, we could attend to the topic of Mr McKee’s essays without the torrent of bellicose rhetoric for the dear “Doktar” waylaying and overwhelming the commentary.

    He has already written a longer commentary than the original article here…and I am quite sure he isn’t finished yet.

    It is a drag Fetzer…a perpetual drag.

    ww

  15. Here are more examples of the important of the difference between high improbability and physical impossibility, which Senor El Once and rogue are attempting to obscure:

    36 The identity of the alleged hijackers remains very much in doubt. Nila Sagadevan, “9/11—The Real Report” (forthcoming), has observed that none of the names of the Arabs who are supposed to have committed these crimes are included in the flight manifests for any of the planes. Others, such as Griffin (2004, 2005), have observed that not only were fifteen of the nineteen from Saudi Arabia and none from Iraq, but five, six, or seven of those alleged to have been involved have turned up alive and well in Saudi Arabia. The FBI has not bothered to revise its list, but it should be apparent that the probability that they died in the crash, yet are still alive, is null.

    37 A French human-rights activist and an investigative journalist, Thierry Meyssan, was among the first to observe that the government’s account of the attack upon the Pentagon did not comport with the evidence. He published two of the earliest books on 9/11, Pentagate (2002a) and 9/11: The Big Lie (2002b). Meyssan has been the target of many attacks, including by James S. Robbins, “9/11 Denial” (2002), whose rebuttal consists of two assertions, “I was there. I saw it.” Whatever he may have thought he saw does not affect the evidence Meyssan emphasizes. See, for example, the web site http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentaone/erreurs_en.htm.

    38 Notice that the magnitude of the differences that are involved here is very large (http://reopen911.org/Core.htm). The melting point of iron is 2795° F, but steel as a mixture has a melting point dependent upon its composition. Typical structural steel has a melting point of about 2,750° F. The maximum temperature of air-aspirated, hydrocarbon fires without pre-heating or pressurization is around 1,520° F, as Jim Hoffman has advised me in personal correspondence. Underwriters Laboratory had in fact certified that the steel used in construction could withstand temperatures of 2,000° F several hours before even any significant softening would have occurred. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104.easilywithstood.htm)

    39 It certainly would not have melted at the lower temperatures of around 500° F to which, UL estimated, they were exposed, given the conditions present in the towers. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104.easilywithstood.htm) Nor would they have melted at temperatures as high as 1,200° or 1,300° F, as other estimates suggest (Griffin 2004, p. 13). The hottest temperatures measured in the South Tower was about 1,375° F, far too low to cause the steel to melt. (See below.)

    40 In the case of 9/11, as in the case of JFK, physical impossibilities lie at the core of the cover-up. What is impossible cannot happen, but many people are able to believe impossible things, especially when they are unaware of the laws that are involved and the specific conditions that were present. Gullibility tends to be a function of ignorance.

    41 Griffin (2004), pp. 26-27. Griffin’s latest study, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: A Christian Theologian’s Analysis” (forthcoming), adds even more. As Frank A. DeMartini, who was project manager for the construction of World Trade Center 1, during an interview recorded in January 2001, explained, “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it—that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting” (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104designedtotake.htm). Three other engineers involved in the project—Lee Robertson, Aaron Swirski, and Hyman Brown—offered similar opinions (http://www.rense.com/ general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm). DeMartini died at the towers on 9/11.

    42 Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction, who was involved in the process of clearing the site, reported seeing pools of “molten steel”, an observation that was confirmed by Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who said they had been found at the subbasement level as low as seven levels down. Moreover, those pools remained “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed” (http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seis-mic_.html). These extreme temperatures would not result from either burning fuel or collapse due to the “pancake effect”, which would have propensities of zero or null, but would be expectable effects of the use of powerful explosives to bring them down.

    43 Indeed, most of these features would have a null propensity on the official account. Hufschmid (2002), forexample, suggests that, if the collapse had involved a “pancake” effect of one floor falling and overwhelming the capacity of the lower floor to support it, that should have taken 1/2 second per floor. For all 110 of the floors to collapse—it would not matter which collapsed first or where the planes had hit—therefore, would have taken about 55 seconds. The buildings actually fell in approximately 14 seconds, around the speed of free fall through air for objects encountering no resistance at all. That this should occur on the official account is not even remotely physically possible.

    44 See, for example, http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html. This site includes many important studies of the Pentagon crash, such as a set of PowerPoint studies by Jack White. It also includes the links to many of the reports cited in this chapter, including “Hunt the Boeing!”, which presents Meyssan’s analysis in a series of photographs. I have found that links to evidence that contradicts the government’s account do not always work normally, however, and sometimes just simply disappear. Similar photographs are found in Meyssan (2002a), color photo section, pp. VI-VII.

    1. >”Here are more examples of the important of the difference between high improbability and physical impossibility, which Senor El Once and rogue are attempting to obscure.”~Fetzer

      What a load of bullshit Fetzer. Take for example point No. 41, wherein you mention Frank A. DeMartini, and his comment:

      >“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it—that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

      Failing to mention that you disputed DeMartini’s remarks yourself in commentary just a few posts back, while arguing that it was “impossible for the aircraft to penetrate the facade,” while promoting your bullshit ‘Hologram” theories. All of this while disputing real crash physics – a ludicrous argument avoiding real Newtonian physics of Momentum.

      That we have gone round and round these issues for months upon months, and now you take this fallback position to defame both Señor El Once and myself, is adequate evidence of your disingenuous and deceitful disinformation technique.

      You rely on the probability that only a few will recall, or have even visited these past debates to spread this type of defamation against your opponents.

      \\][//

    2. See:

      http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/more-absurd-arguments-on-the-pentagon-propaganda-team-sets-its-sights-on-griffin/

      Jim Fetzer says: July 23, 2012 at 11:44 pm
      >”No plane–no REAL plane–could have penetrated that massive horizontal resistance like a pencil through mosquito netting. In citing him, this guy rogue1 commits an obvious blunder; what DeMartini was contemplating has to have been on the horizontal hitting between floors. The actual cases was completely different.”
      . . . . . . . . . .

      hybridrogue1 says: July 24, 2012 at 7:50 am
      > “You are so full of bullshit Fetzer, DeMartini gave no such qualifiers.

      You are the one making it up out of whole cloth. It’s like everything you do here, making up your own “physics”, your own “logic” – a phantasmagorical alternate universe where everything is, simply because you say it is so.”

      \\][//

  16. “The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.” –Zbigniew Brzezinsky, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970

    Design masquerades as Diagnosis.

    ww

  17. A good article, Craig, but personally, I think you need to grow a thicker skin.

    With regards to the events of 9/11 I know of one sure fire way to ensure the growth of that thicker skin- simply say you believe the exact same things that I do.

    [Unlike myself, you don’t have to ever actually believe them for real, just say you do while you are “in training” until skin has reached the required thickness! ]

    Here’s a quick recap, in case you have forgotten , of my very own personalized, “guaranteed-to-grow-thicker -skin – by causing- massive-amounts-of -ridicule -even- inside- the- 9/11-“truth movement”- [let alone outside of it] or- your- money- back”, current belief “set”:

    1]: the original 9/11 MSM broadcasts [i.e. all US stations] were all 100% prefabricated digital fakes. There were no live broadcasts from downtown Manhattan [nor from the Pentagon “crash” scene] that day.

    2] Consequently all of the alleged “live” MSM footage of the collapses of WTC1, 2, and 7 are also digital , pre-fabricated computer generated fakes. There was no original live collapse footage broadcast that day for any building in the WTC complex [or at the Pentagon] .

    2] All of the “plane crash into building videos” of either network or amateur origin, and for either WTC1 [Fl.11], or 2 [Fl.175], are also 100% digital fakes, not live footage shot by intrepid heroic cameramen/women .

    4] All of the post 9/11 higher resolution videos and stills released , of either buildings collapsing, or of planes flying into buildings [all mostly released in 2007 and 2010] , allegedly either taken by the government or “amateurs” , are also digitally created fakes.

    5] Most, or possibly all of the roughly 3,000 alleged victims never died, because they never existed in the first place. Most, if not all are computer generated persons manufactured via face-morphing software and then given false background histories. In other words, most, if not all, of these “persons” only existed in computer files, never in the real world. See: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&p=2373726&sid=336a948925e582eab0170415220af754#p2373726

    Also see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZEuj1VPv0

    I personally guarantee that if you consistently [daily] at least pretend to actually believe all 5 of those listed above, a far thicker skin will result, in six months or less !

    Try it, you’ll like it :-)

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. I do understand your recap of your beliefs, but what I don’t understand is what it has to do with growing a thicker skin and why I have to grow a thicker skin to begin with. What in my article provokes this suggestion from you? AND why would I want to go around saying something about 9/11 unless I absolutely believed it.

    2. Regards onebornfree,

      Let me see now…this makes how many times you have used some excuse, ANY excuse to give a sales pitch for your weird cosmetics line?

      I’d simply recommend Oil of Olay for nicer skin. But I don’t get how you have the idea that Craig is somehow “thin skinned”…say whut?

      ww

    3. It sounds to me a lot like you are unwilling to consider the evidence that you are wrong OBF. There is SUBSTANTIAL reason to reject video fakery especially of the second plane strike and the building demolitions. Many times those reasons have been spelled out to you and others so I am not going to AGAIN waste my time explaining them. It is obvious garbage on it’s face to suggest dozens upon dozens of videos were faked yet match each other in every detail and to suggest that thousands upon thousands of eye witnesses on the scene at the time were what? Asleep? Saw a hollogram of the buildings coming down? Saw something completely different than the “faked videos”? What a load of crap man.

      What I find disturbing about your post beyond the fact that you promote obvious BS is that you recommend Craig promote the same BS in order to “thicken his skin”. What your post really amounts to in my view is a declaration from you that you are absolutely right and no matter what logical argument is offered to counter your belief you are just going to ignore it because you have “thick skin”. You suggest Craig take on the same approach which would of course ruin his credibility and destroy his blog in the process. Perhaps that is what you want? I don’t know but I am sure Craig is way too smart to fall into that trap.

      Thick skin in your case OBF means you don’t discuss anything or consider anything you simply preach the gospel as you see it and ignore everything and anyone who disagrees with it. No legitimate debate is therefore possible with you. You are a closed loop. To engage with you when you hold that attitude is utterly pointless. Thick skin is just another way of describing an unreasonable troll who will not debate in good faith.

  18. When someone calls me a conspiracy theorist I reply with:

    “I think that says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.”

    Works every time.

  19. Intra-9/11 Truth tempers flaring…the dream of the 9/11 conspirators. 9/11 dissidents would be well advised to spend less energy arguing with each other about 9/11’s specifics (who did what when with whose tools on whose budget at whose request?), remember that they all agree that the real 9/11 terrorists are the highly talented team of experts who disintegrated the twin towers while they were being evacuated, and that their true enemies are the numerous principal anti-neocon leaders from all over the world, who have failed to blow the 9/11 whistle for a whole decade and have instead sent their gullible followers on wild goose chases after the nefarious 9/11-induced policies.

    With committed enemies like liberal/socialist/green/union/”enemy”/Muslim leaders, 9/11 dissidents have much bigger fish to fry than their disagreements over what exactly happened on 9/11 and which strategies should be pursued.

    Love,

    1. Daniel,

      You are a good person. The problem is one of “cognitive infiltration”, in the language of Cass Sunstein. I wrote about it in, “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Birds-of-a-Feather-Subver-by-Jim-Fetzer-100121-980.html If everyone in the movement were a truth seeker, your concern would be well-placed. But many are provocateurs and saboteurs, who are doing what they can to undermine research on 9/11, which is already difficult enough without intervention. I am quite sure that at least 50% of those involved in both JFK and 9/11 research are working against exposing falsehoods and revealing truths. And some of them are VERY smooth!

      Jim

      1. “And some of them are VERY smooth!” ~ Fetzer

        And some have a lot of academic credentials to promote their position of “authority”…

        The issue is, do their theories stand up to reason, and scientific scrutiny. The tell is in the putting.

        ww

    2. Blessed be the peacemakers Daniel Noel,

      Just remember there are many types of “wild goose chases”, and promotions of cognitive dissonance. They can be applied from both angles, blatant 9/11 official story promoters, and the subtle disinfo agent who has infiltrated the movement and works within to drive honest researchers into the fields of weeds and thorns.

      Truth must be the truth…not some ridiculous fairytale.

      ww

    3. Jim & Hybridrogue: thank you. Let us take another step back, and apologize to Craig for this tangent on 9/11 dissidence’s etiquette….

      I have proposed (see last sections of http://www.global-Platonic-theater.com) that 9/11 dissidents use as a litmus test the affirmation of the self-evident televised terrorist controlled demolition of the twin towers with civilians inside them to evaluate whether a given individual or leader may be treated with some disrespect (i.e. ridiculed or demonized).

      Prominent leaders who should but do not affirm the twin towers’ controlled demolition from their bully pulpits (Barbara Boxer, Ron Paul, Amnesty International, Oathkeepers, Assad, etc.) pose an extreme danger to the human community, as they promote collective hysteria (i.e. a warped worldview). Some of them can actually be unmasked only by ridiculing them, especially 9/11 faithkeepers, whose brains were literally rewired by the 9/11 trauma and who are biologically incapable of understanding 9/11 unless they experience another trauma. My earlier comment links to such an instance.

      However, 9/11 dissidents (particularly Senor El Once) need to be reminded that they have much bigger targets for their irony and ad hominem attacks than fellow 9/11 dissidents. 9/11 will progress much faster if they restrict their criticism to the constructive realm.

      To build on Hybridrogue’s point, once 9/11 dissidents understand the above and reduce their trust in 9/11 leaders who use non-constructive criticisms against other 9/11 leaders, 9/11 (and the global human welfare) will experience a big leap forward.

      Love,

      1. “Let us take another step back, and apologize to Craig for this tangent on 9/11 dissidence’s etiquette….”~Daniel Noel

        Let us not.

        This is an interesting discussion that needs no apology. When Craig posts our commentary, let us trust in his own judgement.

        If you are intent on regimentation, let that simply be noted. And let us move on with all of our ideas aired.

        \\][//

      2. Good points, Daniel. I agree that the back and forth vitriolic attacks offer the least interesting type of exchange for this forum. I much prefer a discussion to an argument, although there are times when one does have to take a stand against someone who is being disingenuous. This is why I am so harsh in attacking those who would have us believe that a large airliner hit the Pentagon.

      3. Hey Craig,

        I’ll reply to your moon comments above, as that minithread is stretching…

        Yes, do inquire and seek these things out under your own lights.

        My best advice has been given, having to do with understanding photography and the equipment used, as it is the images that are at the heart of the matter.

        ww

      4. Daniel Noel,

        Have you considered the possibility that you do not grasp the criticisms of Señor El Once pertaining to Fetzer’s whole stance, which is based on ‘appeal to authority’?

        Have you followed Fetzer throughout the many threads he has contributed to this blog?

        I must have been obvious from my added commentary to Señor’s assertions, that I agree wholeheartedly to his criticisms of Fetzer, and have only refrained from adding my own here as they are so well known by those who pay attention to the dialog on this blog.

        You seem to hope to quell “dissension” in the ranks of “the Truth movement” by your call for unity through ‘consensus’ and a regimented conformity to your own prejudiced ideal. The subtext to this article is, “stop questioning, stop thinking”, this must be applied individually by each of our own sets of opinion.

        I think your call for a quorum on this is misplaced.

        \\][//

      5. Hybridrogue:
        The contention that I do not gasp the criticisms of SEO pertaining to Fetzer’s stance is more than a possibility. It is a certainty. I respectfully fault SEO for using mockery instead of sticking to the facts. SEO sets an example of using destructive criticism. This does not suit intra-9/11 Truth discussions, as they take place between people who share the knowledge that the real 9/11 terrorists were not 19 fanatics from Osama bin Laden’s lair, but the team of hi-tech experts who demolished the twin towers and their remaining occupants while TV was trained on them.
        I do not pass judgment on the contention that Fetzer’s affirmations are correct or incorrect. If my previous posts have given the impression that I wish that people would refrain from disagreeing with or criticizing Fetzer, I apologize, because it was neither my intent nor my belief.
        You are most welcome to agree with SEO’s criticisms. But kindly make an effort to keep your criticism constructive. And if you find that Fetzer’s comments are based on incorrect empirical assumptions use faulty logic, or ridicule fellow 9/11 truth-seekers, by all means expose your disagreement.
        Re-reading my previous posts, I do not understand how they could be interpreted as a call to 9/11 unity, some 9/11 dissension-quelling, and my own prejudiced ideal. I have called, in http://www.global-Platonic-theater,com, for 9/11 dissidents to respect each other. In the next upcoming edition, I further call them to put less trust in 9/11 leaders who use destructive criticism against their colleagues.
        I register your disagreement with my call, with the caveat that this disagreement may result from a misunderstanding. If you’d care to elaborate…
        In the meantime, this web page’s tempers seem to have calmed down.
        Love,

      6. Daniel Noel.

        You began this mini-thread with this comment;

        >”Intra-9/11 Truth tempers flaring..”
        . . . . . . . . . .

        The fact of the matter I rarely come from a position of emotion, angst nor anger in my commentary and criticism.

        I would point out that ridicule of the ridiculous has never been considered ‘false argumentum’, and the term ‘ad hominem’ does not technically apply to ridicule, but only when name calling is used as the base for an argument rather than countering false reasoning.

        You call for ‘respect’ of “other 9/11 dissidents”…that is fine and good, but only when one is reasonably sure that other dissidents are genuine. When we are dealing with not only the possibility, but the probability that a certain portion of ‘the movement’ are infiltrators ala Sunstein, I must reject the prospect of respect for those who have shown themselves likely candidates as moles and saboteurs.

        I do respect your position, I think you are coming from an honest place, even in the commentary that I disagree with. However, I have been convinced since the very first debate I had with Fetzer on this site, that he is a pretender, a Pied Piper, a Judas Goat, a dissembler, and a plant of the system attempting to lead astray with ludicrous and ridiculous ‘theories’ and Orwellian rhetorical nonsense.

        That Fetzer is considered a genuine “Leader” of the 9/11 Truth Movement is one of the very real dangers the movement faces, for a traitor within the gates can do much more harm than those without. I think any technique to expose a mole has merit, even taunting one to anger, as it is often then that they let their guard down and leave themselves open for more to see what they really are.

        I have said this before, but it bears repeating:

        Naivete is not innocence – it is a dangerous and gross form of ignorance; suicidal in it’s full potential.

        \\][//

      7. Dear Mr. Noel,

        You wrote on August 16, 2012 at 8:51 pm:

        9/11 dissidents would be well advised to spend less energy arguing with each other about 9/11’s specifics…

        You wrote on August 17, 2012 at 1:57 pm:

        However, 9/11 dissidents (particularly Senor El Once) need to be reminded that they have much bigger targets for their irony and ad hominem attacks than fellow 9/11 dissidents. 9/11 will progress much faster if they restrict their criticism to the constructive realm.

        You wrote on August 18, 2012 at 6:43 pm:

        I respectfully fault SEO for using mockery instead of sticking to the facts. SEO sets an example of using destructive criticism.

        Your words did not fall on deaf ears, although I didn’t respond to you directly when these first appeared. Some context is missing for you as Dr. Fetzer, Mr. Rogue, and I drag inter-personal baggage from previous discussions into this thread.

        Whereas my demeanor did become mockery in this thread with regards to Dr. Fetzer, it did not start out that way. It also didn’t start out with “destructive criticism,” either; quite the contrary. I was offering him constructive criticism to tighten and clarify his text regarding his psuedo “range from zero to null.”

        Whether it was your intent or not, your postings calling me out specifically and not Dr. Fetzer left the impression with conspiracy-minded me that your first (?) appearance here wasn’t so coincidental, but I won’t dwell on that.

        Dr. Fetzer is the name brand 9/11 conspiracy theorist in our midst. From his first entrance here, I was excited to have his participation. Until, that is, his overall participation started leaving much to be desired.

        For someone who has been around so many different conspiracy theory blocks several times, one has to question what he learned based on what he dishes out. For whatever reason (like too much time in academia bullying his students), “the guy” can’t even admit when he made a mistake, be it a misuse of language or a misunderstanding of physics. In fact, the only mistakes he has copped to have led him to promote even more whacked out concepts (like holograms). Don’t get me wrong, because I like getting duped by whacked out concepts, but it has to have a critical mass of properly applied science and analysis, which Dr. Fetzer has been unable to produce.

        So, how did Dr. Fetzer react to my constructive criticism? Ad hominem attacks worthy of mockery. This has been pretty consistent from his first entrance here. Dr. Fetzer is more at home in a flame-war than in weighing technical arguments that might contradict his own.

        What has been the nature of his participation in this very thread? I could give him a pass for one or two verbatim re-postings of his previous text with a link to the source. But he has about six re-hashed lenthy copy-and-paste postings that few will struggle to read or comprehend and that also have little revelance to the discussion. Other than insults direct at me or Mr. Rogue in the intro of a post, none were tailored to this forum. What was their purpose that a simple link couldn’t have achieved?

        As much as I want to respect Dr. Fetzer, he has done more than his fair share to spoil & soil it. Purposely. Mr. Noel, it would be fitting for you to observe Dr. Fetzer’s activities and possibly give him some tailored advice.

        // a psuedo-intellectual

      8. Señor El Once:
        Thank you for reading my posts, and for your nice reaction to them.
        Indeed I miss the context of your argument with Fetzer, as this is, I think, my first time on Truth and Shadows.
        I did indeed single you out for “lack of intra-9/11 courtesy.” This was because my reading of posts that attacked other participants was superficial. I singled you out because I subjectively—and summarily—thought that the density of attacks coming from you was higher than those coming from anyone else.
        I do not defend the theory that holograms were used to fake the WTC aircraft attacks.
        I harbor some bias towards Fetzer because he amazed me by politely receiving my constructive criticism against a fundamental aspect of the recent 9/11 Vancouver Hearings (http://www.911vancouverhearings.com/?p=3) and turned it into a 2-hour interview on his radio show that featured my original work on the 9/11 censorship.
        I am, to your point, one of the readers who did not pay much attention to Fetzer’s first comment. I quickly determined that it would take much effort to understand and that it would probably not help me much.
        By all means, expose disrespectfulness and lack of rigor in analyses within the scope of 9/11 dissidence. I respectfully recommend that you refrain from using those yourself. It is so easy to see a mote in another analyst’s eye…
        Love,

  20. http://tavistockagenda.iwarp.com/whats_new_26.html

    A brilliant article, with some fundamental epistemic errors to be parsed out:

    >“The brainwashing institute has twisted our beliefs into their very opposites by collapsing our psychic boundaries. Now, we are permanently “shellshocked.” ~Iona Miller

    This is a mistake:

    “We” are ‘permanently’ shellshocked?

    No, there is salvation within those who can come awake.

    That particular ‘we’ may be in the minority, but ‘we’ have existed, and even thrived throughout every age – even the darkest of them. This buying into the ‘ultimate’ power of the Manichean Devil is the deepest error of them all: This is surrender.

    \\][//

  21. Dear Mr Noel,

    So as not to belabor the point, this will be my last commentary on this particular issue, unless you have a response that I find in need of an answer:
    . . . . . . . .

    >”Flight 175 being shown flying at around 560 mph in those videos is not aerodynamically possible. The entry into the building was in violation of Newton’s laws and is not physically possible. The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. And buildings that collapsed cannot have been reduced to ground level with no pancakes! I am simply floored that you cannot appreciate the scientific absurdity of the official story.”~Fetzer, in a comment to Señor El Once
    . . . . . . . .

    Notice that the first sentence is directed to an assumption that has not been held by Señor, nor any other commentator on this blog — that it was flt 175 that is the aircraft in those videos.

    The second sentence, making reference to Newton’s laws, have nothing to do with Newton, but with Fetzer’s ignorant misinterpretation of those laws. [And this has been proven time after time on many threads throughout the last few months here.]

    The rest of the paragraph is simply a refutation of the official story, that again neither Señor, nor any other Truth and Shadows regular commentator have ever supported.

    So what do you make of such Mr. Noel?

    Is this not for the most part simply rhetorical jabberwacky aimed at Mr. Fetzer’s critics?

    Is your ignorance of the dispute really a rational or sensible position to argue from? Why should you take Fetzer’s claims at face value, that he is an honest participant in the 9/11 Truth Movement?

    \\][//

    1. Typical hybridrogue1. The videos have been REPEATEDLY TOUTED and have been PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED to be of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower, even by the government, since that is part of the “official story”. We know it cannot be the case that this is actually Flight 175, since FAA Registration data shows the plane corresponding to Flight 175 was not deregistered until 28 September 2005, which would be preposterous if it had actually hit the South Tower. So rogue and even SEO are playing games by trying to defeat important points based on trivialities.

      We even know from studies by Pilots for 9/11 Truth that Flight 175 was in the air but over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, even after it had allegedly hit the South Tower. So this guy wants to claim it was a “special plane”, when NO PLANE–NO MATTER HOW “SPECIAL”–could have entered the South Tower without crumpling, its wings and tail falling off, bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. As we know from counting frames, the plane shown DID NOT EVEN SLOW DOWN. How much ridiculous nonsense are we supposed to accept from an obvious purveyor?

      That has been true of rogue from the beginning. For example, he claims that all of my arguments are appeals to authority, which is completely indefensible. Not only do I regularly cite articles, photos and other evidence providing proof substantiating my arguments–look at the links and studies I have cited in the notes to my proofs from “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK”, but I am an authority in the areas of logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, in general, as well as in the specific domain of 9/11 research with my 9/11 books, articles, and conferences.

      SEO has become lost in his own sea of technicalities, which are being used as a way to conceal his ignorance of elementary physics and the use of fake planes to simulate real hits on the North and the South Towers. His incompetence I find far less offensive than rogue’s endless stream of ad hominems. He constantly claims that I am using the techniques in which he specializes. Just review our respective posts here and see which of us is trading in logic and evidence and which of us is abusing the man and resorting to sarcasm and ridicule. It is not even a close call.

      1. Fetzer says:

        >”…but I am an authority in the areas of logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, in general,”

        Really really he is…he even has the diplomas to prove it. He is by gawd an AUTHORITY… but no…
        . . . . . . . .
        Fetzer goes on with:

        >”For example, he claims that all of my arguments are appeals to authority, which is completely indefensible.”

        Hahahahahahahaha….jeeeeeeze, how can you get it from the horses mouth any clearer???
        . . . . . . .
        >”Just review our respective posts here and see which of us is trading in logic and evidence and which of us is abusing the man and resorting to sarcasm and ridicule.”

        >”I recommend hybridrogue1 for the Dunce of the Year Award”~Jim Fetzer
        . . . . . . . . . .

        Fetzer is so smart that he doesn’t even understand that what I wrote above is exactly what he is doing again…

        Let me spell it out real clear for you “Doctor”:

        1} Both Senor and myself KNOW that the videos of the plane hitting the tower is CLAIMED to be Flight 175.

        2} We both KNOW that this is the official government story.

        3} AND YET get this into your skull her doktar, NEITHER I NOR SENOR HAVE EVER CLAIMED THAT IT WAS FLIGHT 175.

        GOT IT?

        As per usual the rest of your post addressing the physics of the crash are utter unscientific bullshit. And I think it is irresponsible to counter every one of your SPECIAL FETZERIAN PHYSICS claims on every single thread you bring them up on.

        You think you can eventually persuade by REPETITION-REPETITION…it is a form of attrition.

        \\][//

  22. By the way Daniel,

    I have sent an email to Mr Baron, concerning his lack of honest engagement with you on your blog as documented by your email exchange. He has sent a terse short reply.

    I have sent him another questioning email. We shall see how long it takes him to resort to his flaming oinkage.

    Would you like me to keep you informed?

    \\][//

    1. Well as far as ALEXANDER BARON is concerned; he is a nonstarter. It was in his third post that he went off with “are you sure your name isn’t Wally Wayton”…???
      A pretty lame attempt at an insult, Lol

      My very first email I asked him a very simple question, to inform me of ANY steel framed high-rise building that has totally collapsed because of fire. He ran around the Maypole with ribbons and balloons for around six posts proving his absolute ignorance of the 9/11 events.

      After reminding him several times that he hadn’t even attempted to answer my question, and pointing out that he obviously has no clue as what he is talking about, he sent an email demanding that I never contact him again.

      He is not even an interesting writer. And he is one of the least informed debunky monkeys I have ever encountered. But thanks for pointing him out, it is good to be familiar with the circus clowns.

      \\][//

      1. Baron, a circus clown? Sure. Alas, he has a bully pulpit and I don’t. Neither has any of us on this page. Accordingly, I designed my above-mentioned thread with him (and the http://www.911babystep.com page before it) with the objective that a reasonable skeptic who knows nothing of 9/11 would promptly distinguish between the rationalist and the charlatan.

        Baron seems to be a 9/11 faithkeeper, i.e. an individual whose brain was literally rewired through the trauma of 9/11. The 9/11 myth literally lives in him. He in incapable of imagining that the world would not conform to it and feels discomfort at the mere thought that there exist people who doubt it. He is biologically incapable of realizing that he ridicules himself, as he wrote in our thread—correctly from his distorted perspective—that I hurt myself by publishing it. He may very well hold the 9/11 myth to his grave, even after 9/11 Truth becomes mainstream. In the meantime, he will keep spewing 9/11 venom from his bully pulpit, which reasonable people will, alas, absorb as legal tender. As such, he is part of the 9/11 conspirators’ first line of defense. Neutralizing him and his ilk is a priority.

        Thank you so much for following up with him on my thread. If and when enough people do this, and perhaps alert the people who give him his bully pulpit, he may stop spreading his hysteria, and 9/11 Truth will take a step forward.

        Love,

      2. Yes Daniel,

        The fact that Baron has what seems to be a fairly active blog is a thorn in the side of truth. But I had never heard of the guy before and I have been on this case from the morning of 9/11.

        I will also make mention of Baron on my own blog that gets several thousand hits a month or maybe it is weeks now {?}. This will lend a fair share of infamy to his name as well. Some 9/11 articles will be forthcoming and one is already in the current line up there.

        Although my wordpress dashboard is dysfunctional at this time, I often write essays and have one of my comrades there post them for me. I think a new essay on 9/11 charlatans from several angles is due soon.

        I have yet to give a full treatment on Legge, and will certainly include her doktar F. as well as this clown Baron as a spread of the various aspects of pharmakeus’ who are spreading their various potions on the subject.

        \\][//

      3. Re: Mr Baron, I sent him a polite e-mail, a summary of the events most truthers agree on regarding 9/11. He replied ….

        “How stupid do you think I am? At least have the decency not to insult my intelligence by posting from a different address”

        Not sure who he thought the writer was lol

      4. Al,

        At one point Baron said to me that, if he” didn’t know better” he would think I was actually Mr Noel…Lol

        In another he began with the ubiquitous “Yawn”… I asked if trying to think made him drowsy.

        Anyway, he is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed. I gave him this URL, thinking he might have the yarbles to post something here, but the subject of 9/11 obviously gives him the heebeijeebies resulting in rapid onset of narcolepsy.

        \\][//

      5. Thank you for cooking Baron a bit more. Alas, mental discomfort is the only way he and his ilk can be neutralized. One advantage of my system is that, with skill and practice, it makes it easy to show who is writing rationally and who is not so that even people who dislike 9/11 dissidence have to agree that Baron is not trustworthy on 9/11.

        Once 9/11 faithkeepers are out of the way, it will be a lot easier to work on the 9/11 censors and on the overarching conspiracy of the global Platonic theater.

        I’ll correct myself. Baron is not a circus clown. He acts like one only because I stimulated him to do so and his biological condition forced him to fall in my trap. He is biologically incapable, paradoxically, of understanding that he makes a fool of himself.

        This is similar to the very few but real old Germans who will, if you prod them, assure you that all the evil in the world comes from the Communists, the Jews, the Poles and the French, and will bury you under a truckload of insults if you question his belief. Just like Germans managed to shame these people into silence, we may have to do the same with 9/11 faithkeepers. This is partly why the http://www.911babystep.com page was designed.

        Love,

  23. Dear Señor,

    you wrote:

    Whereas my demeanor did become mockery in this thread with regards to Dr. Fetzer, it did not start out that way. It also didn’t start out with “destructive criticism,” either; quite the contrary. I was offering him constructive criticism to tighten and clarify his text regarding his psuedo “range from zero to null.”

    Actually, and to be honest, i didn’t see any “constructive criticism” at all, but instead a mere petty and trivial counter argument coming from you based on some silly nick-picking!

    Please let me here try to be clear:
    In this context, both Zero and One should be seen as ‘concepts’ only, and understood alone in the abstract. The ‘distance’ between zero and one is of course “infinite”, which means that neither zero or one can ever be reached numerically, but must forever stand separate and completely independent of each other – and also independent of “the infinite” concept of course.
    This is proven by the fact that “the infinite” naturally cannot become bounded by “limits” of any kind. And thus can neither zero nor one “in reality” be used for those purposes.

    Jim Fetzer and anybody else (including you Señor) are therefore completely free to use the ‘concepts’ Null or Zero and One for whatever reasons they choose, whether as a ‘metaphor’ or anything else they may come up with! – without having to be criticized or censured for this!

    Thought that your use of the word “bombastic” was uncalled for dear Señor, and therefore rather inappropriate and unacceptable, imho!

    (Mathematicians use zero and one as ‘limits’ around “the infinite” all the time, but this only shows that they have not advanced and progressed enough to be able to transcend the mere physical yet, unfortunately)!

    For someone who has been around so many different conspiracy theory blocks several times, one has to question what he learned based on what he dishes out. For whatever reason (like too much time in academia bullying his students), “the guy” can’t even admit when he made a mistake, be it a misuse of language or a misunderstanding of physics. In fact, the only mistakes he has copped to have led him to promote even more whacked out concepts (like holograms). Don’t get me wrong, because I like getting duped by whacked out concepts, but it has to have a critical mass of properly applied science and analysis, which Dr. Fetzer has been unable to produce.

    So i’m now a “wacko” too, Señor!!

    OK, and obviously you’re not, so ‘lets hear that from you’ regarding the following:

    The perps let the whole world know that it was a standard Boeing 767 that effortlessly penetrated the towers.

    How did the perps ‘know’ that a standard 767 was able to do as depicted in the videos?

    Some people thought that the videos looked ‘suspect’, and later some professional pilots looked into the case. They soon discovered that a standard 767 could not fly at those speeds depicted in the videos. People believed the professional pilots and their findings, and soon tried to come up with other explanations. Some came up with the idea that it must have been modified planes, perhaps even remote controlled. Others came up with the idea that not only was it modified remote controlled planes, but also that the planes had been ‘strengthened’ with steel wings and steel nosecones, and in addition had been equipped with ‘bunker-buster-bombs’ or ‘missiles’ or both!

    Now, how did the perps ‘know’ that a standard 767 was unable to perform the task shown on all the videos that day?

    How did the perps ‘know’ that only a modified plane, as above, would be able to perform the way it was depicted in the videos?

    And how did the perps ‘know’ that nobody would be able to spot their deceit, replacing a standard 767 with another modified type? …..Well somebody, nay ‘many’, actually did, didn’t they!!

    Did the perps built a 15 to 20 story replica of the towers somewhere in a restricted area in a New Mexico desert, first trying out with a standard 767, and seeing that this didn’t work, rebuilding the replica, and then trying out with the modified version next?

    How many times did they have to repeat this exercise before they got it absolutely right?

    These and many other questions you’ll have to answer dear Señor, and good luck with that!

    Parallel to what i have already given you from DARPA, here is more from The US Air Force under the heading “Future weapons proposals”, – Air Force 2025 study – Airborne Holographic Projector:

    “A projector system that displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.”

    I like their last phrase “unsophisticated adversary”. Somebody in the ‘force’ must at least to some degree have some “sense of humour” left in him or her!

    Hope you’ll take up your understandings of ‘likelihoods’, ‘improbabilities’ and ‘impossibilities’ to much closer scrutiny than you have done hitherto!!

    As much as I want to respect Dr. Fetzer, he has done more than his fair share to spoil & soil it. Purposely. Mr. Noel, it would be fitting for you to observe Dr. Fetzer’s activities and possibly give him some tailored advice.

    What about you dear Señor! Why wouldn’t you like some ‘respect’ yourself??

    Here’s a Truth for you:

    People get the governments they deserve.

    But it’s equally True that, people get the “friends” they deserve, as well!

    Cheers

    1. Dear Mr. TamborineMan wrote:

      Actually, and to be honest, i didn’t see any “constructive criticism” at all, but instead a mere petty and trivial counter argument coming from you based on some silly nick-picking!

      Indeed it was “petty and trivial”, Mr. TamborineMan, which is why it surprised me that Dr. Fetzer didn’t just ignore it or agree with it. Instead, he digs in his heels: “One of Senor El Once’s weaker comments… Your post strikes me as a stunning example of trading on trivialities to mislead and confound readers.”

      And if Dr. Fetzer’s original posting wasn’t so lengthly and didn’t put on aires of being high-falutin’ academic and precise, you probably would have read the whole thing and realized that his exact usage of a “range from zero to null” was wrong in that context and deserved to be flagged.

      You go on to write:

      Jim Fetzer and anybody else (including you Señor) are therefore completely free to use the ‘concepts’ Null or Zero and One for whatever reasons they choose, whether as a ‘metaphor’ or anything else they may come up with! – without having to be criticized or censured for this!

      Ah yes. But when the intent is to be academic and precise, which it was for Dr. Fetzer, when the intent is to communicate clearly, which it should have been, then the “freedom to use such concepts” is restricted to applicability, validity, and correctness.

      Thought that your use of the word “bombastic” was uncalled for dear Señor, and therefore rather inappropriate and unacceptable, imho!

      Maybe it was, because “bombastic” is one of those words that currently sticks in my mind dying for an opportunity to be deployed. I had no thesaurus handy to improve my word selection. Suggestions? I was trying to convey how much of a bull-dozer Dr. Fetzer is, knocking over bad things and good in the same swath and not caring, has his pushes his “stuff” into taller piles.

      I wrote:

      In fact, the only mistakes he has copped to have led him to promote even more whacked out concepts (like holograms). Don’t get me wrong, because I like getting duped by whacked out concepts, but it has to have a critical mass of properly applied science and analysis, which Dr. Fetzer has been unable to produce.

      To which Mr. Tamborine Man responded:

      So i’m now a “wacko” too, Señor!! OK, and obviously you’re not…

      “Whacked out” does not have to equate to its champions as being “wacko”. For the record, Sir Isaac Newton’s calculus is also pretty “whacked out”, as are Laplace Transforms, Fourier Transfors, etc.

      The difference between those “whacked out” mathematical concepts (that have many instances of applicability in the real world) and holograms on 9/11 is that the latter hasn’t been proven applicable in the real world, let alone on that fateful day. Were holograms all that jizzle and more, they would have been commercialized by now, and there would be many foundational building block YouTube, articles, and scientific research papers in support of the technology and proof-of-concept.

      You disagree with my assessment of 9/11 holograms? Good for you. You are welcome to post your research links under the T&S article that discussed this (“Gage concedes his entry into 9/11 Pentagon ‘quagmire’ has been divisive”). In doing so, make sure that you account for two agreeing sets of radar data. Maybe I’ll change my tune again.

      As for the details of what appears below your faux-“offense taking” at a strawman “wacko” slur-that-wasn’t:

      Now, how did the perps ‘know’ that a standard 767 was unable to perform the task shown on all the videos that day?

      It doesn’t take much to research the frailties of standard aircraft, and to locate films of their tests, particularly if you have a security clearance and can view even the classified stuff. The perps would have had PhD’s, engineers, and military experts advising on what a standard aircraft could or could not do.

      If “penetration-before-explosion” was deemed a goal, it wouldn’t take much to grab a page or two from the bunker-busting-bomb design manual to learn of materials, structure, and speed so that the goals could be met.

      How did the perps ‘know’ that only a modified plane, as above, would be able to perform the way it was depicted in the videos?

      A standard aircraft could not even fly the requisite closing speed at 1/2 mile in altitude. Its engines would not have been able to generate enough thrust in the thicker air to overcome the additional drag that the wings would produce.

      And how did the perps ‘know’ that nobody would be able to spot their deceit, replacing a standard 767 with another modified type? …..Well somebody, nay ‘many’, actually did, didn’t they!!

      Nice straw man: “replacing a standard 767 with another modified type.” Why don’t you wrap your head around the concept of: “replacing a standard 767 with a modified 767?” Look up in Wikipedia how many different variations of the 767 exist. Some are easy to spot, many aren’t.

      About 20 years ago, a German version of a “Car & Driver” magazine was featuring a Porche 9/11 that had a black VW Golf (e.g., VW Rabbit) car body built around it. The Porche was 9″ wider than the Golf, so they widened the body, and it my humble opinion made the Golf absolutlely kick-ass looking and balanced. And on the Autobahns of Germany, many Mercedes, BMW, Audi, and Porsche drivers were annoyed when they saw the Golf flashing its lights to pass, pressed on their gas a bit more, and were still overwhelmed by this “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

      The pod-on-the-plane is proof that the deceit was spotted. The flash from the pod is proof that the deceit was spotted. The speed of the aircraft is proof that the deceit was spotted. … Explained away (or ignored away) it was, though.

      Did the perps built a 15 to 20 story replica of the towers somewhere in a restricted area in a New Mexico desert, first trying out with a standard 767, and seeing that this didn’t work, rebuilding the replica, and then trying out with the modified version next? How many times did they have to repeat this exercise before they got it absolutely right?

      Probably zero and zero. Ho-hum.

      I don’t have to cut a board 2″ short to know that it will be 2″ short if I had used math concepts ahead of time to calculate and measure the true size required that isn’t 2″ short but right on the money. Enough was known about penetrating missiles and standard aircraft to determine ahead of time on paper what enhancements would be required — like more powerful engines.

      Your DARPA reference and your US Air Force reference lack links. I’ve highlighted the words that should have added some grains of salt to your thinking:

      Parallel to what i have already given you from DARPA, here is more from The US Air Force under the heading “Future weapons proposals”, – Air Force 2025 study – Airborne Holographic Projector.

      Your quote is a pie-in-the-sky wishlist for the future with the hopes of fulfilment before 2025. See any problem with what happened on 2001? If they had it in 2001, why would they be wishing for it by 2025?

      // a psuedo-intellectual

      1. SEO’s lengthy unresponsive tirade to the reasonable points made by TM cause me to reconsider my kinder thoughts about him. He has lost his bearings and is doing what he can in a desperate attempt to make his flaky remarks appear reasonable.

      2. As an expert in logic, reason, and rationality in argument; I must most strenuously disagree with Fetzer’s assessment of the respective posts by Senor Once and Tamborine man.

        I see Senor as very much correct in his reply to the swirling crackpot chatterblather of Tamborine who doesn’t know “Peppers Ghost” from a hologram, nor crash physics from a road apples.

        Please explain to this forum “Doctor” how it is you can continually hail Newtonian Physics and the 3rd Law of Mechanics, while dismissing the two laws preceding it.

        \\][//

      3. Dear Señor,

        think i better try again, and this time simplify it a bit more if i can, as it seems you
        didn’t quite get it!

        I started out asking you some questions. The first two being deliberate contradictions. Of those first two, you only answered the second one thus:

        “Now, how did the perps ‘know’ that a standard 767 was unable to perform the task shown on all the videos that day?”

        It doesn’t take much to research the frailties of standard aircraft, and to locate films of their tests, particularly if you have a security clearance and can view even the classified stuff. The perps would have had PhD’s, engineers, and military experts advising on what a standard aircraft could or could not do.

        So according to you, the perps was obviously well aware that a standard Boeing 767 could not perform the way it was shown in all the videos, the SMS produced during that day, and yet they let the whole world know “it is in fact a Boeing 767, as flight 11 and 175, which is seen impacting both WTC1 and WTC2 that morning”!

        OK ….right …. and again according to you, let’s continue:

        Undaunted by the prospect that their fraud and deceit might easily be spotted and uncovered later on by professional pilots and others, the perps together with their ‘PhD’s, engineers and military experts’ sets out, already in the initial planning stages before 9/11, to modify other planes in order for these planes at some specific future time are to take the place of a standard Boeing 767, that in this case later on then became the simulated flights 11 and 175.

        To insure that these modified planes “behaved” according to their “cunning plan” no test runs was necessary, as all that was required for their purposes was to study some “design manuals” that would tell them all they needed to know, and away they go; nothing could stop them now; nothing could go wrong; everything would be honky dory ….right!!

        If “penetration-before-explosion” was deemed a goal, it wouldn’t take much to grab a page or two from the bunker-busting-bomb design manual to learn of materials, structure, and speed so that the goals could be met.

        I further asked:
        “How did the perps ‘know’ that only a modified plane, as above, would be able to perform the way it was depicted in the videos?”

        A standard aircraft could not even fly the requisite closing speed at 1/2 mile in altitude. Its engines would not have been able to generate enough thrust in the thicker air to overcome the additional drag that the wings would produce.

        Yes Señor, we’re already well aware of this, as the P4T have proved and told us on many occasions!

        I suppose that your answer will be the same as above? -That they obtained this information by reading some “design manuals”!!

        Again:
        “And how did the perps ‘know’ that nobody would be able to spot their deceit, replacing a standard 767 with another modified type? …..Well somebody, nay ‘many’, actually did, didn’t they!!”

        Nice straw man: “replacing a standard 767 with another modified type.” Why don’t you wrap your head around the concept of: “replacing a standard 767 with a modified 767?” Look up in Wikipedia how many different variations of the 767 exist. Some are easy to spot, many aren’t.

        What straw man?? Some witnesses said the plane looked like a 737, some said the plane looked military, grey in colour, and with no windows. It could have been a 757, it could have been a 767, who knows! Nothing can be ‘judged’ by the videos, which are all of very bad quality and with rather low resolutions that proves nothing one way or the other!

        Again:
        “Did the perps built a 15 to 20 story replica of the towers somewhere in a restricted area in a New Mexico desert, first trying out with a standard 767, and seeing that this didn’t work, rebuilding the replica, and then trying out with the modified version next? How many times did they have to repeat this exercise before they got it absolutely right?”

        Probably zero and zero. Ho-hum.

        I will go further than you and say – definitely not.

        Your DARPA reference and your US Air Force reference lack links. I’ve highlighted the words that should have added some grains of salt to your thinking:

        If you were really interested in the ‘US Air Force reference’, you would probably have ‘Googled’ it, but i gather it is something you’ll rather not want to know anything about, as it could well shatter some of your preconceived ideas and illusions!

        Again:
        “Parallel to what i have already given you from DARPA, here is more from The US Air Force under the heading “Future weapons proposals”, – Air Force 2025 study – Airborne Holographic Projector.

        “A projector system that displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.””

        Your quote is a pie-in-the-sky wishlist for the future with the hopes of fulfilment before 2025. See any problem with what happened on 2001? If they had it in 2001, why would they be wishing for it by 2025?

        I must admit that the naivety and gullibility you’re displaying here in the above, i find truly staggering and almost beyond comprehension!

        Sincerely hope you’re not going to ask me to explain why, as this would for obvious reasons be a rather unpleasant thing to do, because – well – it should of course be too damn obvious to all self-thinking and aware people already.

        Cheers

        1. TM, thanks for undertaking the thankless task of educating an uneducable man. SEO has shown an astounding lack of comprehension of physics that is rivaled only by that of rogue, whom I suspect of faking his ignorance or stupidity, insofar as he seems to be on a mission

          I would like to know if SEO and rogue agree or disagree with the following four propositions

          (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
          (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
          (3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
          (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

          I have published proof of all four in many places. This is simply to review the bidding. Best

      4. There us no rational construction to the proposition that holograms were used at WTC 9/11.
        This idea is speculative fiction based on a set of false premises from every angle.

        At the heart of this is the proposition that the jet crashes into the towers is/was physically impossible. The points used to support this proposition are each false, either as actual data and fact, or by suppositions based on these false propositions, data, and facts.
        On the initial assertion, that the crashes were physically impossible – it is simply absurd: Planes can crash into buildings, mountains, fields, rivers, oceans; anywhere on the surface of this planet.
        That there are particular specific circumstances to the 9/11 case, do not overcome this central fact, that a plane can fly into and crash into a building.

        It is then in the specifics in the argument against the particular plane – purported to be flight 175, a Boeing 767 according to the official story. The only near certainty is that a standard 767 not could have operated in the manner of the plane in the crash, is the speed at which it was clocked going into the final plunge. That souped up engines could have replaced the standard engines is highly possible and in fact the best probability.

        It may be so that the aircraft was hardened and made sturdier in certain aspects – but this is not necessarily essential in this case [referring back to the DeMartini quote and the general consensus among the engineers who designed and constructed the WTC towers.] As it is so that I personally think it is highly likely that the plane was hardened, I still think that a jet could have penetrated the facade, just as anticipated by DeMartini and others. So the only essential is the speed, which is provided by special engines that could reach those speeds at that air density.

        As far as the rest of the arguments that are proposed on the core false assumption; none of them are so, neither the facts, and data asserted to back them up, nor the continued assumptions mired within those falsehoods.

        That these have been addressed time and again, by Onesliceshort, and his video presentation a few threads back, as well as from textual arguments from myself and Senor Once – should preclude the need to reassert all of that here.

        You have been reputed and rebuked Tamborine, and so has Fetzer. Neither one of you will admit, or respond to any of the points already made to you, other than your further reassertion of the same compound errors.

        Your propositions are nonsense and have been repeatedly shown to be.

        \\][//

        1. Given the mountain of evidence I have adduced that supports the fabrication of all four of the crash sites and the use of holograms in New York, it is difficult to find the right words to describe this guy: prevaricator? dissembler? deceiver? phony? fake? or just plan liar? For confirmation of what I am asserting about this guy, check out the following for openers:

          “9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”

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

          “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”

          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

          And the presentation I gave (fearuring) Nick Kollerstrom before The Vancouver Hearings:

          Part 1

          http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

          Part 2

          http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

          I do not suffer fools gladly, but prevaricators, dissemblers, deceivers, phonies, fakes, and liars fall into an entirely different category. The “plane” was flying at an impossible speed, it made an impossible entry (where it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground) as well as exploded when it hit the building.

          There are three theories that could explain the video phenomena–CGIs, video compositing and the use of a hologram. As I have explained, the existence of witnesses who saw what they took to be a plane prior to the “hit” excludes CGIs and video compositing–and Richard Hall has discovered exactly how it was done, as I have explained in my Seattle presentation

      5. It is futile Fetzer,

        You have exposed yourself. Verily I say, as surely as the king in the old tale of THE KINGS NEW CLOTHES.

        You are a naked propagandist.

        Your propositions are preposterous and have been repeatedly shown to be. Again, you are posting the same tired flawed nonsense. To continually to have to rebut each point over and again is simply feeding a troll.

        You haven’t proven anything but that you are full of bullshit, and attempt to smear others with it, as half of your current posting does.

        \\][//

      6. Oh Lordy, Lordy! If Mr. TamborineMan and Dr. Fetzer don’t write such eloquent invitations to join them on an amusement park ride conducted by them!

        I’ll try to discipline myself by addressing Mr. TamborineMan’s closing paragraphs.

        I must admit that the naivety and gullibility you’re displaying here in the above, i find truly staggering and almost beyond comprehension!

        As they should be, because they are my super powers beyond your puny mortal comprehension.

        Sincerely hope you’re not going to ask me to explain why, as this would for obvious reasons be a rather unpleasant thing to do, because – well – it should of course be too damn obvious to all self-thinking and aware people already.

        Owing to my naivety and gullibility, I’m afraid I must dash your sincere hopes by asking you to explain why. Take your time. Make it a good one.

        Mr. Rogue used to get upset with me whenever I brought up the Q-Group. Now I understand why. Wrong letter and wrong classification. F-Troop like from the pre-“Mayberry RFD” show is indeed so much more fitting.

        Meanwhile, I have other pressing matters to attend to today. And tomorrow.

        Someone else may have my ticket to ride. And if no one else steps ups, not the end of the world. The posting gems above from the F-Troop are classic! They should stand on their own without a lot of interference or back-talk. I know that I’m saving my copies just as soon as I post this. “It should of course be too damn obvious to all self-thinking and aware people already.”

        // a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual

  24. Dennis,

    You asked for the URL to my home blog, here is one for a recent story. You will have to familiarize yourself some to navigate. Note that there are a list of current “Most Popular” to the right side. There are also connections to other stories and other web sites scrolling down.
    Near the bottom of that right hand column is a list of members with our gravitars – by clicking on a gravitar there you will go to a page of stories written by that author.

    Good luck, Willy

    1. “The proper response to Full Spectrum Dominance is of course, Full Spectrum Defiance.” ~Simu Narcowolf

      \\][//

  25. “Last night I dreamed of the way it used to be…
    then I woke up here..”

    GRAY STATE is a vision of a dystopian near-future in which abusive government has delivered the coup de grâce to the American life you have known. The last vestiges of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the laws that protect you from tyranny have been shredded in a public display of authoritarian power that you enabled through generations of inaction, complacency, and apathy.

    GRAY STATE is the reality that can no longer be ignored. It is coming – by consent or conquest.

    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/gray-state/

    * Predictive Programming of what is just around the next bend….

    \\][//

  26. ‘Predictive Programming’ is a tough call according to the intent of the messenger.

    In the paradigm we dog-paddle in, any statement can be co-opted to THE AGENDA. An interplay of reaction and contingency gaming. This is the evil genius of the technological dictatorship.

    \\][//

    1. I don’t know where to post this … This thread reminds me of the movie “Groundhog Day”. Apologies if I’m interrupting the flow of the re-hashing of the crash-physics/ NPT topic.

      Last week there were a couple of days with no new comments on Truth and Shadows which was good for me as it gave me time to delve into Anthony Sutton, Bernays and Douglas Reed and others. All very interesting.

      Anyway, in the first line of Craig’s latest article he refers to “conditioned responses”. I would guess that most of us 9/11 truthers are at least approaching the middle ages of our lives. What about the young people who need educating on the subject? I can feel another (manufactured) generation gap happening. Senor El Once has mentioned previously that this blog and others will, in the future, be a record of how the truth was exposed for our grand children to view.

      I read a facebook link yesterday in which young people were discussing the Titanic. Most of the kids posting responses were under the illusion that the Titanic was just a movie and didn’t know about the actual event. I also watched an experiment on a consumers programme on TV recently. A group of eight 6 year olds were asked to taste test 2 hamburgers. Both burgers were identical McDonalds, one was wrapped in McDonalds wrapping paper, the other wrapped in plain paper. All of the kids preferred the burgers wrapped in the McDonalds paper. In the next experiment 2 small cooked carrots were placed on plain paper in front of the kids and next to these were identical looking cooked carrots placed on a McDonalds wrapper. The kids tasted both samples and once again all the kids favoured the carrots placed on the McDonalds wrapper, saying they tasted sweeter. Carrots aren’t even on a McDonalds menu!! … but the power of the image of the golden arches won them over.

      Children are suckers for a good story as well. Richard Dawkins wrote in “The God Delusion” that there shouldn’t be any such person as a “Muslim child” or a “Christian child”. Children generally aren’t capable of forming their own opinions about such worldly topics until they reach their mid to late teen years. We used to be “educated” by our teachers, parents and by reading books but now days television and glossy advertising rules so there is a large portion of the population that don’t bother to question what they have been conditioned to believe and are happy to be dumbed down with their remote controls and fast food.

      I was teaching English to local kids in Taiwan at the time of 9/11. My first impression of the news footage was that those 2 exploding buildings coming down in almost the exactly same fashion looked very dodgy to me but kept my opinions to myself as the msm had done it’s work on most of the other foreign teachers staying at the hostel where we lived. But during Febuary 2002 an American guy turned up to meet with his brother who was a teacher there. Tom the American told us he used to work at the world trade centre and had called in sick on the morning of 9/11. His brother confirmed his story.

      This man Tom was obviously still very stressed about the event as he had lost several friends killed on the day and was adamant 9/11 was an inside job. In those days almost anyone with English as their mother tongue could get a job teaching students there. Tom got a part time job at a cram school, stayed for a couple of months and before he left told us besides teaching English he was also teaching teenage students not to believe the media about hijacked planes and that 9/11 was an inside job to the horror of some of the Chinese Teachers. He obviously succeeded to a point because a few years later I returned to Taiwan with a DVD of Zeitgeist to the delight of a couple of his students who were on the way to becoming Taiwanese 9/11 truthers.

      Young people are very impressionable. Sure, the story of 9/11 is not as palatable to young people as McDonalds but I try to get the point across to as many young folk as I can. Mostly I’m met with blank stares but there are a few who listen. Maybe some enterprising video game producers should put together a “9/11 inside job Play Station type game” It might be entertaining but more importantly informative to impressionable kids.

      So, back to broken tails, falling luggage and holy-grams. All good.

      1. Yes, the two days off was good for me, too. Your comment is very welcome right where it is. I’s actually really thought-provoking. The subject of perception and how we are manipulated by “packaging” is central to the 9/11 discussion.

        I do not want to see this thread turn into a rehash of past threads. If people want to bring new information to the discussion, that’s one thing. But I’m sure most readers (and I) don’t want to read the same points and the same arguments they’ve already seen numerous times.

      2. Thanks for interrupting the flow Al,

        I liked the points your made, and they are all prescient to the points we have been getting to but for the continued interjection of lunatic F-troop blatherings.

        Like everyone else must surely be I am sick of countering this nonsense…

        I will go with Senor on this one and let these last crackpot Fetzerisms stand with no other comment than this one concerning DeMartini again, whereas again Fetzer reinterprets DeMartini. It is indefensible to quote someone and then make up your own story of what that someone meant.

        “Puncture” is a pretty straight forward term. To actually contend that someone as intelligent as Frank DeMartini would use this term in any other way than it is normally meant is simply rhetorical dissembling. I think this should be a clear enough example of what a charlatan Fetzer is.

        If Mr McKee wants these issues that have been gone over countless times to end here, then let him make the editorial decision here and now, rather than continuing to post the these assertions of NPT, Holograms, etc.

        If so I will simply advise the readers to refer back to the last several months threads, wherein I believe they will find these assertions have been defeated over and again, along with the “Video Fakery” issue, as all three issues are bound up in the same ludicrous packaging.

        \\][//

      3. Excellent post. If this was only about kids! Has the McDonald wrapper experiment been done on adults? 9/11, in its initial stages, competes with TV commercials for people’s attention, since just about all leaders who should blow the 9/11 whistle seem to actually be conspiring to keep their gullible supporters away from it. Accordingly, it is incumbent on 9/11 dissidents to develop compelling points of entry into the subject before delving into complex questions. A sure way to deter reasonable skeptics from touching 9/11 is to introduce them to a finger-pointing battle between experts on the airplane impacts.

        Effective entry points into 9/11 are very few. They best emphasize the official myth’s absurdity to the point of forcing the audience to think very early on that 9/11 deserves more attention from them. They are also so compelling that the above-mentioned leaders cannot deny it without exposing themselves as obviously ignorant, mentally deficient, or hypocritical in the eyes of their supporters. Find an example of what to do in this video for 1 minute starting at 10:22: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GCTBh7CQaY

        Love,

      4. Mr. Noel,

        Why do I get the impression that you likely voted for the Hopey Changie Puppet in the last elections?

        Is it true? Did you fall for that neurolinguistic wackdoodle?

        Would you mind telling us your general age?

        \\][//

      5. Hybridrogue: the latest set of questions you directed at me are uncharacteristically unclear. Would you mind rephrasing them with no ambiguity, and perhaps explain their relevance to this thread?

        * Why do I get the impression that you likely voted for the Hopey Changie Puppet in the last elections?

        * Is it true? Did you fall for that neurolinguistic wackdoodle?

        * Would you mind telling us your general age?

        Love,

      6. hybridrogue1 says to alwhitesands:

        “Thanks for interrupting the flow Al”

        Oh the irony! Yeh Al, thanks for interruping the flow of our resident troll, hybridrogue1.

        Welcome Al. Enjoyed your post. Ignore hybridrogue. Everyone else does.

      7. Our resident 9/11 groupie, truthoz says:

        “..thanks for interruping the flow of our resident troll, hybridrogue1.Welcome Al. Enjoyed your post. Ignore hybridrogue. Everyone else does.”
        . . . . . . . . . . . .

        Perhaps Truthoz can offer some proof to her assertions that everyone ignores what I have to say here – or that everyone considers me a “troll”, or that everyone else thinks what I have to say is irrelevant.

        As this is the first spazmata spewed by Truthoz for quite sometime, I decided to answer. She is obviously a part time reader in “welcoming” Al Whitesands, who has been commenting on Truth and Shadows for quite awhile now. In fact Mr Whitesands and myself have been in agreement on most occasions.

        It is my opinion that Ms Truthoz is still pissed off because I rebuke her ‘hero’, James Fetzer. It is my opinion as well that Ms Truthoz is a groupie, because she obviously doesn’t have any grasp of the physics or the technical issues discussed here, and only chimes in on matters of personalities and such – making her views an analog to one of those ‘entertainment’ periodicals such as PEOPLE magazine.

        \\][//

      8. I still think it is worth wondering about: That Fetzer has been allowed to be an outspoken champion of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ yet at the same time allowed to maintain a ‘Chair’ in a prestigious institution, to keep all his trinkets and ribbons of “Authority” – within the system he pretends to dispute to the core of its essence.

        What is he saying that is profitable to this system, that they would not merely tolerate him, but promote, employ and honor him?

        Were it not so obvious that he is a pied piper by other evidences that have been put on display here, the facts of his “professorhood” should raise red flags for any curious mind.

        \\][//

  27. I am posting this here to make the opportunity to have a closer reply button for continued conversation.

    Now Fetzer has this to say:

    >”I do not suffer fools gladly, but prevaricators, dissemblers, deceivers, phonies, fakes, and liars fall into an entirely different category. 1] The “plane” was flying at an impossible speed, 2] it made an impossible entry (where it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off 3] with I do not suffer fools gladly, but prevaricators, dissemblers, deceivers, phonies, fakes, and liars fall into an entirely different category. The “plane” was flying at an impossible speed, it made an impossible entry (where it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground) as well as exploded when it hit the building. fallen to the ground) 4] as well as exploded when it hit the building.”

    Disregarding his defaming remarks, let me address the actual assertions made here:

    1} We have already been through this and is explained in my post above – special engines with special fans that would make it capable of such speeds in the thicker sea level air.

    2} The entry was not “impossible” – a plane going at that speed would not “crumple”, the wings and tail would NOT have “broken off” – the thin sections such as the tips of the wings and stabilizer would have shattered into confetti.
    That Fetzer dismisses the crash physics proven by the Sandia test, he shows himself incapable of grasping the most simple aspects of crash physics.

    3} As this was not the commercial airliner and was flown by remote control, there would be no bodies, seats and luggage to fall to the ground.

    4} The plane DID explode when it hit the building and this is visible in every image, and video of the crash. And to preempt the assertions Fetzer makes that there were no ‘crash effects’, these are visible in the same imagery and videos. There is material, splashing back at the entry point, and of course the material blowing out the right side with the fireball is even more substantial.

    And, to top this all off – these points have been made to the “professor” countless times
    now.

    \\][//

    1. rogue seems to believe that reasserting false claims, including ones that are either aerodynamically or physically impossible, is somehow going to “magically” make them true! But of course he is making arguments for miracles, since violations of laws of aerodynamics and of physics are “miracles”. That his entire argument is ad hoc is demonstrated by the fact that there is no independent evidence to support the “special plane” hypothesis–NONE! He might as well be appealing to space aliens having done it, because there is no evidence for that, either–NONE! What he keeps maintaining is that there is no proof on my side, but that is begging the question: ALL THE EVIDENCE IS ON MY SIDE. NONE IS ON ROGUE’S SIDE.

  28. The lively–to put it mildly–debate on the specifics of 9/11 is not abating. I suggest that it be postponed, or at least toned down, until the 9/11 censorship is out of the way. Once the numerous and highly variegated anti-neocon leaders who have censored 9/11 have been neutralized, historians will find it much easier to research who did what when with what tools under whose budget at whose request.

    As explained in http://www.global-Platonic-theater.com, the 9/11 censorship is technically not difficult to cancel. All it takes is for 9/11-cognizant activists to realize its existence and notify their dearest leaders that ignorance of 9/11 results in a reduction of the trust they deserve, especially if these dear leaders promote wild goose chases against 9/11-induced activities (like the open-ended U.S. warmongering in strategic Muslim areas).

    Once most leaders of importance are 9/11-aware, El Señor Once, Hydrorogue and Jim Fetzer will have no difficulty accessing rich troves of currently ultra-secret information, will jointly review them, and publish a single report on their conclusions as to the most probable scenarios related to the 9/11 flights.

    But for this historically valuable work to happen, activists need to save the world from the global sociological catastrophe 9/11 seems to mark a step into.

    Love,

    1. Let me just say this Mr Noel,

      Having been around old Sol 65 times now, I have left my hopes of “saving the world” to my idealistic past as a youth. All I am capable of is making arguments for reason in discourse.

      Again to see the 9/11 Truth Movement as anything other than an idea, and an ideal, is to my mind naïve. The system is on an arc with vast momentum built up pushing it’s agenda inexorably forward. The breaking point is near. As far as I am concerned, only divine intervention can save this whacked out race called human beings.

      The majority of this species is as deep in trance as if dead already.

      \\][//

      1. The breaking point, near? You could be correct. But 9/11 dissidents need to correct their trajectory. Bickering about 9/11 details does not help much. What is essential is to educate the “majority of this species [that] is as deep in trance as if dead already,” to quote from you. They are the ones who have to start mistrusting their dearest leaders for their 9/11 blind spot.

        To build on your other point, spiritual engineering definitely can help. But this is a whole other story.

        Love,

      2. Mr. Noel,

        I asked your age because you strike me as especially naive.

        I asked if you voted for Obama [Mr. Hope and Change] because that would be another indicator of naivete.

        You have a lot of advice, such as the need to change trajectory, stop bickering, etc
        that sounds like it is coming from a marriage councilor, and seems a lot like Communitarianist “Hope and Change” tripe to me.

        I find the term “bickering” to mischaracterize and downgrade points of dispute as if you are a ‘thread monitor’, like reprimands from a teacher on a sixth grade playground. In other words Mr Noel I find in you a saccharine glaze, covering a particularly insulting covert arrogance.

        I you want to have an effect on the sleeping masses, attending to a blog like this is not the place to do it – here it is preaching to the chorus. And frankly Mr Noel, I don’t like being preached at.

        \\][//

      3. Mr Noel,

        You use the term, “spiritual engineering”.

        What do you mean by this?

        Are you a ‘spiritual engineer’?

        \\][//

      4. Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote to Mr. Noel:

        I asked if you voted for Obama [Mr. Hope and Change] because that would be another indicator of naivete.

        I fear you may have been a bit too cryptic and one-sided that may give a false impression. Without clarification, it implies in the bi-diversified party Public Relations system that you give lip service to the Helgian anti-thesis to Mr. Hope & Change.

        Your hidden message may have been that Obama and Bush/McCain/Romney are flip-sides to the same coin, puppets propped up by the same (pay) masters and to dance the masters’ tunes.

        My hopes for Mr. Changey were dashed when:

        – Secretary of Defense was held over from Bush.
        – Secretary of the Treasury was held over from Bush.
        – Guantanamo wasn’t closed.
        – Obama insert into his speeches words that underscore the false story-line of Al Queda terrorists.

        They say that Obama is for the bankers, but Romney is the bankers. The naivete is swallowing the public relations plow that there are only two choices, otherwise you’re giving your vote to the other guy.

      5. Perhaps this reminder from the bottom of the page will help Mr Noel:

        “Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone believed by the masses.” – Plato

        \\][//

      6. Well yes Señor El Once,

        I know that Mr Noel hasn’t been here through every discussion. And should probably have been clearer in my first post of questions on the matter of the ‘Puppet Presidency’.

        I think your short summation with hints to Bernays and Hegel should be sufficient for the time being.

        But I don’t think that Mr Noel has the temperance to have a discussion with me, in that he has already shown that he thinks my frank approach to the issues is beyond his acceptable etiquette. That is always a good dodge for the type who would rather forgo a grilling.

        \\][//

      7. This comment shall test Craig’s tolerance for off-topic comments…

        Dennis: spiritual engineering is any system by which a practitioner programs specific spiritual stimuli to automatically produce specific spiritual actions. Within the proper framework, it is fairly easy to learn.

        The simplest such system I am aware of gives anybody who trains her/his 3rd eye on me a nudge of realignment towards the Divine purpose. This usually translates into some healing.

        Love,

      1. “If this page has elicited in you no desire to click any link..”~Platonic

        Yup that’s me Noel, sorry.

        More to my decision was this from your post above this one where you say:

        “spiritual engineering is any system by which a practitioner programs specific spiritual stimuli to automatically produce specific spiritual actions. Within the proper framework, it is fairly easy to learn.”

        I also thought your reference to ‘the third eye’ was, sorry, but the word is; Trite.

        I have had that personal experience that is known by many phrases;

        “Seeing the Light” – “Seeing God” – “Experiencing the Source” “Being Enlightened”

        And etc etc…it was spontaneous and I would say “as if” the Source blew a divine breath into me, as I suddenly gasped in and fell back in a pool of Light.

        To say that this is inexpressible in human tongue is the grand understatement of all time.

        Yes, it changes one forever. There is no dogma. There is no parlor trick to set this off. When one is prepared it JUST HAPPENS.

        One also becomes aware of the ‘almost people’ who still grope for what is already within.

        We are spirits in a material world. This is true. The main point in this is the moment NOW. At that moment we are in the material world. Deal with it.

        NOW is the moment of power.

        \\][//

  29. Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management stated in an interview back in January 2001:
    > “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door – this intense grid – and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”
    . . . . . . . . . .

    Now, Fetzer continues to cite DeMartini freely, as if his statement actually supports Fetzer’s assertions. But, when reminded of what DeMartini actually said; Fetzer comes back with ‘but no’ – DeMartini was wrong, he must have been thinking of something else than a fully loaded jet crashing into the towers. That he must have meant ‘only if that jet hit at a perfectly parallel angle, and perfectly between floors so as not to impact the floor pan assembly’.

    But this is absurd to assert that DeMartini meant any more or less that what he said. It is Fetzer himself making it up out of whole-cloth: It is the prevarication, dissembling, deception, and phoniness of a con job by a conman.

    \\][//

  30. Just to show the fraudulence of rogue’s stance, we have several studies of the path of the alleged “plane” that was officially identified as “Flight 175″. (We know from Pilots’ studies that Flight 175 actually was in the air that day but was over Pittsburgh, PA, long after it was reported to have hit the South Tower.) So Richard Hall has done such a study. The NTSB had a second study with the same data points. BUT there also turns out to be a MILITARY RADAR STUDY that shows a plane some 1,400′ to the right of the path established by the studies based upon the videos BY TWO INDEPENDENT PARTIES. This guy is actively suppressing what we know about the flight paths as though it did not exist. Citing Frank, when he is making observations about the global integrity of the building and not the very specific circumstances in which a plane is intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses and 4-8″ of concrete, is equally abusive of logic and evidence. NO PLANE, NO MATTER HOW “SPECIAL”, COULD HAVE EFFORTLESSLY ENTERED THE BUILDING ITS WHOLE LENGTH WITH NO DECELERATION AT ALL! What a whopper he is peddling. His nose must be longer than Pinocchio’s! How could anyone take this guy seriously?

    1. Here’s an old engineering school joke. “Computer programmers are bad lovers because they never do anything twice. When something is needed more than once, they write a subroutine and from that point forward call it to do it.” While subroutines are elegant, GOTO statements are available in the most primitive assembly programming languages to handle looping situations.

      In response to Dr. Fetzer in this primitive commenting environment, I offer the following GOTO looping links for him to follow and that will answer lurker reader’s curiousity about loopity-doo.

      2012-06-06
      2012-07-02
      2012-07-24
      2012-07-25
      2012-07-30
      2012-08-02

      Dr. Fetzer writes:

      BUT there also turns out to be a MILITARY RADAR STUDY that shows a plane some 1,400? to the right of the path.

      Buried in the above GOTO link for 2012-07-25 is the following JREF link and a quoted passage that I repeat here.

      http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=236532&page=12

      Here is how jammo sees radar data.
      http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_line.jpg

      He sees (and plots it) as a straight line. Although this image does not show it, the radar path does veer to the left in the final seconds towards the South Tower. This is NOT how a radar path is to be seen.

      This is the proper way to see a radar path.
      http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_block.jpg

      It is NOT some pencil sharp line. A radar path is a block, equal to 2 times the estimated or known accuracy in width. The red (ASR) path is narrow because it has a greater known accuracy than the blue (ARSR) path. The blue path cannot be used alone to say that the plane in question “hit” a specific spot in time and space. What can be said is, if something “hit” a specific spot in time and space, that it’s radar path “hit” it (which in this case it did). The plane can be located anywhere inside the path, but the radar path definitely hit the WTC South Tower.

      For the red paths (we have two if you recall, EWR and JFK), both the paths AND the plane can be said to have “hit” the spot.

      Maybe these graphics will help you with that, maybe not. But at least I tried.

      Dr. Fetzer wrote in his introduction and conclusion:

      Just to show the fraudulence of [my opponent’s] stance, … What a whopper he is peddling. His nose must be longer than Pinocchio’s! How could anyone take this guy seriously?

      Bravo! Reminds me that one day, some bean-counter should extract and re-publish all of Dr. Fetzer’s creative introductions and conclusions to his various loopity-doos. Classic.

      1. Fetzer has turned ‘conspiracy theory’ into just another carny racket.

        . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

        Señor El Once says: “some bean-counter should extract and re-publish all of Dr. Fetzer’s creative introductions and conclusions to his various loopity-doos.”

        Several months ago I recall collecting all of the nasty remarks Fetzer made – just the ones to me, that I published at one point. They were enough to fill a window/page at that time without scrolling. I can imagine that now we could fill several scroll-downs worth of pages.

        Which of course puts the joke to all the times he complains of ‘ad hominem’ tossed his way.

        \\][//

      2. Dear Señor,

        you wrote:

        Oh Lordy, Lordy! If Mr. TamborineMan and Dr. Fetzer don’t write such eloquent
        invitations to join them on an amusement park ride conducted by them!

        I’ll try to discipline myself by addressing Mr. TamborineMan’s closing paragraphs.:

        “I must admit that the naivety and gullibility you’re displaying here in the above, i find truly staggering and almost beyond comprehension!”

        As they should be, because they are my super powers beyond your puny mortal comprehension.

        Please, jump down to ‘earth’ Señor – as you look rather silly sitting up there smugly boasting on ‘the chicken shed roof’!

        Owing to my naivety and gullibility, I’m afraid I must dash your sincere hopes by asking you to explain why. Take your time. Make it a good one.

        Well, if you now insist!
        Firstly, i think you’re very naive to believe that the perps and their many participating “experts”, would embark on such a monumental hoax, fraud, deceit (like 9/11), “knowing” beforehand that their ‘cunning plan’ (of substituting standard planes with modified ones), would be so easy to detect, spot, uncover, unmask, …..as the case obviously turned out to be, by f.ex. P4T!

        Secondly, i think you’re equally naive to believe that these same people ‘would the day after reveal’, and to publicly make it known to their “unsophisticated adversaries”, the true methods by which they ‘fooled’ the world ‘the day before’, on 9/11!!

        Here again is “their future” plans, as publicized by the US Air Force:

        “A projector system that displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.”

        Here again is your reply:

        “Your quote is a pie-in-the-sky wishlist for the future with the hopes of fulfilment before 2025. See any problem with what happened on 2001? If they had it in 2001, why would they be wishing for it by 2025?”

        Would it not be far more prudent, intelligent and wise to think that if the perps used this method back in 2001, they would want to keep this ‘secret’ technology under wraps for a considerable length of time until things had settled down in the public’s mind, and first then “pretend” to announce the above ‘method’ as being an entirely new and untested technology?

        Of course it would be; and frankly, this should really go without saying!

        Cheers

        1. The perps had no choice. I am confident they originally planned to use remote-controlled drones, until they belatedly realized that no real plane could possibly penetrate the North or the South Towers without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground, where its fuel would have exploded external to the buildings.

          In addition, they had a timing problem, since explosions were going to be set off in the sub-basements to drain the sprinkler systems of water so they would not extinguish the modest fires that would remain after the spectacular fireballs had consumed the (planted) jet fuel in the first 10-15 seconds or so, which they wanted to explain away by citing “falling jet fuel”.

          The use of a sophisticated hologram fit the bill perfectly, except that, at the aerodynamically possible speeds for a Boeing 767 at that altitude, the projected image would have been too fragmented to be taken to be real. So they had to fly the planes projecting the images a bit faster than aerodynamically possible in order to maintain their integrity as images of 767s.

          They inferred that the impossible entry of the planes into the buildings would only be noted by a few professors and other astute intellectuals, but that they could count on dupes and shills to carry their case by belittling those who had the knowledge, the intelligence and the courage to speak out in opposition to the social pressure derived from media manipulation.

          They did not consider that enterprising students might take the videos of “Flight 175″ and subject them to a frame-by-frame analysis, which would reveal that the plane passed its whole length of 160′ into the building in the same number of frames that it passed through its whole length in air, an absurdity unless the structure posed no more resistance than air.

          But they reasoned that American education is so faulty that even the violation of Newton’s laws would make scant impact on the public. Even though their timing was off and their projected images entered the buildings 14 and 17 seconds too late to be able to account for the explosions in the subbasements, they figured almost no one was going to notice.

          Using a plane to project the image of Flight 175 turned out to be a nearly perfect plan since the sound of the plane would be taken to be the sound of the projection. It did not occur to them that anyone might compare the locations/times of the projected image with those of the plane projecting the image, which would reveal it was 1,400 feet to the image’s right.

          The hologram would not show up on radar, but they did not anticipate that some students of this phenomenon would persevere and discover the discrepancy, which left them highly dependent upon their shills and trolls to attempt to convince skeptics that Newton’s laws were non-operational on 9/11 and that those alleged “hijackers” could perform miracles.

          They did not think anyone would notice that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day or that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 would not be formally de-registered by the FAA until 28 September 2005, which would raise questions about the crash of planes not in the air or how planes that crashed could continue to fly 4 more years.

          And they had no idea that a group of professional pilots would conduct research on ground / air communications that would reveal that Flight 93 was in the air that day, but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after its alleged crash in Shanksville; or that Flight 175 was also in the air but was over Pittsburgh, PA, subsequent to its effortless entry into the South Tower.

          They knew that, if worse came to worse, they could count on their “useful idiots” to carry the heavy water by asserting the occurrence of impossible events and denying revealing studies of how it had been done by using sarcasm and ridicule to assail those who knew enough to realize 9/11 was a magic show. At all costs, they had to preserve the illusion.

      3. Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,

        Your proofs are still weak on reference material links (as are those from the esteemed academic professor, Dr. Fetzer). A quote from some alleged DARPA paper about future plans to project holograms is but a seed that can only grow through water and sunlight in the form of basic research papers, articles, and commercialized endeavors (e.g., YouTube) to which you can point the world.

        I reminded you that your holographic speculation still needs to account for TWO sets of radar that have remarkable congruity with 44 or so videos that 3D animation has proven (to my satisfaction) represent a singular flight path.

        The funny thing about the premise of “projected holographs” is that photons have insufficient mass to reflect radar pings. If we assume that the radar data is valid, what physical entity caused it?

        If memory serves me, Richard D. Hall suggests that a cloaked plane (flying 1400′ to the right of the “holographic” aircraft’s flight path) projected the hologram. Is this your position as well?

        That cloaked plane was even more special than the special planes I’ve been promoting, let me tell you, because not only did it have enhanced engines to enable it to fly at excessive speeds 1/2 mile above sea level, but it also could cloak itself so that people and cameras couldn’t see it.

        So while you are digging for the proof that holograms can be projected, don’t forget to dig for proof of that Klingon Warship cloaking technology that so foiled Captain James T. Kirk and first officer Spock in the 1960’s.

        I so so so so so SO want to believe in the viability of holograms and cloaking technology. To be sure, I’ve seen recent efforts that show cloaking today much further along but not such that it is 100% convincing. I’ve seen interesting uses for holograms, that just yesterday a colleague demonstrated to me using his little tablet device. But the catch there is that the tablet would need to be huge and fly through the air at 500 mph in order for it to render a holographic plane. Methinks in my joking here that the huge tablet would be visible. Joking aside, this limitation of a holographic medium is one that Dr. Fetzer hasn’t solved in his “meticulous and copiously documented” research.

        // a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual

      4. Dear Dr. Fetzer,

        The appropriate words fail me when I try to describe your latest efforts at speculation. Your well-written prose certainly works… as fiction.

        Your proofs are still weak on reference material links to prove that holograms (in 2001) are all that.

        Dr. Fetzer wrote:

        The use of a sophisticated hologram fit the bill perfectly, except that, at the aerodynamically possible speeds for a Boeing 767 at that altitude, the projected image would have been too fragmented to be taken to be real. So they had to fly the planes projecting the images a bit faster than aerodynamically possible in order to maintain their integrity as images of 767s.

        Is that the only exception you can find? Geez, seems to me that two glaring exceptions come before the one you listed and are woefully in need of some of your “meticulous and copiously documented” research to prove they can be overcome.

        (1) My “sloppy and irresponsible” research into holograms suggests that they require a holographic medium, or film. Light hits the holographic medium and the holographic image appears “on top of” or “in front of” the medium. Despite there being a DARPA 2025 wishlist item for projecting holograms, I have been able to find nothing (except “Star Trek: The Next Generation” and your words) that suggests holograms can be projected.

        (2) The very special plane with the holographic projector would need a cloaking device that is orders of magnitude better than the present day cloaking technologies (as see on YouTube.)

        Dr. Fetzer goes on to write:

        Using a plane to project the image of Flight 175 turned out to be a nearly perfect plan since the sound of the plane would be taken to be the sound of the projection. It did not occur to them that anyone might compare the locations/times of the projected image with those of the plane projecting the image, which would reveal it was 1,400 feet to the image’s right.

        The piece you are leaving out is that “locations/times of the projected image” versus the “locations/times of the plane projecting the image” were obtained by two different sets of radar data that really aren’t that far out of agreement.

        For the third time, you should review this link and address what it brings up regarding the two different radar systems:

        http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=236532&page=12

        As a “professor of critical thinking and scientific reasoning,” kindly provide some “meticulous and copiously documented” research that proves the two sets of radar data do not represent the same aircraft flying the same flight path? [Straw man alert] If you continue with your present line of reasoning, you’ll have to answer how one RADAR system would pick up the projected plane (a hologram) but not the real plane projecting the image (while remaining cloaked), while the other RADAR system would pick up just the opposite.

        … would only be noted by a few professors and other astute intellectuals, but that they could count on dupes and shills to carry their case by belittling those who had the knowledge, the intelligence and the courage to speak out in opposition to the social pressure derived from media manipulation.

        They knew that, if worse came to worse, they could count on their “useful idiots” to carry the heavy water by asserting the occurrence of impossible events and denying revealing studies of how it had been done by using sarcasm and ridicule to assail those who knew enough to realize 9/11 was a magic show. At all costs, they had to preserve the illusion.

        I love your skilled use of the word “belittling” and how you wield it so that nothing sticks to you.

        [Sarcasm and ridicule alert] Woo-hoo! I love how your assertion of holograms deftly defies falling into an “occurrence of impossible events.”

        Cough up “the revealing studies of how [flying holograms] had been done” with some footnoted, linked, and “meticulous and copiously documented” research. Then, just maybe, you can dupe this useful idiot.

        I feel sorry for you, Dr. Fetzer. I suppose it is one thing to be known as an excentric professor. But your efforts on Truth & Shadows reflect something else. This thread in particular? It is as if we’re watching the death and burial of your academic credentials and reputation, while you continue to live on in the thin hopes of living down the embarrassment.

        // a psuedo-intellectual

  31. Jim Fetzer says:
    “… we have several studies of the path of the alleged “plane” that was officially identified as “Flight 175″. (We know from Pilots’ studies that Flight 175 actually was in the air that day but was over Pittsburgh, PA, long after it was reported to have hit the South Tower.) So Richard Hall has done such a study. The NTSB had a second study with the same data points. BUT there also turns out to be a MILITARY RADAR STUDY that shows a plane some 1,400′ to the right of the path established by the studies based upon the videos BY TWO INDEPENDENT PARTIES”

    Jim, if holograms were used, as you claim, then the flight paths of Fl 175 would be entirely consistent within all of the original network footage, and also within all of the “amateur footage of the same event, surely?

    And yet that video “record” of Fl. 175 is not consistent _at__all_.

    There _huge_ inconsistencies/ contradictions in the path of Fl 175 as represented in the video “record”.

    Some show a straight approach for the last 7 seconds, others show the plane rapidly descending and turning/banking into WTC2.

    It has been a while since I viewed it , but I am pretty sure that these flight inconsistencies are closely examined in the last, full version of “September Clues”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE

    [If you do not see that examination in the version I’ve linked to, let me know and I will track down another analysis for you.]

    Bottom line: ALL footage [i.e. original alleged network, or alleged “amateur”] that allegedly showed Fl. 175’s approach to the WTC complex, is 100% fraudulent digital animation [i.e every pixel within every video is computer generated fake animation].

    NONE are real videos capturing holographic plane imagery.

    Otherwise, come up with a reasonable explanation for the huge variations in Fl.175’s flight path as depicted in the various [40?] videos to “prove” holograms were used!

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. There _huge_ inconsistencies/ contradictions in the path of Fl 175 as represented in the video “record”. Some show a straight approach for the last 7 seconds, others show the plane rapidly descending and turning/banking into WTC2. … Otherwise, come up with a reasonable explanation for the huge variations in Fl.175?s flight path as depicted in the various [40?] videos to “prove” holograms were used!

      The reasonable explanations are “pay attention” and “perspective.” Here’s your set of GOTO links for the loopity-doo that you drop:
      – The video of the last twelve seconds of UA175 shows with 3D modeling how the videos of the seemingly different flight paths does correspond to a single flight path
      2012-07-19, where you should have been paying attention.
      Regarding “R.I.P. – No Plane Theory”

      //

      1. Jim Fetzer says, August 24, 2012 at 10:19 am

        > “They inferred that the impossible entry of the planes into the buildings would only be noted by a few professors and other astute intellectuals, but that they could count on dupes and shills to carry their case by belittling those who had the knowledge, the intelligence and the courage to speak out in opposition to the social pressure derived from media manipulation.”

        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        This whole commentary by the “professor” relies on the false argument that it is “IMPOSSIBLE” that the planes could have entered the facade of the towers in the crash.

        It has been shown time and again that this is false. Every argument Fetzer has made to support this claim has been itself a false argument based on ignoring well know data and facts, as well as those of ‘crash physics’.

        He has yet to address the posted evidences from Senor: August 23, 2012 at 11:26 am.

        He simply ignores this and keeps on selling his con. It should be obvious to the forum here, that he is avoiding specific challenges, and merely hand waving them, pretending they don’t exist.

        \\][//

    2. Regards onebornfree,

      There have already been several video analysis that show that there are ZERO inconsistencies in any of the videos of the plane’s approach – Onesliceshort posted a very good analysis just a few threads back.

      Not only this OBF, but I have gone into a lot of detail to explain how digital animation in a CAD constructed ‘Virtual World’, makes such errors and inconsistencies literally impossible for a coordinated effort to create such a hoax.

      It is unfortunate that you choose to remain ignorant of the actual techniques used, and continue on your jolly way with your confirmed bullshit. I think you and Fetzer deserve adjoining padded rooms…it could be made into a “Reality Sitcom”…they could call it, ‘BICKERING CRACKPOTS’

      \\][//

  32. Regarding the short discussion beginning with; Señor El Once says, August 23, 2012 at 11:30 am

    What we refer to here is an understanding of the architecture of political power in the postmodern world.

    In order to grasp this architecture, one must begin with the protocol and nomenclature of the agenda.

    This has only been addressed in bits and pieces here on this blog.

    What at first may seem overwhelmingly complex is very simple once the core is grasped.

    This is an issue that 9/11 fits into as a point in the arc of the agenda. It is an important point as it shifted the paradigm in significant ways for the 21st century segment of the agenda.

    \\][//

    1. One might look into THE EMPIRE OF THE CITY to get a low-down on the hoe-down, as far as the architecture of modern political power.

      And there is always my standard favorite, THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION by Douglas Reed.

      Grasping the core info of this, shows how stunted the theory of “Pax Americana” is.
      Amerika is just the ‘garrison state’ of the global empire. The real power is a triad:

      The City of London – Vatican City – Washington DC

      At the head of the triangle is the City of London.

      \\][//

  33. @Jim Fetzer:
    OK Jim, to follow up on my earlier post today, I’ve just quickly re-reviewed the most current version of “September Clues” , here:

    If you start viewing at around the 10 mins and 30sec mark, and follow along for 5 mins. or so, you will see at least some of what I talked about in my earlier post.

    Its not quite as thorough as the analysis I was actually looking for, but it will do for now.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Remarkable Onebornfried,

      You are a closed loop – oblivious to outside “interference”…like WTF to facts have to do with anything anyway? Huh?…Lol

      Amazing.

      \\][//

    2. Dear onebornfree,

      there were hundreds upon hundreds of eye-witnessed standing on the grounds South, South-East and South-West of the WTC2, who looked up upon the WTC1 after it was supposedly hit by a plane, and observing smoke billowing out also from the south-side of the WTC1 tower.

      Everyone of all these eye-witnessed went home afterwards, either straight away, in the afternoon or in the evening, whereupon they watched the MSM through their TV’s repeating again and again and again what had taken place that morning.

      Not one of all these eye-witnessed have, all through the intervening years, come forward to tell the world that they saw ‘no plane’ entering building WTC2!

      The only conclusion one can draw from this is, that the eye-witnesses saw a plane of a kind, and that this plane they saw, could be a 3D projection of same.

      As said numerous times before, one or some of the videos could be showing the genuine appearance of ‘something’ looking like a ‘real’ plane, while other videos could be simply showing CGI’s of a plane.

      So you see onebornfree, some can give you an ‘explanation’ for everything, but it’s up to you to distinguish between the fake and the “supposedly” real.
      Nobody, except yourself, can help you along here!

      Good luck!

      Cheers

      1. OBS, in this case, rogue makes a good point: there were many witnesses who said they saw a plane (better: what they took to be a plane) entering the South Tower. I have observed that these witnesses are the strongest proof that what was being used to perpetrate the fraud has to have been a hologram and cannot have been merely CGIs or video compositing, neither of which would have involved the image of a plane being seen in real time PRIOR TO ANY BROADCAST. In this instance, therefore, his argument appears to be correct–not in support of a real plane, since no real plane could have performed the feats of this one–but for witnesses, whose reports rule out CGIs and video compositing (unless they were ALSO USED FOR THE SAKE OF CREATING A CONFUSING VIDEO RECORD) and support the use of a hologram (for reasons I have explained above in response to Senor El Once).

    3. Fetzer says:

      “…and support the use of a hologram (for reasons I have explained above in response to Senor El Once).”
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

      WAIT___________I didn’t catch that. I didn’t see any “reasons” explained to Senor Once….

      All I read were empty assertions based on false assumptions, grounded in faulty premise — all of this held up by not a single fact.

      You don’t have the single problem of proving holograms Fetzer, you have compound problems, beginning with the empty assertion that it was IMPOSSIBLE to crash planes into the World Trade Towers. You don’t have a single fact or reasonable argument to base this assertion upon.

      The first and most glaring point is your misapplication of what you call “Newtonian” Phyisics; but is in fact a twisted, truncated, reinterpretation of Newton – best labeled “Fetzerian Physics.”

      You have yet to explain to this forum how it is you hail Newton’s 3rd Law of Mechanics, and dismiss the preceding two laws. The 3rd Law cannot manifest without the frame created by the first two. I have described the necessary sequence on these threads, on this blog too many times for you to have missed them. Rather than address these criticisms brought to your assertions, you continue to handwave them by blabbering on with your junk story as if you have not been challenged.

      And not by myself alone, but several other posters have called you on this.

      Senor Once has produced the IRLa of relevant threads. But to bring just a small portion of what is therein, here is a sampling from just one of your other critics, Mr Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

      Rob Balsamo at, June 18, 2012 at 5:19 pm says:
      June 18, 2012 at 5:19 pm

      http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/

      “Jim,
      Your terminology in this case by claiming the videos are “fake”, is in fact misleading as the videos themselves can be absolutely genuine in the fact they depict an aircraft impacting the WTC.
      The videos presented are of an aircraft hitting the south tower. They are not positive identification of any aircraft as it pertains to tail number nor flight number. Those who claim the videos are of “UA175″ have not proven it was in fact “UA175″ nor “N612UA”. This does not mean the videos are “fake”…
      Screaming “Video Fakery!” then changing the definition as you are refuted… is the reason you have not gained any support for your claims, and in fact have lost support.”

      Also at June 18, 2012 at 6:56 pm Balsomo remarks:

      “Yes, Fetzer is known for going round and round and round without any regard for rebuttals, expecting different results.”

      And at: June 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm Balsomo reminds:

      “Jim says –
      “the planes shown in those videos were performing feats that no real plane could perform,”
      Read these posts again Jim as clearly it did not sink in the first few times…”

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804215

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804220

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804226

      _________________________________

      We have to remember that this aircraft was allegedly travelling at over 700 feet per second. Over 4 times its own length travelled in one second as it impacted the facade.
      The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft’s recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second….. The event was over in one tenth of a second.

      Balsamo is a pilot and represents a lot of other pilots who are satisfied a real plane could crash into the towers. The are convinced the crash videos are real and stand up to aerodynamics and crash physics.

      Senor and I are hardly alone in finding your “theories” and your mode of operation disingenuous and suspicious.

      \\][//

  34. @Jim Fetzer: OK Jim, I think I’ve now found a small demonstration that is a little more like what I was originally looking for.

    Please note that Simon Shack’s analysis here is done from all _original_ archived_ _network_footage, as broadcast in the US “live” on 9/11, and _not_ from some phony post 9/11 [2012?] demonstration made up entirely of computer graphics imagery that now claims to “prove” that Fl.175 flightpath is somehow consistent.

    Please go to this page:

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=961&p=2372768

    hilit=flight+175+last+7+seconds&sid=a9dfa69ab9152fb34c63a5859cc5d490#p2372768 , and view Mr Shack’s forum entry for July 22nd, 2012, 1:23 am. [roughly half way down the page], titled :”THE PLAIN PHONY ‘PLANE’ PATHS – comparing the animated trajectories of “Flight 175″.”

    Regards, onebornfree.

  35. What Tamborine man says on August 24, 2012 at 12:42 am
    proves that he is not paying attention to anything written on this forum. that he is not swayed by actual data and facts, but like Onebornfree is intent on pure speculation unhinged from what the evidence clearly shows, by simply pretending the evidence does not exist – and insisting that their speculative fictions are the more “reasonable”.

    Make believe worlds such as these are what are called DELUSIONS and those who suffer under such are said to be DELUSIONAL…The credo of the Delusional is: “If the facts do not fit the theory, make up new ‘facts’.”

    This is, by the way known as fiction. Fiction presented as fact is called deception. Deception falls under the general heading of “LIES”, but can be mitigated when diagnosed as “INSANITY.”

    \\][//

  36. Speculation is not an error in itself – it is speculation that does not attend to the facts and data that can be reasonably determined that is the error.

    \\][//

    1. As per the facts and data, that the F-troop {that is Fetzer, Onebornfree, and Tamborine} refused to attend to; these posted by Senor Once are but a few:

      – 2012-06-06
      – 2012-07-02
      – 2012-07-24
      – 2012-07-25
      – 2012-07-30
      – 2012-08-02

      It should be held in mind that until such attendance is made, their arguments remain in valid dispute.

      \\][//

  37. Jim Fetzer says: “…I have observed that these witnesses are the strongest proof that what was being used to perpetrate the fraud has to have been a hologram and cannot have been merely CGIs or video compositing, neither of which would have involved the image of a plane being seen in real time PRIOR TO ANY BROADCAST….”

    I have brought up this issue before with you Jim- and you have never given a reply.

    Let me try again:

    So you [again] wish to go on record claiming, as a professional , accredited philosopher of scientific methodology, that use of the testimony from non-cross examined, non deep- background checked, alleged “eyewitnesses ” to form a “valid scientific” hypothesis as to what transpired on 9/11, is a perfectly sound scientific methodology?

    Well in that case, why discount the non-cross examined, non deep- background checked, alleged “eyewitnesses ” who claim to have seen no plane enter the S. tower?

    Why are you choosing to side with the witnesses for the prosecution? [i.e. witnesses who in some way support the governments story]. How is that pre-bias in any way “scientific”?

    And in the meantime, if you have bothered to check the link in my last post :
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=961&p=2372768 , you will be confronted by the “in your face” fact that the Flight path for Fl. 175 as shown by CBS [and also by NBC], in their ORIGINAL “live” broadcast footage, entirely contradicts other alleged flight paths of that plane in both network and alleged “amateur” footage.

    In sum, you have the “testimony” of the original 9/11 broadcast footage, from these stations very own on-line archives, versus the “testimony” of [supposedly] 100’s of entirely non-cross examined, non deep- background checked, alleged “eyewitnesses “, and you choose to believe the testimony of these alleged “eyewitnesses” over that of the original broadcast archives that all quite clearly contradict each other in their depictions of the alleged flight path of Fl.175, in order to somehow conclusively “prove” that holograms were used on 9/11 ?

    Somehow I don’t think you philosophy of science teachers would be too impressed with your observed scientific methodology for all matters 9/11, but what do I know? :-)

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Well, I appreciate your sincerity. rogue is beyond disgusting. But there are many witness reports. We have to use what we have available to sort things out and determine what holds together best, all things considered. Technically, this means that coherence (or how the totality of the evidence comes together) is the criterion (yardstick or measure of truth (which is defined as correspondence with reality). I could be more specific, but this should be enough. Not only do we have a hundred firemen who report having seen what they took to be a plane but I found at least one witness, Scott Forbes, whom I interviewed for two hours on “The Real Deal” and who convinced me that he had watched the plane swallowed by the building! That was a apt description. And that he was astonished when the South Tower came apart like “sand”. I believe him and his testimony coheres with the firemen.

      I can’t believe that this rogue guy persists with his denial of elementary physics. The hole in the building has features that show it was artificially created, not by some “special plane”. I can’t imagine how he thinks a 160′ plane traveling over 500 mph could come to an abrupt halt within 40′ feet in order to avoid blowing out the other side of a 208′ wide building. Or how he can feign to discount the two parallel tracks of the “plane” as it approaches the tower in Richard Hall’s study of around 27 of the videos, which provides the same data as the one advanced by the NTSB, but where they are both matched by the radar reports of a second plane — which appears to be a real plane — that is 1,400′ to the right (in both the South and the North Tower hits). His blatant sophistry about Newton’s laws and his outright lies about the evidence are completely outrageous. I can’t recall when I have found myself dealing with a more blatant faker and fraud. He appears to me to be an accessory after the fact!

      1. Fetzer,

        Both Senor and myself have already rebuked that which you merely reassert.

        You haven’t countered with ANYTHING other than the original crap you have posted over and over again.

        Fetzer says:

        >”His blatant sophistry about Newton’s laws and his outright lies about the evidence are completely outrageous. I can’t recall when I have found myself dealing with a more blatant faker and fraud. He appears to me to be an accessory after the fact!”

        This will be the umpteenth time I have asked you:

        Why do you continually hail the 3rd Law of Newtonian Mechanics while dismissing the first two laws that set the frame before the third law can come into effect.

        We both know the answer don’t we.

        Fetzer reminds us over and again:

        “Newton’s third law demands that every action had an equal and opposite reaction.”
        ……….

        But he neglects mention of the first two laws that set the ‘Frame’ that must be considered before the third law comes to effect.

        > First law: Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.

        This first law has to do with inertia or momentum, depending on the original states of the bodies in question.

        As per the event we speak to, the first body is the building. In the frame, ie planet Earth; this body is at rest, an inert state, which has only one property: Mass.
        . . . . . . .
        >Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.

        A state of Momentum has three components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction. [*vector] -Velocity is described as mass-times-velocity squared in the energy equation.

        In our frame, ONLY the plane has a state of momentum.

        Moment and Point of Impact are both necessary integers in formulating impact physics. At that point and moment the kinetic energy of the mass in movement is transferred into the building AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT – the impact zone.

        It is at this point that we come to the third law; that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And this does certainly depend on the speed of an impact, regardless of what Fetzer claims, as the first two laws clearly state that they are of first and second account before the third proposition can manifest.

        Yes you can reverse the objects theoretically for the formula, but you cannot dismiss the actual frame of the physical event under analysis. That frame is on Earth; a building sitting at rest, ie, a state of inertia. This frame is described by the first two of Newton’s laws of motion.

        _____________________________THIS IS WHY:

        Fetzer dismisses the first two Newtonian Laws of Mechanics, because integrating them properly into the formula blows his screwy “interpretation” out of the water.

        \\][//

  38. @Jim Fetzer:

    Jim here is the original CBS footage, which shows a plane image 16 secs. before impact.

    This is the earliest on-screen view of the plane image shown by any US TV network that day.

    Please note the extreme “dive-bomber” path shown and compare with other alleged “live” footage:

    Here is the original NBC footage of the same event [it appears to show a slightly less steep approach] :

    Again, Mr Shack compares these and other alleged live footage of the same event here:
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=961&p=2372768 [half way down the page; post title = ”THE PLAIN PHONY ‘PLANE’ PATHS – comparing the animated trajectories of “Flight 175″.” ].

    Mr Fetzer, please explain the vast trajectory differences shown in the CBS footage as compared to other footage and how this all fits into to your hologram theory – as I asked before, surely, if all of those various network and and amateur cameras had really captured the same hologram on camera, then the flight paths/trajectories shown by all of those videos would be consistent with one another?

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. The videos are taken from different angles, different heights, and different distances which makes them look somewhat different yet they both show the exact same thing. A plane coming in at a shallow (not steep) dive. Your comment that it “appears” steeper in one compared to the other is deceptive along with being dead wrong. The camera at the lower angle will make the dive look less steep. It is the same event shown in both videos and all you have in the way of evidence to suggest otherwise is zilch, nada, and bupkis. As to hollograms see my next post below.

  39. Yes folks step right up for the AD HOMINEM JAMBOREE starring Jim Fetzer playing “The Professor”…

    LYRICS to ‘Seriously’ by, Jim {The Professor} Fetzer

    Take it away Jim…

    Standing at the podium ‘the Professor’ puffs himself up like a giant frog and begins to croak. and this is the song that he sings:
    . . . . . . . . . .

    “rogue is beyond disgusting. His blatant sophistry about Newton’s laws and his outright lies about the evidence are completely outrageous. What a whopper he is peddling. His nose must be longer than Pinocchio’s!

    [Chorus} How could anyone take this guy seriously?

    it is difficult to find the right words to describe this guy: prevaricator? dissembler? deceiver? phony? fake? or just plan liar? SEO has shown an astounding lack of comprehension of physics that is rivaled only by that of rogue, whom I suspect of faking his ignorance or stupidity, insofar as he seems to be on a mission.

    [Chorus} How could anyone take this guy seriously?

    His incompetence I find far less offensive than rogue’s endless stream of ad hominems. He constantly claims that I am using the techniques in which he specializes. Just review our respective posts here and see which of us is trading in logic and evidence and which of us is abusing the man and resorting to sarcasm and ridicule. It is not even a close call.
    You long-since blew your cover, rogue. We all know who you are. That you are endorsing rubbish from Senor El Once speaks volumes. He is simply sloppy, but you do it by design.

    {And the colored girls sing}

    How could anyone take this guy seriously?

    How could anyone take this guy seriously?

    seriously seriously seriously serrrrriousssssly?

    How could anyone take this guy seriously?

    Notice the abundance of ad hominems and the absence of logic and evidence. It is a common practice among those who want to mislead an audience to have one of them make a post and the other endorse it. They are clearly trying to muddy the water with ad hominems when we are making real progress.

    How could anyone take this guy seriously?

    How could anyone take this guy seriously?

    How could anyone take this guy seriously?

    seriously seriously seriously serrrrriousssssly?

    What does that tell you about our intellects?”

    seriously seriously seriously serrrrriousssssly?

    Ooooooo so seriously serrrrriousssssly?

    {Drum roll and cymbal crash — END}

    ____________________________

    This message brought to you by F-Troop Productions ©2012

    Arrangement and Music by Buckaroo Banshee

    The “Colored Girls” – Naomi of Sydney – triple tracked

    ____________________________

    \\][//

    1. I imagined the song performed Sinatra/Dean Martin, crooner style, tuxedos, martinis, lots of brass, perhaps a swaying quartet of muted trumpets. The coloured girls outfitted in glittering sequins. …. or a street homie doing it rap. Either way it’s bound to be a hit.

      But the flooding of this thread By Dr Fetzer once again with previously discussed issues that have been addressed and debunked by Senor, Hybridrogue, Oss and others many times and the continual hand waving of the evidence presented back yet once again is a flop.

      The repetition is tedious and so stale that it is emitting the unmistakable odour of disinfo.

      Al

      1. Hey Al,

        Hahaha…yes imagining that delivered by a Dean Martin styler in Vegas would be a gassss…

        Thanks for dropping in, your comment on the stale odour of disinfo is so apropos.

        If the F-Troop isn’t a Sunstein inspired campaign then the Earth is a cube rather than a globe.

        \\][//

  40. Jim Fetzer says: “But there are many witness reports. We have to use what we have available to sort things out and determine what holds together best, all things considered…. ……… Not only do we have a hundred firemen who report having seen what they took to be a plane but I found at least one witness, Scott Forbes, whom I interviewed for two hours on “The Real Deal” and who convinced me that he had watched the plane swallowed by the building!

    Jim, have any of these alleged trustworthy “eyewitnesses” of yours been thoroughly back- ground checked by private investigators, or cross examined under oath?

    A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice. Regards, onebornfree.

    1. You are confounding LEGAL PROCEDURE with SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. That the answer is, “No”, does not mean we can discount their reports. I should have addressed this concern of yours some time back. We are engaged in (what could even be called) PILOT STUDIES or PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES using the evidence that is available to us. We are not about to enter a court of law about this question, but the evidence is simply overwhelming, no matter how much rogue and SEO want to pretend that it does not exist.

  41. Jim Fetzer says: “I can’t believe that this rogue guy persists with his denial of elementary physics. ”

    And I cannot believe that you waste your valuable time even reading, let alone bothering to respond to, his/its never-ending self-aggrandizing pretentious drivel. What’s up with that? Surely your time is more precious?

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Well, I agree with your assessment. The problem is that it is easy to lie and it can be tedious and complex to explain why we are dealing with deliberate falsehoods. He repeatedly claims there is no evidence to support the use of holograms, when there is a mountain of proof, including the impossible speed, the impossible entry, the lack of any loss of momentum, the absence of any debris, the non-explosion on contact, the lack of penetration through the building, the planted engine component at Church & Murray, the plotted sequence of locations of “the plane”, the radar data of another plane flying 1,400′ to its right! How much prevarication and dissembling are we supposed to take from an obvious troll who is doing everything he can to obfuscate and obscure one of the most important findings in 9/11 research, which has the potential to blow the case out of the water in the public domain? That has to be why he is here, because his commitment to 9/11 truth runs from zero to null.

      1. Mr. James Fetzer, PhD writes on August 25, 2012 at 10:38 am (rearranged):

        There is a mountain of proof … to support the use of holograms.

        the impossible speed

        The speed is only impossible for the alleged UA Flight 175 and its model of aircraft. It would not be impossible for a fighter jet, nor would it be impossible for a modified special plane that had more powerful engines and computer guidance. Our special Dr. Fetzer has never been able to get mind or his arguments around the adjective special when applied to the noun plane.

        the impossible entry

        The floors were spaced about 12′ apart and had only 4″ on concrete on steel pans and the necessary trusses to support this, leaving lots of empty space. The exterior columns of the tower were 60 cm wide on 100 cm centers, leaving 40 cm wide gaps with only glass as the barrier. Lots of essentially empty space to make the entry not so impossible.

        And for the parts of the towers that aren’t so empty, our special Dr. Fetzer isn’t getting his mind around the special hardened features of bunker-busting bombs that could be applied to “a plane-looking-missile.”

        the lack of any loss of momentum

        The true lack is that of high-speed film that could demonstrate what was truly happening in the last tenth of a second of its flight into the building.

        In addition to this, the impossible speed being possible with enhanced engines produced a velocity-squared term in the energy equation that was significantly greater than the structural/resistive energy of the materials of the plane.

        the absence of any debris

        Again, our special Dr. Fetzer isn’t acting like a professor of critical thinking and rational arguments. The lack of debris (e.g., seats, luggage, body parts) may logical exclude the alleged UA Flight 175, but it doesn’t exclude a modified special plane that might be devoid of seats, luggage, and passengers.

        the non-explosion on contact

        The fuselage of any plane won’t explode on contact, because it doesn’t carry fuel. Fuel is carried in the wings. Our special Dr. Fetzer is being a bit imprecise in his words to allow this silly skewing of his malframing.

        Were we to give our special Dr. Fetzer some leeway into amending his words to be “the non-explosion on contact with the wings,” well, this would simply not be true, because an explosiong did happen once these were shredded by the towers and the flames of the engines could reach the resulting spreading of fuel.

        the lack of penetration through the building

        Our special Dr. Fetzer needs to be reminded that the special plane would be designed for special goals and purposes. Penetration into the building would be one of them, but not penetration through the building, as demonstrated by many videos of how bunker-busting-bombs work.

        the planted engine component at Church & Murray

        Our special Dr. Fetzer needs to be reminded that many video clips show a significant piece of aircraft flying out of the building… in the direction of Church & Murray. Go figure.

        the plotted sequence of locations of “the plane”

        Our special Dr. Fetzer doesn’t realize that the plotted sequence does not spell “holograms”.

        the radar data of another plane flying 1,400′ to its right

        Our special Dr. Fetzer doesn’t read what others write, particularly when they dispute our special Dr. Fetzer’s fantasies. Here’s something posted for the fourth time in a futile attempt to get propertly noticed and addressed by our special Dr. Fetzer. [Source]:

        Here is how jammo sees radar data.

        He sees (and plots it) as a straight line. Although this image does not show it, the radar path does veer to the left in the final seconds towards the South Tower. This is NOT how a radar path is to be seen.

        This is the proper way to see a radar path.

        It is NOT some pencil sharp line. A radar path is a block, equal to 2 times the estimated or known accuracy in width. The red (ASR) path is narrow because it has a greater known accuracy than the blue (ARSR) path. The blue path cannot be used alone to say that the plane in question “hit” a specific spot in time and space. What can be said is, if something “hit” a specific spot in time and space, that it’s radar path “hit” it (which in this case it did). The plane can be located anywhere inside the path, but the radar path definitely hit the WTC South Tower.

        For the red paths (we have two if you recall, EWR and JFK), both the paths AND the plane can be said to have “hit” the spot.

        Our special Dr. Fetzer wrote:

        He repeatedly claims there is no evidence to support the use of holograms…

        Aside from going point-by-point through our special Dr. Fetzer’s alleged mountain of proof, it should be pointed out that our special Dr. Fetzer has not once provided — ever, on this thread or any other on T&S — “meticulous and copiously documented” basic research (links, technical articles, books) that would prove holograms could be projected.

        I hesitate to mention this, but our special Dr. Fetzer’s theories also now depend on cloaking technology of his special plane that flies the exact same special “impossible speeds” while projecting a hologram to the left. [One set of radar data somehow registers the photons of the projected hologram but not the cloaked projecting plane, while another set of radar data registers the cloaked projecting plane but not the the hologram.]

        “Now isn’t that special!” SNL Church Lady.

        Now that all of our special Dr. Fetzer’s arguments supposedly leading to the conclusion of holograms have been addressed, maybe we should now reconsider our special Dr. Fetzer’s extra-special closing and introductory words:

        How much prevarication and dissembling are we supposed to take from an obvious troll who is doing everything he can to obfuscate and obscure one of the most important findings in 9/11 research, which has the potential to blow the case out of the water in the public domain? That has to be why he is here, because his commitment to 9/11 truth runs from zero to null.

        The problem is that it is easy to lie and it can be tedious and complex to explain why we are dealing with deliberate falsehoods.

        A special Amen in the scientific range from zero to null to that, brother.

        // a psuedo-intellectual

        1. Just to illustrate the slovenliness of SEO’s “research”, the alleged plane was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which were anchored at one end to the core columns and to the external steel columns at the other. Each of them represented an acre of concrete apiece. We know what happens when a plane encounters a tiny bird weighing a few ounces in flight. Imagine what would happen if it were to hit an acre of concrete! There is no longer any reason to take this guy seriously. He is a flake.

      2. Jim Fetzer says:
        “How much prevarication and dissembling are we supposed to take from an obvious troll who is doing everything he can to obfuscate and obscure one of the most important findings in 9/11 research..”
        ________________

        This is a great question, one that most here are asking about YOU.

        Everything you listed there as your “mountain of proof” has been thoroughly debunked time after time. YOU are the one who will not address these issues in an honest debate – but continue to spout your empty assertions, “OVER AND OVER AND OVER ” {as ruffadam says}.

        Yes, you are such a bore Fetzer, tiresome and irksome.

        Perhaps you can get a little garage band together and do a version of the song ‘Seriously’ from AD HOMINEM JAMBOREE {above} – now, I see this delivered as a RAP…with the actual melody handled by the music and chorus lines. You could use this as an intro on your radio show. You can consider the arrangement ‘pro bono’ {grin}

        \\][//

      3. Señor El Once on August 25, 2012 at 11:39 am:

        Makes 13 specific points disputing Fetzer’s ludicrous fantasy world positions.

        What is the substance of Fetzer’s reply?

        None.

        No substance whatsoever. He simply hand waves the entire issue and says this:

        “There is no longer any reason to take this guy seriously. He is a flake.”
        ~”Dr.” Fetzer
        __________________________________

        So much for “reason” in debate. So much for rationality. So much for sanity.

        Here we are again past the 200 mark on this thread stuck in another Fetzerian quagmire. It is a treacherous swamp of rhetorical whirlpools, and poisonous flatulence.

        There is as well this phony “debate” going on with Onebornfree. They are in this together, this is programmed theater, an F-Troop production. I would posit that these two and Tamborine are part of a professional team of Sunstein agents. They have waylayed thread after thread with dissonance of the most obviously twisted kind – totally unhinged from reason and sanity.

        I for one am utterly sick of this.

        \\][//

        1. Well, he got it right that a Cass Sunstein production is taking place, only he has the wrong stars. I have never seen such a blatant case of misinformation being deliberately spread.

          “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”

          http://www.opednews.com/articles/Birds-of-a-Feather-Subver-by-Jim-Fetzer-100121-980.html

          There is this difference. TM, OBF and I are working to expose it. This guy, rogue1, works to implement it. I don’t think I have encountered anyone more disgusting my years on the net.

      4. Dear Señor,

        you wrote:

        The floors were spaced about 12′ apart and had only 4″ on concrete on steel pans and the necessary trusses to support this, leaving lots of empty space. The exterior columns of the tower were 60 cm wide on 100 cm centers, leaving 40 cm wide gaps with only glass as the barrier. Lots of essentially empty space to make the entry not so impossible.

        Here again you ‘forget’ to mention the 4 ft. high steel spandrels that each concrete floor and steel trusses butts up against.

        and again you got the size of the steel columns wrong. The perimeter steel columns were 14″ or 356 mm. wide. The width of the windows were approximately 600 mm. wide – or in fact the opposite to what you write above!

        And for the parts of the towers that aren’t so empty, our special Dr. Fetzer isn’t getting his mind around the special hardened features of bunker-busting bombs that could be applied to “a plane-looking-missile.”

        B-b-b’s, by their very nature and purpose, are ‘designed’ to penetrate reinforced concrete, not ‘open weave’ steel structures!

        What do you think would have happened, had the ‘nose’ of your ‘special’ plane hit the center of a window pane, split apart, and your b-b-b, hidden in the ‘nose-cone, continued on its flight through open office space, hitting the center of a window pane on the back wall, and with a speed of over 500 m/h descended somewhere in New York impacting another building or street and exploded there?

        Again, our special Dr. Fetzer isn’t acting like a professor of critical thinking and rational arguments. The lack of debris (e.g., seats, luggage, body parts) may logical exclude the alleged UA Flight 175, but it doesn’t exclude a modified special plane that might be devoid of seats, luggage, and passengers.

        So the perps ‘pretended’ the plane to be Flight 175, but substitute this plane with a ‘special’ plane WITHOUT any seats and luggage, making it even MORE OBVIOUS to honest investigators that a monstrous fraud MUST have taken place!

        Right! – if that’s what takes your fancy to believe in, who are we to try to spoil this for you? So by all means go with it mate – to your hearts delight!

        Were we to give our special Dr. Fetzer some leeway into amending his words to be “the non-explosion on contact with the wings,” well, this would simply not be true, because an explosiong did happen once these were shredded by the towers and the flames of the engines could reach the resulting spreading of fuel.

        You’re making absolutely no sense here!

        Are you saying that the ‘ostensible plane explosion’ made no contact with the ostensible jet fuel, but that it was only the flames from the supposedly burning engines that ignited the ‘spreading fuel’?

        Our special Dr. Fetzer needs to be reminded that many video clips show a significant piece of aircraft flying out of the building… in the direction of Church & Murray. Go figure.

        I have watched many videos, but not yet one that shows conclusively that it is “a significant piece of aircraft” which is seen flying out of the building.

        All i have ever seen is “something” that could be “anything”!

        Señor, if you have knowledge of a video that show this ostensible ‘aircraft piece’ in more recognizable details, would you be kind enough to link to this?

        Our special Dr. Fetzer doesn’t read what others write, particularly when they dispute our special Dr. Fetzer’s fantasies. Here’s something posted for the fourth time in a futile attempt to get propertly noticed and addressed by our special Dr. Fetzer. [Source]:

        Here is how jammo sees radar data.

        He sees (and plots it) as a straight line. Although this image does not show it, the radar path does veer to the left in the final seconds towards the South Tower. This is NOT how a radar path is to be seen.

        This is the proper way to see a radar path.

        It is NOT some pencil sharp line. A radar path is a block, equal to 2 times the estimated or known accuracy in width. The red (ASR) path is narrow because it has a greater known accuracy than the blue (ARSR) path. The blue path cannot be used alone to say that the plane in question “hit” a specific spot in time and space. What can be said is, if something “hit” a specific spot in time and space, that it’s radar path “hit” it (which in this case it did). The plane can be located anywhere inside the path, but the radar path definitely hit the WTC South Tower.

        For the red paths (we have two if you recall, EWR and JFK), both the paths AND the plane can be said to have “hit” the spot.

        Dear Señor, a sincere honest genuine truth-seeker NEVER link to the ‘jref forum’ as a ‘source’ to give support to same truth-seekers arguments.
        This is just not done – unless of course you have been half asleep the last 5 or 6 years!

        ‘Jref’ers’ support the perps and the official story unconditionally, and will use any ‘means’ at their “disposal”, even if it’s supplied directly by the ‘alphabet’ people!

        “Jammo” over there being attacked by this unsavory mob, is an obvious genuine truth-seeker. (He’s the one you should HONESTLY have supported instead – but alas)!

        Their ‘leader’ “beachnut”, is detested by everyone at P4T, as well as by many others for his almost ‘grotesque’ behaviour.
        Mr. rogue might be the kind of guy being attracted to this man – but you Señor? – that would really turn out to be “nothing but a crying shame”!!
        Enough said –

        Our special Dr. Fetzer wrote:

        He repeatedly claims there is no evidence to support the use of holograms…

        Aside from going point-by-point through our special Dr. Fetzer’s alleged mountain of proof, it should be pointed out that our special Dr. Fetzer has not once provided — ever, on this thread or any other on T&S — “meticulous and copiously documented” basic research (links, technical articles, books) that would prove holograms could be projected.

        I hesitate to mention this, but our special Dr. Fetzer’s theories also now depend on cloaking technology of his special plane that flies the exact same special “impossible speeds” while projecting a hologram to the left. [One set of radar data somehow registers the photons of the projected hologram but not the cloaked projecting plane, while another set of radar data registers the cloaked projecting plane but not the the hologram.]

        Snip

        The problem is that it is easy to lie and it can be tedious and complex to explain why we are dealing with deliberate falsehoods.

        Dear Señor, it is only the shills, the infiltrators, the OS supporters, who persistently ask the truth-seekers for “proof”, knowing full well that this “proof” is NOT AVAILABLE to us for ‘bleeding’ obvious reasons.

        You should know this absolute fact, but yet you decide to play the ‘shill game’ here, and one seriously have to wonder why!!

        Again and again, honest, sincere, genuine truth-seekers have pointed out to you, quoting Sir Arthur Doyle, that:

        “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the Truth.”

        Again and again you have ignored this above ‘dictum’.

        Again and again it has been pointed out to you that your ‘beliefs': that a standard 767 could have been replaced by a ‘specially built plane’, is total bonkers, as it makes no sense at all in the overall scheme of things. (See above).

        Had you dear, Señor, f. ex. personally been an important member of the ‘planning team’ (hypothetically speaking of course), would you seriously have put forward to the “elite decision makers” a proposal that leaked like a huge sieve; a proposal of a monstrous fraud that was so unbelievable easy to’ see through'; a proposal with holes in it bigger than in Swiss cheese?
        Of course you wouldn’t! -Lest you would like to be considered a total idiot; a bumbling fool; an inept nincompoop, worth nothing more than being sacked there on the spot, or perhaps even quietly be disposed of!

        Again you will naturally completely ignore the above, as you have again and again ignored other pertinent questions put to you in this regard, so an honest response from you is not expected as per usual.

        Again and again you have ignored, or made ‘light’ of, quotes presented to you from DARPA, The US Air Force, or from this link regarding “holograms” below, that i gave to you some time back, and you of course never responded to:

        http://www.stormingmedia.us/keywords/holograms.html

        Again and again you have given us the impression that you know everything there is to know about what kind of technology ‘the military complex’ possesses at any given moment.
        This in spite of the fact that we truth-seekers have been told again and again over the years, that in many many cases, the technological knowledge ‘the military complex’ holds, is easily 25 years ahead of time, – for national security reasons only – naturally!

        If you dear Señor, are a truly sincere, honest, genuine truth-seeker, i think it’s about time you let us know, one way or the other!

        But please, i beg you, refrain from using the ‘methods’ you so far have tried to “impute” this by, in your many recent postings.

        Cheers

      5. It is simply hilarious when on August 26, 2012 at 7:38 am – Tamborine man says to Señor, “You’re making absolutely no sense here!”…

        ..when it is a fact that Tamborine man is the goofiest of ignorant goofballs commenting on this site.

        He has no concept of science or physics and doesn’t understand anything about what he speaks to. Yet he has the nerve to chastise Señor.

        While I do not always agree with Señor, I have found that he is not an utter lunatic like Tamborine, who seems to be here in the main simply to run interference for Fetzer.

        Yes I think Fetzer and Tamborine and Unbornfree are a disinfo team. As it is these three wankheads that ALWAYS – every friggin thread – drive us into this bullshit; ‘NPT’-‘Video Fakery’-‘Holograms’ – a TRIAD OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

        \\][//

      6. Dear Mr. TamborineMan, you wrote:

        Here again you ‘forget’ to mention the 4 ft. high steel spandrels that each concrete floor and steel trusses butts up against.

        And you forgot to mention their thickness, length, spacing, and orientation with respect to the impacting aircraft. Their role would have been much smaller than the exterior columns or the floor pans.

        And again you got the size of the steel columns wrong. The perimeter steel columns were 14′ or 356 mm. wide. The width of the windows were approximately 600 mm. wide – or in fact the opposite to what you write above!

        Oops, my bad. But guess what? If indeed they were 35.6 cm wide on 100 cm centers (instead of 60 cm wide on 100 cm centers), that only helps my argument more. There was more empty space through which mass of a plane would enter without resistance.

        In a similar vein to yours, Dr. Fetzer wrote:

        … the alleged plane was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8′ of concrete …

        Dr. Fetzer is deliberatly skewing the fact that a story height was 3.65 meters, truss spacing was 2.04 meters, transverse truss spacing was 4.08 meters… I pointed it out to him before: the fuselage (5.41 meters tall by 5.03 meters wide) was not “intersecting eight (8) floors”; at most, it was two. I leave the math up to you to figure out how much empty space would not be resisting the penetrating fuselage.

        Mr. Tamborine Man wrote:

        I have watched many videos, but not yet one that shows conclusively that it is “a significant piece of aircraft” which is seen flying out of the building.

        If you’re saying you didn’t see anything come “flying” out of the WTC-2 tower, then you would be mistaken. If you’re saying that you did but that it did not look significant, you need to get some perspective with regards to how far the camera was away from the action, making big pieces (e.g., wheel assembly, engine) appear small.

        Dear Señor, a sincere honest genuine truth-seeker NEVER link to the ‘jref forum’ as a ‘source’ to give support to same truth-seekers arguments. This is just not done – unless of course you have been half asleep the last 5 or 6 years! ‘Jref’ers’ support the perps and the official story unconditionally, and will use any ‘means’ at their “disposal”, even if it’s supplied directly by the ‘alphabet’ people! “Jammo” over there being attacked by this unsavory mob, is an obvious genuine truth-seeker. (He’s the one you should HONESTLY have supported instead – but alas)!

        Bah! Humbug! Nuggets of Truth are Truth regardless of who spews it. Nice little attempt at guilt by association, but why don’t you or Dr. Fetzer address the salient technical point about the nature of those radar systems and their accuracy?

        Jammonious has participated here before in the Dr. Wood thread. He’s a religious zealot who can acknowledge no errors in his matron saint. I support nuggets of truth, not “team colors”.

        Dear Señor, it is only the shills, the infiltrators, the OS supporters, who persistently ask the truth-seekers for “proof”, knowing full well that this “proof” is NOT AVAILABLE to us for ‘bleeding’ obvious reasons.

        Or maybe, it is only the shills, the infiltrators, the OS supporters, who persistently put forth wild-ass speculation without “proof”, knowing full well that this “proof” is NOT AVAILABLE to us for ‘bleeding’ obvious reasons.

        Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)? We have proof of their existence and even commercialization. Google “active denial system” and then “Project Excalibur”.

        Holograms? Oh, they exist and we have proof of them. What we don’t have is proof that they could be projected in 2001 or in 2012. You can bet that if they could be projected, some enterprising dudes would have commercialized this, and there would be examples everywhere.

        I have researched holograms. I suspect either that you have not or that you lack some rigorous engineering thinking, because otherwise, you would have discovered how holograms are created, what is required, and what limitations they have in their viewing. If holograms in 2001 were all that you and Dr. Fetzer imply, then the DARPA wishlist from 2005 (?) for what they wanted by 2025 wouldn’t have included “holographic projection.”

        Here’s your words re-purposed at you, Mr. Tamborine Man:

        You should know this absolute fact, but yet you decide to play the ‘shill game’ here, and one seriously have to wonder why!!

        As for the following snippet:

        Again and again, honest, sincere, genuine truth-seekers have pointed out to you, quoting Sir Arthur Doyle, that: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the Truth.” Again and again you have ignored this above ‘dictum’.

        It is you who have ignored the “dictim,” because projected holograms is one of those impossible things that you haven’t eliminated. And how about the cloaked plane projecting the hologram? Seems rather impossible, too. Why exactly do you consider a modified 767 so impossible?

        You are such a comedian, Mr. Tamborine Man:

        Again and again it has been pointed out to you that your ‘beliefs’: that a standard 767 could have been replaced by a ‘specially built plane’, is total bonkers, as it makes no sense at all in the overall scheme of things.

        How does it differ from your “beliefs”: that a standard 767 could have been replaced by a “specially built plane” that can (a) cloak itself, (b) project a hologram, (c) confound two radar systems?

        Continuing with your jokes, you provide the link:

        http://www.stormingmedia.us/keywords/holograms.html

        Where’s the link within the list of links that says holograms can be projected?

        If you dear Señor, are a truly sincere, honest, genuine truth-seeker, i think it’s about time you let us know, one way or the other! But please, i beg you, refrain from using the ‘methods’ you so far have tried to “impute” this by, in your many recent postings.

        What are you “imputing” with the “methods” you employ?

        Are you “truly sincere, honest, genuine truth-seeker?” If so, you would have acknowledged the nugget of truth from JREF about radar accuracy and the nugget of truth from the very URL that you provided (that had nothing about projected holograms.)

        // a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual

  42. What the truth movement as a whole and this blog needs is a defined criteria for determining when an idea or theory has no merit. Once that criteria is met anyone bringing forth the meritless idea again can simple be directed to the debunk. That way none of us has to waste time repeatedly explaining why NPT and Hologram theories are a load of crap. They are a load of crap and the reasons they are a load of crap have been explained countless times. So many times in fact that I am 100% convinced at this point that people who bring these BS theories forward again and again are intentionally wasting our time and trying to suck away all our energy. We need to step by step, point by point, debunk these garbage theories ONCE! ONCE! ONCE! ONE TIME! and then refer people to that debunk and tell them if they cannot refute the contents of that debunk then they should refrain from posting on that topic! I am so sick and tired of seeing the same people posting the same debunked crap over and over and over. Their feet are never held to the fire and they are never required to answer critiques of their theories so they just ignore conclusive debunks and go right on ahead posting the same crap over and over and over again as though they were never challenged or refuted. That is how disinformationists operate, when refuted they ignore it and disappear for a short time and then come back to repeat the same BS again later. The whole goal is to drive people away from the discussion out of frustration and it works.

    Any honest person can and does defend their position when challenged and if the challenge uncovers a weakness or fatal flaw in their position then they change their position or withdraw it completely. That is how we can differentiate between a real truther and a disinformationist. One debates one evades, one changes when shown to be in error one does not, one stops repeating debunked material one does not.

    I can’t believe how many great discussions have been lost because of the disinformationists here continually derailing the topic, OVER AND OVER AND OVER with the same debunked crap.

    Once and for all I want to debunk the god damned hollogram theories and no plane theories so we can have just ONE on topic discussion. JUST ONCE!

    I propose the following question be put to anyone promoting hollogram theories and I further propose they be required to answer it with a logical well thought out reply supported by actual evidence. If they cannot do so then any further posts that person makes promoting hollograms should be considered intentional disinformation with the purpose of confusing people and derailing the topic. I further propose that off topic posts be blocked all together and placed where they belong, namely in a thread about that subject. Then people like me can simply ignore the NPT and hollogram threads and spend what little time I have actually reading ON TOPIC comments about topics I do want to discuss and read.

    Question for hollogram proponents: What evidence do you have that such a hollogram ( of a plane coming in and striking the WTC) is even technically possible to create? Has any such hollogram ever been produced before into empty blue sky using ANY technology we actually posses? In empty blue sky what was the hollogram projected onto? At disneyland they have a hollogram show which is considered state of the art and it is projected onto a screen of water vapor AT NIGHT and no one would ever be convinced that these hollograms were real objects.

    If you can’t answer that then for gods sake shut up about the god damned hollogram BS. Do us all a favor and shut up about it in ANY case where it isn’t the topic even if you can somehow answer the question above. Christ on a cracker.

    1. I agree with what ruffadam says here.

      As one who it is said, “feeds the trolls” – my only defense is that regardless of whether they are fed or not the trolls still leave their droppings. The only way I know to clean up this crap, is to debunk it.

      I would also point out that these shows at Disney, although billed as “holograms” are NOT holograms, but a sophisticated digital version of ‘Peppers Ghost’.
      And of course I have explained this countless times now. The modern versions are named ‘Musion Eyeliner’.

      Anyone can find out more about this by putting those two terms into their web browser.

      But as I explained to Fetzer – the lack of proof for holograms is only one small aspect of compound errors in his NPT arguments. And I think I and Senor have touched on most of these here either directly or referring to other threads.

      I think we should all have some sympathy for the moderator. We DO want to keep this forum as a FREE SPEECH ZONE – this is in everyone’s interest. Some balance must be struck however, because I notice that quite a few usual commentators drop off every time this NPT-Video Fakery-Hologram triad floods in the others go out with the tide.

      I would say that a better strategy would be to hang in here and air their grievances as a group. That would surely be stronger than just a couple of us {Senor and I in this instance} debating these disinfo toadies.

      \\][//

      1. Jim Fetzer says, August 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm:

        “Well, I knew there were world-class LSAs here.”

        More Fetzerian Newspeak…so what the fluk is “LSA” supposed to mean Mr. Disinfo Man?

        When Fetzer says “there is a mountain of proof,” what he is actually saying is he has a mountain of bullshit to sell you.

        He is actually making the argument here as if the ONLY PLANES IN THE WORLD were Flt 11, 77, 93, and 175. Because all one has to do to solve Fetzer’s lame “puzzle” is say the words, “substitute planes”. The “dilemma” is all in the “Professor’s” bubbly head.

        How does this fizz headed crackpot solve his “incredible complex puzzle”?

        “Holograms”.

        That’s right “since there are no other planes on the planet”–

        IT HAD TO BE HOLOGRAMS.

        Yea like RuffAdam said; “Jesus on a cracker”…

        \\][//

    2. Well, I knew there were world-class LSAs here. I just didn’t realize that ruffadam was one of them. He apparently has no idea what he is talking about. NPT, properly understood, is the conjunction of the following four propositions:

      (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
      (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
      (3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
      (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

      From BTS records, we know that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day. We also know from FAA documents that the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005.

      So, ruffadam, how could planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11? and how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air FOUR YEARS LATER? I think you have your work cut out for you, alas.

      Plus, as further proof that you are committing a massive blunder and are COMPLETELY IGNORANT OF THE EVIDENCE, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has studied communications ground-to-air and established that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, AFTER IT HAD ALLEGEDLY CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE.

      And that Flight 175 was also in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, AFTER IT HAD ALLEGEDLY ENTERED THE SOUTH TOWER! I don’t know what you can do with this, but there is a mountain of proof that all four of the “crash sites” were fabricated. So if you follow logic and evidence, NPT is not a fantasy but fact!

      1. Fetzer you have zero evidence of a hologram. There simply is no such thing as a projected hologram without a medium to project it onto. It is a FACT.

        \\][//

      2. Jim save the BS man NPT means NO PLANES STRIKING THE TOWERS in the context I was using it. It has nothing to do with plane swaps which could have happened. You are intentionally conflating plane swaps with NPT and it is very deceptive. I think it stinks that you would even attempt to conflate these two seperate topics. The bulk of my argument above has to do with holograms anyway. I notice you did not address the substance of my argument with holograms.

      3. My question which you did not address is:

        What evidence do you have that such a hollogram ( of a plane coming in and striking the WTC) is even technically possible to create? Has any such hollogram ever been produced before into empty blue sky using ANY technology we actually posses? In empty blue sky what was the hollogram projected onto?

    3. Hi ruffadam,

      i would suggest you take a stroll over to truthfraction and have a little chat with snowcrash!

      You’ll be amazed to find out how much you two guys really got in common, apart from his little rant to-day about what he “really thinks” about you personally of course, but otherwise the similarities are quite remarkable.

      Would love to see you two engage in a little “competition” in order to find out who of you in fact possess the greatest “superiority-complex”!

      My money would obviously be on snowcrash, but if you, ruffadam, could persuade mr. rogue (who too got much in common with ‘mr. de Boer’) to join you to form a ‘team’, then i think the result could possibly change dramatically, making the “competition” and the outcome so much more exciting.

      Cheers

    4. Hi ruffadam,

      it was my intention to post the following as a response to your long posting above, but on second thoughts it will probably achieve nothing, except, and if nothing else, only make me into a presumed “enemy” of yours!

      I wouldn’t like that to happen, so i hope you’ll take it as a little prank, with only a smallish section to be taken partly serious!

      Hi ruffadam,

      i would suggest you take a stroll over to truthfraction and have a little chat with snowcrash!

      You’ll be amazed to find out how much you two guys really got in common, apart from his little rant to-day about what he “really thinks” about you personally of course, but otherwise the similarities are quite remarkable.

      Would love to see you two engage in a little “competition” in order to find out who of you in fact possess the greatest “superiority-complex”!

      My money would obviously be on snowcrash, but if you, ruffadam, could persuade mr. rogue (who too got much in common with ‘mr. de Boer’) to join you to form a ‘team’, then i think the result could possibly change dramatically, making the “competition” and the outcome so much more exciting.

      Cheers

    5. You really are an astounding mediocrity. I have pointed out that John Lear, who is our nation’s most distinguished pilot, Stefan Grossman, who has done a study on the absence of any collision effects at the South Tower; and Stephen Brown, who had recently completed a course on holography, were guest on my radio program, where you should be able to find four interview with John and one with Brown in the archives of my show at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. For Stefan Grossman, see

      http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.45.html

      What makes you think that the puny space between your ears contains all relevant knowledge about these things? I have not simply rebutted but actually destroyed the claims for “special planes” again and again and again. If you are too ignorant to track down my discussions, so much the worse for you. Your ignorance is simply appalling: impossible speed, impossible entry, no deceleration, no explosion, no exit out the opposite side of the building, planted debris, space/time plots for “the plane”; actual radar data for the plane projecting them; on and on and on. See,

      Part 1

      http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

      Part 2

      http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

      1. James H. Fetzer says, August 26, 2012 at 6:24 pm:

        >”There is this difference. TM, OBF and I are working to expose it. This guy, rogue1, works to implement it. I don’t think I have encountered anyone more disgusting my years on the net.”
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        Yet again the same formula psyops 101 from Fetzer: He does not address a single issue with any substance at all, he simply makes a boast, slurs his adversary and posts some spazmata that he has previously written.

        Ad Hominem, Appeal To Authority, Strawman.

        Fetzer cannot carry on a genuine debate, regardless of his boasts of expertise in critical thinking, and logic. He is barren and silent as far as answering a single criticism with a straight answer.

        And even though this is again pointed out to him, one can count on his next reaction being, an argument over the “proper definition” of these terms of argumentum, rather than addressing any of the issues of substance. Either that or he will not answer at all and move on as if none of this took place.

        The proof is in the putting not in empty boasting. Fetzer digs himself deeper with each comment he adds.

        \\][//

      2. I agree Fetzer has not and will not address one simple point both HR1 and myself have made. He IS using disinformation techniques and avoiding the obvious gaping holes in his hologram theory. It is impossible to have a real debate with such a person. He will not engage in debate however he will continue to promote his bogus hologram theory while ignoring the substantial issues with it. If his theory had any merit at all he would not only address my simple question about it but convincingly so. Instead he uses evasion techniques, ad-homs, and disinformation techniques. HR1 is correct in his analysis of Fetzer and frankly speaking I think he is nothing but destructive to this forum and to the truth movement as a whole.

        This will be the FINAL time I will ever repost my question to Fetzer. If he avoids it again I will from then on consider him a confirmed disinformation agent and treat him as such.

        Question repost for the third and final time:

        “What evidence do you have that such a hollogram ( of a plane coming in and striking the WTC) is even technically possible to create? Has any such hollogram ever been produced before into empty blue sky using ANY technology we actually posses? In empty blue sky what was the hollogram projected onto?”

  43. Jim Fetzer says: ” You are confounding LEGAL PROCEDURE with SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. That the answer is, “No”, does not mean we can discount their reports…………the evidence is simply overwhelming” .

    Jim Fetzer says: “That the answer is, “No”, does not mean we can discount their reports.”

    But Jim, you _are_ discounting the numerous reports by alleged on-site witnesses who claimed to see no plane at all!

    Why the favoritism? How is your witness favoritism even a part of accepted scientific methodology?

    Sure , you cannot entirely “discount” the reports of alleged eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a plane, but , I submit, equally, you _cannot_ entirely “discount” the numerous accounts of other alleged “eyewitnesses” who claim to have _not_ seen a plane fly into WTC2- which means, given equal weight [as both sides of the story should be, in my opinion], that the alleged “eyewitness” reports cancel each other out until such time as they can be definitively established as being reliably true and consistent.

    As it stands, you are cherry picking alleged eye witness testimony to suit your hologram theory.

    Jim Fetzer says: “….the evidence is simply overwhelming”

    Meanwhile, [out of convenience?] you appear to be choosing to completely ignore the “testimony” of the CBS archived footage, which [by the way] was _not_ taken from a helicopter, but allegedly from a fixed,ground position [CBS studios], as can be easily seen assuming one even bothers to look :-) ], which means that the angle of approach of the plane is as steep as shown, which is why the clip has earned the nickname CBS “dive bomber”, or similar, in the first place.

    On the other hand, the lesser angle displayed in the NBC original footage is due to the fact that it _was_ allegedly taken from a helicopter that was looking down on the WTC complex.

    Meanwhile on MSNBC we are entertained by an almost completely level approach by Fl. 175, allegedly taken from near ground level, as was the the CBS footage linked to in a previous post:

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. You are a good guy, OBF. With a hologram, from different perspectives, you see it or not, in whole or in part. That some who appear credible reported seeing a plane (or what they took to be a plane) but which was performing feats that no real plane could perform is what is crucial. I am disillusioned with SEO, who has turned into some kind of fake. That is VERY disappointing, but there’s lots of that going around.

    2. OBF, I did answer it. From different physical points of view, holograms can be visible, only partially visible, or completely invisible. Have you looked at the videos that show the left wing of the plane missing as it is about to enter the building? Now it is possible that CGIs and video compositing were used to produce more and inconsistent videos to make it even more difficult to sort things out, but I have focused on the most important: the Hezarkhani and Evan Fairbanks’ videos, where we see the plane effortlessly disappearing into this huge building with no deceleration whatsoever. Which of course is yet another reason why rogue is faking it when he denies the existence of evidence supporting the use of holograms.

  44. @Jim Fetzer:

    Some questions for you Jim:

    1] Do you think that it is unreasonable to assume that with a psyop of this size, scope and importance, that the Federal government would not have arranged to have paid off 100’s, and possibly 1000’s of people to masquerade as “real” eyewitnesses?

    2] If you do think that that proposition is unreasonable, why exactly?

    3] You previously told me that I am confusing legal procedure with scientific procedure.

    Are you implying that a private 9/11 investigator has no use for use for legal procedures whatsoever and should therefor not attempt to mimic/duplicate them before attempting to draw any conclusions – in other words that in a private investigation alleged eye witnesses should _not_ be thoroughly background checked before any of their testimony is believed, and that they should be simply believed because they “sound” “believable”?

    4] Do you believe that in a legal proceeding [trial] that those mandated and allowed procedures [cross-examination, background checks etc. ] are there in the first place for very good [i.e. historical] reasons, or not – that instead, they are purely arbitrary procedures not necessary and of no useful purpose in or out of court in this day and age?

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. 1) 100s or 1000s of paid witnesses is a stretch. That those who called in on 9/11 and were put on the air is not.

      2) It’s too flimsy a role not to think people would talk about it and too many to take out to insure that didn’t happen.

      3) It has to do with resources and levels of investigation. Could you afford to track down and depose 100 people?

      4) We are putting together indictments of those who appear to have been complicit based on The Vancouver Hearings.

      I will let you know of our progress. I have prepared evidential submissions against five of the perps myself, including:

      Philip Zelikow, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and a pilot by the name of Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien.

      1. Fetzer says:

        >”We are putting together indictments of those who appear to have been complicit based on The Vancouver Hearings.
        I will let you know of our progress. I have prepared evidential submissions against five of the perps myself…”
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        This is mere theater, Fetzer knows as well as anyone else there is no chance in hell of this corrupt system of accepting and acting on such indictments. He is doing this for another synthetic feather in his phony “Conspiracy Theorist” cap.

        \\][//

  45. “We know what happens when a plane encounters a tiny bird weighing a few ounces in flight.”~Fetzer

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa….ah jeeeze

    How many more times????

    How many more threads filled to the brim with Fetzer’s foaming at the mouth nonsense?

    \\][//

    1. Who IS this guy? Anyone can do a search on “photos of planes hit by birds” to see the kinds of damage they inflict, when those birds weight only a few ounces!

      Even a “special plane” would have displayed deceleration upon impact with a tower, but there was NO DECELERATION at all in this instance. NONE AT ALL!

      In some of the videos, the left wing of the “plane” disappears as it is about to enter the building. That would be impossible with a real plane, no matter how “special”.

      A 160′ long “special plane” that could effortlessly enter the South Tower at 500+ mph would have come out the other side since the building is only 208′ on a side.

      How much more rubbish are we supposed to put up with this guy? I am reminded of the kid’s saying, “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” Kindly spare is of more of your drivel.

      1. Fetzer,

        Not just I, but many commentators have addressed every one of your scurrilous assertions over and again. You are the one that will not honestly reply to your rebuttals. We have pointed this out as well – countless times.

        Do you think that the general readership is unaware of this?

        I submit to you directly, that you and Tamborine and Onebornfree are a team running a cognitive dissonance routine, with Onebornfree playing the phony foil.
        Tamborine man plays the roll of filling up space with pages of nonsense, running interference for you.

        This has gone on for thread after thread on this blog for months. Any with the aptitude for pattern recognition will have noted this.

        You are “outed” here my man, live with it.

        \\][//

  46. James H. Fetzer says: “1) 100s or 1000s of paid witnesses is a stretch. That those who called in on 9/11 and were put on the air is not.”

    Are you suggesting that the Federal government has neither the means, or the motive, to pay off 100’s of false witnesses?

    How is the assumption that it has done so more of “a stretch” than your hypothesis that complex machinery projecting holographic imagery was deployed by the Federal government on 9/11, when such technology [if it exists], and, as with anything that complex, would be unavoidably subject to malfunction at the exact time it would be required to function perfectly?

    How could the Feds guarantee the perfect functionality of this proposed equipment in real time, in front of a live TV audience of millions?

    Do you believe that it is not more than a bit of ” a stretch” to assume that the Feds would be actually willing to run the risk of a technical holographic malfunction in real time, in front of millions of viewers,when absolutely _everything_ in their televised operation had to function perfectly?

    Wouldn’t it just be a hell of a lot easier and safer for them to digitally pre-manufacture entire scenes of aircraft approaching and striking buildings, and just run that footage as “live” on all networks and thereby completely bypass the risk of technological holographic failure in real time,if the truth be told, or is that idea more of “a stretch” for you?

    James H. Fetzer says: 3) “It has to do with resources and levels of investigation. Could you afford to track down and depose 100 people?”

    I understand, and no, I could not afford the in depth investigations of 100’s of people either. But wouldn’t it be more intellectually [and procedurally] honest, to just admit that to yourself, instead of just barreling on with a theory that to a large degree must rely on the testimony of individuals about whom, frankly, you know absolutely nothing about and can therefor have absolutely no idea as to whether they are lying or not?

    James H. Fetzer says:4) We are putting together indictments of those who appear to have been complicit based on The Vancouver Hearings.

    You have misunderstood my question. I was trying to imply that use of procedures such as in depth background checks of alleged eyewitnesses _should_ be a useful tool in any honest 9/11 researchers toolkit, despite the lack of real court time, and that those in-depth investigations _must_ be done by the private researcher before any of those alleged eyewitnesses testimony can be taken seriously and used to formulate a hypothesis [such as your hologram theory].

    If such in depth investigations are not financially feasible [which I understand], then the researcher should not really use any such “eyewitness testimony” to reach supposedly definitive conclusions, at least not without putting a large: “WARNING – current hypothesis partly based on unverified at this time “witness testimony”” , or similar sign on that hypothesis, in my opinion.

    Regards, onebornfree.

  47. James H. Fetzer says: “With a hologram, from different perspectives, you see it or not, in whole or in part.”

    1] Are you also suggesting that in your opinion a holographic image of a plane would be recorded on camera as having taken a contradictory flight path, depending on which camera was viewing it?

    2] “…That some who appear credible reported seeing a plane (or what they took to be a plane) but which was performing feats that no real plane could perform is what is crucial. ”

    Yes, but besides the use of holographic imagery, there are at least 3 other simple explanations for those alleged eyewitness reports :

    [1] all of those witnesses are deliberately lying. [paid to lie]

    [2] they are confused [in a state of 9/11 shock] and only saw the physically impossible plane entries on TV, _not_ live in the street.

    [3] The planes penetration of the 2 buildings in a scientifically impossible manner [given Newton’s 3rd law of motion] was achieved not via holograms , but by the simple “wholecloth” [i.e total] pre-fabrication of every one of the “plane into building” sequences, whether originally of network origin , or of alleged “amateur” origin.

    Outside of the obvious clue to this in fact being the case [ i.e. the very fact that the planes enter the buildings in a scientifically impossible manner] , as Simon Shack has repeatedly, and laboriously pointed out, there are many other obvious clues to this wholecloth fakery of video as being the actual case, including [in no particular order] :

    1] many glaring soundtrack discrepancies/anomalies.

    2] in the case of all alleged network footage, extremely low resolution/ quality and poor color of ALL of the original network footage, given the fact that individual network cameras cost 100’s of 100,000’s of $’s and are on record as being fully capable of capturing highly detailed, precise imagery of Manhattan on any other day except 9/11, for both before and after that day.

    To check my claim about the ridiculously low quality of ALL of the alleged “live” network footage for that day when compared to the “norm”, please go and review for yourself all of the online archived original 9/11 network footage as broadcast “live” on 9/11 here : http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. Regards Onebornfree takes a debunking and keeps on clunking.

      He offers nothing here but spazmata. It is all a ruse to divvy up the thread with wank, he and Fetzer go through this routine on every thread they are given the opportunity. This is cognitive dissonance burlesque.

      Until Fetzer can address this he is nothing but ‘little people':

      >> hybridrogue1 says, August 24, 2012 at 10:06 pm

      \\][//

  48. @Craig McKee: correction to my post previous post August 25, 2012 at 7:31 pm :

    I said ..”given the fact that individual network cameras cost 100′s of 100,000′s of $’s …”

    I should have said: ..”given the fact that individual network cameras cost 100′s of 1000′s of $’s ..”

    1. Mr McKee,

      I know, and share your frustration with what has gone down on this thread. But consider this; In actuality it is an AMAZING REVEALING of a triad of disinformationists to any with a lucid mind. If one reviews this thread with this in mind it is obvious – and one can go back through several months of threads and see the same pattern.

      Fetzer, Tamborine, and Onebornfree run the same routine over and over:

      ‘NPT’-‘Video Fakery’-‘Holograms’ = disassociated commentary blog.

      No matter what our feelings about this, this thread probably more than any other documents this situation and the techniques of cognitive dissonance in great detail, it is as such a fantastic historical document for eleven years post event.

      Posterity will be in your debt Mr McKee.

      \\][//

      1. I agree 100% with hybridrogue1 here. This disruption is no accident Craig, this blog has attracted a lot of attention and not only from the good guys but the bad guys too. In fact Craig if you look at many other blogs of this kind you will observe the same disruption technique in use on those blogs as well. It is a tried and true method for disinformationists to disrupt the rapid advancement of the truth movement and the rapid viral spread of our best information. I believe the “triad” of disruptors mentioned by HR1 are destroying the integrity of your blog perhaps even on purpose.

        In order to maintain a free speech blog which is very important my recommendation is that all off topic posts be held in que and/or put into a thread devoted to that particular topic. This would still allow disinformationists to come in here and spout their NPT, video fakery, and hologram crap while protecting the integrity of each discussion and protecting all of us from having to sift through their garbage to find the worth while posts. I know it is a pain in the ass Craig but it is the only way I can see to prevent disruptors from ruining the productive discussions your articles inspire while still maintaining a free speech environment. It is not censorship to move off topic posts it is just good policy.

        Once a person proves that they are a troll such as Brian Good and Snowcrash for example, after a process of observation, challenging, and finally warning, they should be banned.

  49. Jim Fetzer says: “Have you looked at the videos that show the left wing of the plane missing as it is about to enter the building? Now it is possible that CGIs and video compositing were used to produce more and inconsistent videos to make it even more difficult to sort things out, but I have focused on the most important: the Hezarkhani and Evan Fairbanks’ videos,..”

    Jim, of course I have seen that video with the disappearing wing.[there is more than one by the way] . But neither that footage, nor the Herzakhani or Fairbanks footage, was _ever_ broadcast live, as you are well aware [or should be].

    Your focus on those two fake videos [Herzakhani + Fairbanks ], is entirely too narrow, and does not examine the totality of the evidence [although I understand , in a way, as they _do_ both clearly demonstrate the impossible entry]. h

    However, meanwhile you are choosing to completely ignore the entire, ORIGINAL “live” footage showing Fl. 175’s approach, as broadcast by the major networks that morning, all of which show entirely contradictory flight paths for Fl. 175, when, if real planes [as some insist] or holograms of planes [as you theorize] were in fact used , then the ORIGINAL “live” broadcasts of all major US networks _should_ show consistent and complimentary flight paths for Fl. 175 . Yes? No?

    But the bald fact is, they do not :-) .

    As I have demonstrated in this thread before, the original “live” CBS 16 sec. sequence [allegedly shot from near ground level by a stationary CBS studio camera] shows a plane-like object descending from a very steep angle [plus massive veering/banking]:

    Meanwhile, on NBC, its original “live” footage, [allegedly shot from a ‘copter] shows a less steep angle of descent [around 45 degrees] but it is shot from a position looking down on the WTC complex, which would obviously lower the angel of descent seen in the “live CBS 16 sec. of footage allegedly shot from close to ground level.

    _However_ in the NBC broadcast aired that same evening [and as Simon Shack points out] NBC entirely contradicts its own earlier broadcast “live” ‘copter footage by airing the exact same sequence [ exact same camera angle/view] , but showing a far shallower angle of approach/descent for the alleged plane [around 20 degrees]!

    Not only that, but _ALL_ of the background scenery [i.e. other buildings, river, boats, NYC skyline] has been mysteriously completely removed from the NBC sequence aired that evening!

    To see what I am talking about regarding the entire internally contradictory NBC footage, in simple “stills” taken from the original NBC broadcast footage, go here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=961&p=2372768 [3rd post, halfway down the page, post entry entitled” THE PLAIN PHONY ‘PLANE’ PATHS comparing the animated trajectories of “Flight 175″] .

    This very same subject is covered in more detail in the full length “September Clues” and can be seen starting at the 12:48 time mark ]:

    Meanwhile “amateur” footage of fl. 175’s approach allegedly shot by one “Luis Alonzo” and broadcast by MSNBC [although _not_ broadcast live], shows an almost flat approach for the last 7 seconds [ while the CBS shot shows a very steep descent and a sharp turn to the right of the viewer over the exact same 7 seconds] :

    Side by side gif comparisons of those last 7 seconds of Fl. 175 as seen in the CBS footage, versus what is seen in the MSNBC footage can also be viewed in the thread: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=961&p=2372768 [3rd post, halfway down the page, post entry entitled” THE PLAIN PHONY ‘PLANE’ PATHS comparing the animated trajectories of “Flight 175″ ].

    Regards, onebornfree.

    P.S. Jim what would you say if I could show you a very clear, simple demonstration of just one reason why the Herzekhani footage is entirely fake from beginning to end, and cannot possibly show a holographic plane image as you contend – interested?

      1. Outstanding video OSS I am adding it to my collection immediately. I am glad a lot of the debunking work has already been done of NPT so I don’t have to do it again.

      2. Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

        You are three days late and a dollar short. I posted links to the video and your website on August 23, 2012 at 11:26 am.

        But you know how it goes. You can lead a jackass to water, but you can’t make him think… errr, I mean “drink.” Maybe this Groundhog Day repetition will help with the F-Troopers, but I doubt it.

        //

      1. The “Real Deal” dealt from the bottom of a stacked deck?

        Now as I pointed out earlier, it has been my observation that Onebornfree is a planted ‘foil’ to give Fetzer ‘arguing space’ on this forum.

        There are subtleties and caveats to these types of ops. Unborn may be simply an ignorant kaboob who really buys into his own PR. Just like the psychobabble we get from Tamborine.

        They are pawns in this disinfo-game that Fetzer runs, “useful idiots” is the standard term {regardless of Senor’s sarcastic embrace of the term}.

        I have studied the Goonland Security State for more than forty years now and grasp the depths of the techniques and nomenclature of such agenteur as Fetzer.
        And as I have mentioned before, Fetzer sees this clearly, which is the reason he is perpetually on my case and has called for my banning here on several occasions; he knows I can see through him and anticipate his every move.

        Fetzer’s worst problem is that he isn’t nearly as slick as he thinks himself to be, he is hamfisted and arrogant – too full of himself to have the subtlety and nuance of a true master. That is why his audience is made of the lowest common denominator.

        \\][//

      2. Jim Fetzer says: “Yes. Are you free today? I would love to discuss this on the air. Please send an email to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu and we can set it up. The show runs from 5-7 PM/CT. Thanks.”

        Jim [assuming, via another post of yours, that this invite was aimed at myself regarding my offer of simple demo of the 100% fakery of the Herzkhani video you believe depicts a holographic plane image – or was it something else I said?], I would like to appear on your radio show, but its too short of a notice for me- I will be busy this evening from around 6pm through 1am Eastern time. Maybe another time? [please try to give me 24-48 hrs notice]

        regards,onebornfree.
        p.s it is very hard to guess who you are replying to if you don’t quote that person and post their name as well- hint, hint :-)

  50. Dr. Stefan Grossmann
    What Happened On 9-11: THE GREATEST ILLUSION OF ALL MANKIND
    Wed Oct 15 03:12:42 2003

    Again, this is pure assertion with nothing but a rehash of the same bullshit arguments made by Fetzer on this thread.

    The “proof”s offered for the use of a hologram is all contingent on the scurrilous arguments put forth here. There is not even a hint at how this would actually perform, what processes are at work.

    NOTHING.

    Presumption and empty theory…spazmata.

    \\][//

  51. Reply to Adam Ruff’s comment of Aug. 25, 10:20 a.m.:

    What the truth movement as a whole and this blog needs is a defined criteria for determining when an idea or theory has no merit. Once that criteria is met anyone bringing forth the meritless idea again can simple be directed to the debunk.

    I understand that concept. However, here’s where things get a little murky: what is TRULY a meritless idea and what others INSIST (wrongly) is a meritless idea.

    For example, a newbie who just now discovers 9/11 truth (let’s say they had their epiphany recently watching Experts Speak Out on Colorado PBS), registers at 911blogger, and might leave a comment expressing the viewpoint that a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon, or, God forbid, express sympathy for CIT or P4T, the thought police will swoop in like vultures and remind him how “new” he is and how he has much catching up to do. They will insist that the “no plane crash at Pentagon” scenario has been thoroughly debunked by the movement’s “finest scholars” like Chandler and Legge, and how a “responsible” truther will reject this scenario. Then, they’ll slap down a multitude of hyperlinks, from people like Legge, Chandler, Jeff Hill, Vic Ashley, Jim Hoffman, etc. They’ll remind the newbie that these authors are not anti-truthers, but people inside the movement who profoundly care about the movement’s credibility and hence success, and have therefore taken the extra time to thoroughly analyze the Pentagon evidence. Then, in a JREF-like fashion, they’ll say, “now read every single one of those links, from beginning to end, and don’t stop until you’ve read all of it. After that, if you have anything to contest, come back and we’ll talk.” (Read: “We don’t expect to see you back here for awhile.”) (Of course, the person will probably be banned/queued before that can happen.) The newbie, of course, is not informed of Balsamo’s response to Legge, or CIT’s response to Chandler/Cole. That’s for the newbie to chance upon himself.

    The point being, sometimes is necessary to have a fresh discussion, rather than a “this was debunked a long time ago, here’s the hyperlink.”

    But, in the case of NPT at Truth and Shadows, this is different. This topic has been used to derail MULTIPLE comments sections at articles here, and it’s the same stuff being regurgitated over and over again. I find this to be every bit as annoying as it is suspicious.

    1. @Adam S

      And it’s a real shame too because there were some thought provoking posts before the NPT skinheads put their DM boots on the coffee table (tongue in cheek).

    2. Adam and Oneslice,

      I feel the same way…there was an opportunity missed yet again for something fresh.

      This is why I feel we should put an end to this on this very thread. Drive the point home once and for all; that NPT, holograms, and fake video is a package, a triad of cognitive dissonance meant for the very purpose of fragging a thread and disrupting reasoned conversation.

      These issues need to be put to rest with a determined finality. I think that they have been thoroughly rebuked. But the practitioners running this game will never admit, nor confront the fact of their defeat.

      I once recommended that Craig devote a thread to this as a final offing…but this thread is already it. Every issue has been addressed here. It is all over for this crew whether they admit it or not.

      \\][//

    3. Adam S,

      The criteria I have in mind are fairly simple yet effective and they would naturally weed out those who use disinformation techniques, evasion, and those who avoid legitimate debate. For example when Jim Fetzer refuses to address legitimate questions about his hologram theory and instead evades them he could be pressed by the moderator to address the question or face some kind of consequences, such as warning, moving of posts, or even banning if necessary.

      In a legitimate debate there are moderators who enforce rules to prevent dishonest tactics from being used. Here on internet blogs there is no such system defined or enforced. I am just saying that when a person demonstrates a repeated pattern of evasion and use of disinformation techniques that we can and should establish a criteria for dealing with them. The criteria we establish could then be used all over the internet to counter disinformationists and prevent them from disrupting us and slowing us down. They can be spotted and stopped if we know what to look for and what to do.

      Fresh discussions are needed yes but only if they are really fresh and not simply a rehash of points that have been dealt with before. I see no problem with directing people to a debunk that has already been established. They can address that and only when they can counter the debunk with better information or evidence do we need to have a “fresh” discussion.

      We have to get off our lazy butts and counter the god damn disinformationists because they are doing a lot of damage. We can do it, all we need is a fair set of criteria defined which is based on methods rather than particular subjects. For example we should not summarily bann particular topics ala 911blahhhger but rather we should bann the techniques used by dishonest people when those arguments are countered. When they avoid the counter arguments or cannot counter them yet refuse to conceed the point THEN we step in and moderate as needed. That way they cannot just endlessly keep spewing debunked crap over and over and never be stopped due to fear of heavy handedness or censorship.

      It should be the techniques of the disinformationist that are used as the criteria for weeding them out not the particular topics a person wants to talk about. A new truther might be interested in talking about DEW’s for example and that in and of itself should not be cause for moderation. What we should do is direct the person to debunks of DEW’s and see if they can counter those. If they cannot then they should drop the debunked theory should they not? An honest truther once proven wrong changes that incorrect belief. A disinformationist avoids the debunk and continues to promote the debunked theory. The evasion itself is the criteria we should use.

      If we do this right we can cripple the disinformationists and take away one of their most powerful tools for suppressing 9/11 truth. That is my two cents.

      1. I am unaware of any issue about the possible use of holograms I have refused to discuss. List them and let me see what I can do about them. But you must forgive me if I am impatient with those who are ignorant of Newton’s laws and believe that a “special plane” could have made an impossible entry with no deceleration and no debris! So spare me of the endless rubbish coming from rogue1 and others here.

      2. Moreover, the criteria for evaluating alternative theories are no mystery, including:

        (1) the clarify and precision of the language in which they are formulated;
        (2) their respective scopes of application for explanation and prediction;
        (3) their relative degrees of empirical support, which likelihoods measure;
        (4) the degree of economy/simplicity/elegance with which they attain (2).

        The only theory about the planes in New York that satisfied these criteria–once the fantasy scenarios involving “special planes” and violations of Newton’s laws have been discarded, as they most appropriate ought to be–we have only three choices: CGIs, video compositing, and holograms. For reasons I have explained, only the holograph hypothesis can account for the data that Richard Hall has reported. So I really think the battle is between the know-nothings (who are ignorant of physics) and the deceivers (who are willing to violate them). Where precisely do you stand?

      3. “I am unaware of any issue about the possible use of holograms I have refused to discuss.”~Fetzer

        How about providing proof that a hologram can be projected into thin air without a medium or “screen”?

        As this is impossible, you cannot do it.

        You go on to assert once again:

        “The only theory about the planes in New York that satisfied these criteria–once the fantasy scenarios involving “special planes” and violations of Newton’s laws have been discarded…”

        And yet you have in no way “discarded” any of these “fantasy scenarios” as you call them, but have rather insisted on a fantasy scenario that you have absolutely no proof of.

        We, meaning anyone here with a lucid mind, have seen time and again that you have no understanding of Newtonian Physics – {or you are making shit up out of whole cloth to satisfy your agenda}. It doesn’t matter whether you are stupid or faking it though – because as far as your “physics” go all, you have is trash.

        This continues strategy of attrition, of repeating the same bullshit over and over is tiresome and irksome. Quite a few of us want to put an end to this. We are hopeful that this is the last thread you are allowed to flood with your NPT -Holograms quack.

        ENOUGH

        \\][//

      4. ruffadam, you remind me of those who deny the existence of directed energy weapons when the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) was holding its eight (8th) annual meeting in Honolulu in 2004, when I was completing AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004). Have you done any research on holograms? Do you understand that military developments are typically kept out of the public domain long after they are available for special uses, as in this case? Do you have any comprehension at all that IT CANNOT BE A REAL PLANE and that it is an argument by elimination THAT IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN A HOLOGRAM?

        I have to ask these obvious questions because you have been posting about NPT without having any idea what you were talking about. And now you are running off at the mouth about how the fakery was done in New York–a COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE–as if it were part of NPT. So forgive me if I have no confidence in your cognitive abilities, which appear to me to be severely impaired. And when you take after me WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, you may anticipate that, at some point in time, I am going to call you on it. I have called you out on NPT. Now I’m calling you out about fakery.

        (1) Do you understand that this “plane” was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns, where each of those trusses were filled with 4-8″ of concrete and represented an acre of concrete apiece? Have you seen the damage inflicted on real planes by impacts with tiny birds weighing a few ounces. What do you think would happen to a real plane encountering a single floor in space? I know I am being repetitive relative to posts I have made in the past, but you have OBVIOUSLY NOT UNDERSTOOD THEM. OK?

        (2) So do you, in your wildest imagination, suppose that a plane could have encountered the massive resistance posed by those floors of the 500,000-ton building and somehow NOT CRUMPLED? NO HAD ITS WINGS AND TAIL BROKEN OFF? NOT HAD BODIES, SEATS AND LUGGAGE FALLEN TO THE GROUND? NOT EXPLODED ON IMPACT? I do not mean to insult your intelligence, but the amount of intelligence you have displayed on this forum in relation to these questions is miniscule. So what do you think would happen? Could this plane have entered the building with NO DECELERATION AT ALL? NONE?

        (3) Given the stunning abilities of (what you take to be) this real plane, effortlessly entering this massive 500,000-ton building without any loss in momentum, WHAT COULD HAVE BROUGHT IT TO A SCREECHING HALT WITHIN 40’? The plane is 160′ long and the building is 208′ wide. It does not burst out the opposite side–apart from its nose, which is of course the most fragile part of the plane. So we already know something is wrong. My question to you is this: HOW CAN IT HAVE EFFORTLESSLY PASSED THROUGH SUCH ENORMOUS RESISTANCE AND NOT HAVE IT HAVE COME OUT THE OTHER SIDE?

        I don’t want to tax your brian by pointing out that no real plane could have done all these things without appreciating what you do and do not understand about (1), (2), and (3). I have been completely disillusioned by your ignorant remarks about NPT, so I want to be sure we understand each other about this thing you take to be a “real plane”. Now that I have explained WHY IT CANNOT BE A REAL PLANE, please tell me and everyone here why you still believe it WAS a real plane and explain away my arguments (1), (2) and (3). I have a great deal more to say, but right now I need to plumb the depths of your ignorance.

    4. Has it crossed your mind that some here are deliberately offering fantasy scenarios IN ORDER TO DERAIL THE DISCUSSION? rogue1 is a perfect example. He has repeatedly insisted that a “special plane” could perform feats no real plane could perform. Either you understand these issues or you do not. So far as I can see, you do not. I cannot remain silent when obvious shills and plants come here and try to bamboozle the public, which, it appears, includes you. To infer I am doing wrong by maintaining the standards of science is simply absurd. What I find to be annoying is for someone like you to beg the question and assume someone like rogue1 is right when I have repeatedly demonstrated that he is wrong. So where do you stand? Were Newton’s laws suspended on 9/11? Do you believe that a “special plane” could have effortlessly entered the South Tower with no loss in momentum? Could it have done that without exploding? Could it have come in at 500 mph and STOPPED in less than 40′ (since the plane is 160′ long and the tower is 208′ wide)? I think your kibitzing from the cheap seats is a shallow stunt. Tell us where you stand on these questions, because I no longer trust your intelligence.

    5. James Henry Fetzer, PhD writes on August 27, 2012 at 11:31 am:

      I am unaware of any issue about the possible use of holograms I have refused to discuss. List them and let me see what I can do about them.

      Oh, that explains it. Consider this notice that the following is an issue with the possible use of holograms. This was first brought to Dr. Fetzer’s attention 2012-07-25; on this thread alone, it was brought to his attention on August 23, 2012 at 8:44 am, August 24, 2012 at 3:56 pm, and August 25, 2012 at 11:39 am. With this now being about the fifth time that I bring it up with Dr. Fetzer’s F-Troopers, kind of makes it fit squarely into the category of refusing to discuss it.

      Radar data from the ASR system detected the 2nd WTC aircraft with a high degree of precision, and it matches the flight paths (as shown by the video last twelve seconds of UA175 previously linked and embedded).

      Radar data from a second system, the ARSR system (military radar), also detected the 2nd WTC aircraft, but with a lower degree of accuracy. The accuracy of both systems is approximately depicted in the following image from the 2nd WTC aircraft [a nugget of truth from this Source]:

      Dr. Fetzer is skewing the interpretation of the 2nd set of radar data. He, along with Richard Hall, want us to believe that the raw data points of the 2nd set should be considered as is and without taking into consideration measurement accuracy. Deploying such blatantly illogical and unscientific analysis, Dr. Fetzer wants us to believe that the true flight path of a flying object (cloaked, no less) was those raw data points from the less accurate radar system, putting the path 1400′ to the right of what was depicted in images. He doesn’t discuss the more accurate first set of radar data, except to imply that the photons from a hologram were what the more accurate radar system picked up (while not picking up the cloaked aircraft that was projecting the hologram.) [Sarcasm on] And the military radar was less accurate but more astute than the civilian radar, because it didn’t have radar pings off of the hologram’s photons and it was able to ping off of the cloaked (military) aircraft. [Sarcasm off]

      As an aside, Dr. Fetzer wrote:

      And Richard Hall’s study seems to me to be impeccable in taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path (locations and times) based upon those that were useful for that purpose.

      I could be wrong, but Richard Hall appears to not have created the video last twelve seconds of UA175 but he is using it in his program.

      Back on topic, the important point is that this 3D work aligns all videos and both sets of (properly analyzed) radar data with a single flight path. Any mention of a flight path 1400′ to the right is complete bullshit.

      Here is something ironically funny. Dr. Fetzer writes:

      But you must forgive me if I am impatient with those who are ignorant of Newton’s laws and believe that a “special plane” [flew impossible speeds and] could have made an impossible entry with no deceleration and no debris!

      He has no problems with his “special plane” flying impossible speeds while (A) being cloaked and (B) projecting a hologram to the left. As part of the list of items that Dr. Fetzer is refusing to discuss, we have the highlighted words in A and B. Yet, Dr. Fetzer has a problems with a special plane-looking-missile which by its very definition would not have debris (e.g., passengers, seats, luggage, etc.) and would make possible “an impossible entry.” As for the “no deceleration,” Dr. Jenkins proved that the Sandia fighter-plane-into-concrete-barrier had slight deceleration measurable only by high-speed film, and that velocity-squared in the energy equation at high velocities (e.g., 500 mph) was sufficiently greater than the resistive structural energy of the materials of the aircraft causing catastrophic failure before (to the point of excluding) deceleration through the aircraft and visible with the plane’s tail.

      Here’s something that just made it into my local newspaper that should also be added to the list of thing Dr. Fetzer refuses to discuss, namely the state of hologram technology: Holograms Present Celebs With New Afterlife Issues By ANTHONY McCARTNEY AP Entertainment Writer LOS ANGELES August 21, 2012 (AP). The money quote is:

      [Dylan] Brown, owner of The Yard Entertainment, and [Philip] Atwell, owner of Geronimo Films, had each toyed with the idea of using holograms in concerts for a decade, but the technology wasn’t there. … Because it’s two-dimensional, the Shakur performer isn’t a true hologram, which, by definition, is a 3-D image (Ulbrich notes the technology isn’t quite there for that).

      Here are some choice quotes (modified in cases) from Dr. Fetzer trashed:

      Has it crossed your mind that some here are deliberately offering fantasy scenarios IN ORDER TO DERAIL THE DISCUSSION?

      Dr. Fetzer projects his own attributes onto others.

      He has repeatedly insisted that a “special plane” {cloaked and flying “impossible speeds” and projecting a hologram} could perform feats no real plane {and no real hologram} could perform. Either {Dr. Fetzer} understand these issues or {he does} not. So far as I can see, {he} do not. {Dr. Fetzer} cannot remain silent when obvious shills and plants come here and try to bamboozle the public, {because Dr. Fetzer is doing that.}. To infer I am doing wrong by maintaining the standards of science is simply absurd.

      I agree with the last sentence. No need for an absurb inference. Dr. Fetzer has already proven that his grasp of physics is limited to book-smarts-to-pass-the-test in “physics for arts & parties” majors. It isn’t refined enough for practical applications or for impractical applications involving large velocities.

      So where do you stand? Were Newton’s laws suspended on 9/11? Do you believe that a “special plane” could have effortlessly entered the South Tower with no loss in momentum?

      What about a special plane-looking-missile?

      Today was a special day for our special James Henry Fetzer, PhD, because he offers up so much to trash, like the following from his August 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm posting:

      Do you understand that this “plane” was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns, where each of those trusses were filled with 4-8″ of concrete and represented an acre of concrete apiece?

      This is the wrong framing. Dr. Fetzer should have separated the fuselage height/width (5.41 meters tall by 5.03 meters wide) from the width of the entire wing span. Does Dr. Fetzer understand that this “fuselage” was interesting with one (or two) floors with 3.65 meters spacing, each floor consisting of steel trusses with 2.04 meters spacing and transverse truss spacing of 4.08 meters supporting 4″ of concrete leaving lots of space and gaps? Dr. Fetzer neglects to account for the amount of empty space (a) between exterior columns and (b) between floors. The wings did not slice those 6-7 floors to the degree of Dr. Fetzer’s unscientific hyperbole.

      Do you, in your wildest imagination, suppose that a plane could have encountered the massive resistance posed by those floors of the 500,000-ton building and somehow NOT CRUMPLED? NO HAD ITS WINGS AND TAIL BROKEN OFF? NOT HAD BODIES, SEATS AND LUGGAGE FALLEN TO THE GROUND? NOT EXPLODED ON IMPACT?

      The massive resistance was not. As for the plane, special Dr. Fetzer needs to wrap his special mind around special plane, which would have not had bodies, seats, or luggage, and was designed for penetration… ergo, no special explosion on impact.

      After ~49 years of JFK stewing, Dr. Fetzer evidently realized with 9/11 the old Bugs Bunny witticism: “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!” He demonstrates quite handily that Dr. Cass Sunstein must supplement Dr. Fetzer’s University of Michigan retirement quite handsomely for him to keep spinning the carousel.

      I wish Dr. James Henry Fetzer no ill will, but I do now wish that he and his F-Troopers would go the way of Brian Good & Albury Smith and depart this hallowed blog.

  52. >”THE WORLD TRADE CENTER was built and designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. That includes the Boeing models 747,757,767,777.
    Therefore when a Jumbo Jet, consisting primarily of merely a hollow pressurized cabin, impacts the reinforced concrete and steel support beams of the World Trade Center that it crumples on impact on the outside of the building and falls to the ground because of little encroachment into the building.”~Stefan Grossmann

    However this completely contradicts what DeMartini and the other architects and engineered the actual structures said:

    Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management stated in an interview back in January 2001:

    > “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door – this intense grid – and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

    It should be noted that there is a vital distinction between “puncturing” {DeMartini} and “crumples on impact on the outside of the building and falls to the ground” {Grossman}.

    Fetzer will of course say that he already addressed this issue. And yes he did, by insisting that DeMartini must “surely” have been thinking something else…and reinterpreting his remarks to suit Fetzer’s own nefarious purposes.

    So what expertise does Grossman have to dispute the engineers who actually built these structures? Like all of Fetzer’s references NONE.

    Which brings up another of Fetzer’s references, John Lear:

    Anyone who has studied the Intelligence community knows that John Lear was a CIA pilot that flew ‘Air America’, a proprietary cut-out for CIA opium trafficking in SE Asia throughout the Vietnam era. All part of the Gen. Singlaub and Ollie North gang involved in the Iran Contra Affair. Pulling this guy out of his trick top hat is another black mark on Fetzer’s ledger.

    \\][//

    1. Anyone who has studied the Intelligence community knows that John Lear was a CIA pilot that flew ‘Air America’, a proprietary cut-out for CIA opium trafficking in SE Asia throughout the Vietnam era. All part of the Gen. Singlaub and Ollie North gang involved in the Iran Contra Affair. Pulling this guy out of his trick top hat is another black mark on Fetzer’s ledger.

      Señor el Once links to ‘beachnut’ at the jref forum, as the place where we can find “nuggets of truth”!

      Mr. rogue now nastily cast aspersions on John Lear, which long ago was eloquently rebuffed and confuted as being nothing but malicious, despicable and contemptible slander by some low-life.

      As Señor and rogue have obviously now let themselves be drawn even deeper into the world of Darkness, it looks like one have to leave these two poor lost souls behind and to their own devices.

      Sad and tragic it may be, but i shall not be following them down into their dark caves trying in vain to call them back up into the Light; for they would either pretend not to hear the faint voice calling, or not hear it at all, so what would be the point of such futility!

      Cheers

      1. AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEVADA :

        COUNTY OF CLARK :

        JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

        1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types

        of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying.

        2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger.

        3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983.
        _________________________________________

        SEE: ‘The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia’ [Alfred W McCoy] Air America, which was covertly owned and operated by the CIA, was used for heroin shipments…

        Air America, the ClA’s principal airline proprietary, flew the drugs all over South east Asia. (See Christopher Robbins, Air America, Avon Books, 1985, chapter 9.) 1950s …

        Also: Fletcher Prouty, ‘The Secret Team’.

        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        \\][//

      2. It’s pathetic. Some are citing trolls and shills like Victoria Ashley and Jim Hoffman as though they should be taken seriously about the Pentagon, when we know no Boeing 757 hit the building (although one appears to have flown over it). Trashing John Lear and Stefan Grossman is ridiculous, where I also featured Stephen Brown who had recently completed a course on holography at Cambridge about the use of holograms in New York. And Richard Hall’s study seems to me to be impeccable in taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path (locations and times) based upon those that were useful for that purpose, so I am not entirely clear why OBF wants to dispute it–but I have invited him to come on my radio show to discuss it!

    2. This is another of rogue1’s endless series of rubbish posts. No plane could pass through eight (8) floors of steel trusses and 4-8″ of concrete with no loss of velocity, which is the fantastic scenario that this guy is pushing. He reminds me of GOP politicians: “How do you know they are lying?” Answer: “Their lips are moving!” Or, its variation here, “How can we tell rogue1 is lying?” Answer: “He’s posting again!”

      What DeMartini was saying is that plane crashed posed no threat to the structural integrity of the Twin Towers. Someone needs to explain that to NIST, because it claims that it was the damage to the structural integrity caused by plane crashes that caused the buildings to collapse. But of course those modest fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.

      NIST studied 236 samples of the steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F. The other three, not above 1,200*F. But the steel had been certified by UL up to 2,000*F for three or four hours. These fires only burned for about an hour in the South Tower and an hour and a half in the North. Stand by for more unadulterated garbage from rogue1, who is the government’s lead shill.

    3. @mr. rogue

      who wrote:

      Anyone who has studied the Intelligence community knows that John Lear was a CIA pilot that flew ‘Air America’, a proprietary cut-out for CIA opium trafficking in SE Asia throughout the Vietnam era. All part of the Gen. Singlaub and Ollie North gang involved in the Iran Contra Affair. Pulling this guy out of his trick top hat is another black mark on Fetzer’s ledger.

      To which i replied:

      “Mr. rogue now nastily cast aspersions on John Lear, which long ago was eloquently rebuffed and confuted as being nothing but malicious, despicable and contemptible slander by some low-life.”

      How deep into Darkness rogue has fallen and how ‘low’ he has become, can easily be verified by some of the few remaining honest, genuine and sincere truth-seekers still left in this blog, simply by reading this linked to here:

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17842&hl=John+Lear

      Cheers

  53. How can this guy, ruffadam, post something this ignorant while complaining about posts on NPT, when he OBVIOUSLY does not have any idea what he is talking about? Astounding!

    ruffadam says:
    August 27, 2012 at 1:41 am
    Outstanding video OSS I am adding it to my collection immediately. I am glad a lot of the debunking work has already been done of NPT so I don’t have to do it again.

    Nothing here affects NPT, ruffadam. NOTHING. It is about how the images of the planes were faked in New York. That is NOT PART OF NPT. If you weren’t so arrogant by taking for granted what you obviously have never understood, this might be amusing. Instead, it is an indictment of your pathetic role here, where you do not understand the issues at all!

    NPT =df the conjunction of the following four theses:

    (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
    (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
    (3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
    (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

    We know already that all four are true: Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11 and the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered by the FAA until 28 September 2005. So how can planes that were not in the air on 9/11 have crashed and how can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later? PLUS:

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign- Urbana, IL, at the time it was allegedly crashing in Shanksville, PA, and that Flight 175 was in the air but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, after it had allegedly hit the South Tower. So what is there you do not understand about this? And how can you complain that it is still being discussed when you don’t have a clue? WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE?

    1. Fetzer asks Adam Ruff, after piling up another load of the same stinking bullshit yet again:

      >”WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE?”

      But we don’t have to ask this question of Fetzer, because it is obvious; he is a shill and carny hawker of fantasy BS.

      Not a single commentator thinks that Flights 11, 77, 93, and 175, were involved in the 9/11 incident. NO ONE Fetzer. So repeating this lunatic script over and over and
      over and over and over and over and over, is such obvious lame and stinking crap.

      This hyper redundancy, running this thread in circles is obviously your main intent.

      If you want the floor to yourself, go talk into your microphone. You have made enough of an ass of yourself on this blog.

      “Jesus on a cracker”…Lol

      \\][//

      1. Well, you can’t be paying attention, because ruffadam rushed to save a video that OBF had posted to add to his collection refuting the NPT, when it has nothing to do with NPT. So I have to correct you again, rogue1, for lying in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary, which can be found right here in posts on this thread. But then, why am I not surprised?

      2. ruffadam says:
        August 27, 2012 at 1:41 am
        “Outstanding video OSS I am adding it to my collection immediately. I am glad a lot of the debunking work has already been done of NPT so I don’t have to do it again.”
        . . . . . . . . .

        Fetzer says:

        “Well, you can’t be paying attention, because ruffadam rushed to save a video that OBF had posted…So I have to correct you again, rogue1, for lying in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary…”

        . . . . . . . . .

        You are an idiot Fetzer; RuffAdam saved the video from Onesliceshort.

        \\][//

        1. It came from OSS rather than OBF! Terrific. My point was that the way in which the videos or the plane were faked in New York is separate and apart from NPT! This is so typical of the rhetorical ops you perform here by conflating a trivial truth with a significant falsehood.

      3. This is that video Fetzer,

        Watch it, it blows your whole stinking NPT crap out of the water:

        onesliceshort says, :August 26, 2012 at 10:00 pm
        Groundhog Day or what….

        \][//

        1. AGAIN you conflate video fakery or faked planes in New York with NPT? I can’t believe you are this brazen: NPT means Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

          So what do these videos have to do with NPT? NOT A THING. Just more rogue1 rubbish.

      4. Wiggle wiggle Fetzer. The video shows that all the videos are consistent.

        The irrelevance of the livery painted on the aircraft escapes you.

        In fact EVERYTHING escapes you. These are obviously videos of real aircraft striking the towers. Your hologram nonsense is the fantasy that is attempted to be sold here. No matter how you spin and churn it, it is still a bowl of crap.

        \\][//

  54. “Stephen Brown who had recently completed a course on holography at Cambridge about the use of holograms in New York.”

    I know that Stephen Brown, when speaking to technical groups and such speaks to special dies and films as a medium to project holograms into. This is the state of the art today, eleven years past 9/11.

    There is NO proven technique for projecting holograms onto thin air. It is merely wishful thinking and science fiction.

    Fetzer claims that I am:

    “Trashing John Lear and Stefan Grossman…”

    I don’t need to “trash” anyone Fetzer, they like you – trash themselves. Lear’s bio speaks for itself.

    As far as Grossman, as I pointed out, everything he says is built on the same empty speculations that you have dumped here on this forum. There is simply no “there” there.

    I have challenged you multiple times to explain why you dismiss the first two laws of Newtonian Mechanics while hailing the third, which cannot manifest until the first two set the frame. Now 200 posts plus here on this thread, and the additional months of previous threads, you will still not face the music.

    Like everything else, you hand-wave, ignore, and simply continue to pontificate your carny bullshit non sequiturs.

    \\][//

    1. Fetzer,

      I remind you of this, you have not defended against ANY of these points, as well as ignoring the issues of Newton’s Laws of Mechanics I have raised.

      Señor El Once says: August 25, 2012 at 11:39 am

      It will remain obvious that you are incapable of honest debate until you address these issues, rather than posting URLs to your previous garbage.

      \\][//

    2. Of course, rogue1 is the shill of shills and the troll of trolls! So of course he is going to attempt to disrupt the discussion, again and again. What I find to be annoying is for someone like ruffadam to beg the question and assume someone like rogue1 is right when I have repeatedly demonstrated that he is wrong. Where does ruffadam stand? Were Newton’s laws suspended on 9/11? Could any real plane enter the South Tower, intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses with 4-8″ of concrete, and not even slow down? Yet as soon as this plane traveling more than 500 mph makes its effortless entry, it comes to a screeching halt in less than 40’? How much rubbish are we supposed to accept from bullshitters like this? We all know the first and the second laws. The third applies regardless of the momentum of the force that is impacting it. The outcome is function of the vectors involved. The South Tower, at 500,000 tons, has the same impact on the ~120-ton aircraft flying at 500 mph as the stationary aircraft would have if the building hit it moving at 500 mph. I can’t believe you continue to peddle this trash and ruffadam seems to be buying it.

      1. Fetzer,

        It will remain obvious that you are incapable of honest debate until you address these issues, rather than repeating the same old garbage over and again.

        You say that I:

        “attempt to disrupt the discussion, again and again.”

        You haven’t ‘discussed’ anything, you simply pontificate your same tired bullshit over and over.

        > Señor El Once says: August 25, 2012 at 11:39 am:

        A penumbra of salient points.

        AND:

        >hybridrogue1 says, August 24, 2012 at 10:06 pm:

        Addressing Newton’s 3 Laws of Mechanics.

        \\][//

      2. Fetzer says:

        >”The South Tower, at 500,000 tons, has the same impact on the ~120-ton aircraft flying at 500 mph as the stationary aircraft would have if the building hit it moving at 500 mph. I can’t believe you continue to peddle this trash and ruffadam seems to be buying it.”

        Bullshit Fetzer, you disregard moment and point of impact, pretending that the whole 500,000 tons is resisting the 120-ton aircraft, it is NOT. Only the material at that point has any effect on the aircraft, and the only material that the aircraft effects is the material at that point and moment.

        You pretend that the frame is ‘universal’ in claiming the building is not the inert object. The tower was standing still within the frame of planet Earth. In the real world the plane hit the tower…not in the “hypothetical universal sense” that you try to use to shimmy out of the actual crash physics of a real event.

        Either you understand this and are a charlatan playing games, or you are as stupid as you make yourself out to be – or as stupid as you think your audience is.

        Again, it is clear that you are not addressing Newtonian Physics, but are advocating the twilight zone Fetzerian physics of the shill and carny hawker.

        \\][//

  55. Jim Fetzer says: “How can this guy, ruffadam, post something this ignorant …”

    Errr, because his “mental processes” are also a little “ruff” , perhaps? :-)

    Regards, onebornfree

  56. What’s incredible to me is that Jim Fetzer labels a modified plane as beyond the realms of reality, that-voodoo-that-you-do technology, even though there are multiple examples of military tinkering with Boeing aircraft and that the technology to enable penetration has been repeatedly posted throughout these blogs.

    On the other hand, he claims that holograms are the only viable explanation (ignoring precedent and valid examples of aircraft modification) and uses the “black ops top secret technology department” angle to wave away valid arguments against the feasibility of creating a hologram of this scale, without medium, viewed and filmed from multiple angles.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

    Enter stage right OBF to plaster over the cracks with the video/witness/victim fakery hot air…

    1. Yes, even a MODIFIED PLANE is STILL A REAL PLANE and cannot have done the things that this one did as presented in these videos. Are you demented? Tell us:

      (1) Do you understand that this “plane” was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns, where each of those trusses were filled with 4-8″ of concrete and represented an acre of concrete apiece? Have you seen the damage inflicted on real planes by impacts with tiny birds weighing a few ounces. What do you think would happen to a real plane encountering a single floor in space? I know I am being repetitive relative to posts I have made in the past, but you have OBVIOUSLY NOT UNDERSTOOD THEM. OK?

      (2) So do you, in your wildest imagination, suppose that a plane could have encountered the massive resistance posed by those floors of the 500,000-ton building and somehow NOT CRUMPLED? NO HAD ITS WINGS AND TAIL BROKEN OFF? NOT HAD BODIES, SEATS AND LUGGAGE FALLEN TO THE GROUND? NOT EXPLODED ON IMPACT? I do not mean to insult your intelligence, but the amount of intelligence you have displayed on this forum in relation to these questions is miniscule. So what do you think would happen? Could this plane have entered the building with NO DECELERATION AT ALL? NONE?

      (3) Given the stunning abilities of (what you take to be) this real plane, effortlessly entering this massive 500,000-ton building without any loss in momentum, WHAT COULD HAVE BROUGHT IT TO A SCREECHING HALT WITHIN 40′? The plane is 160′ long and the building is 208′ wide. It does not burst out the opposite side–apart from its nose, which is of course the most fragile part of the plane. So we already know something is wrong. My question to you is this: HOW CAN IT HAVE EFFORTLESSLY PASSED THROUGH SUCH ENORMOUS RESISTANCE AND NOT HAVE IT HAVE COME OUT THE OTHER SIDE?

      (4) Why are you recycling the Sandia plane crash again and again and again? Do you not understand that that fighter plane was filled with water and blew apart into millions of tiny pieces, which did not happen at the Twin Towers, where the plane simply disappeared into the building? That the Sandia plane came to a screeching halt and did not penetrate the barrier, which means that its velocity dropped to zero while the plane in New York did not display any diminution in velocity but continued at the same speed all the way into the building, which we have confirmed using frame by frame analysis? Why are you here trying to promote palpable nonsense?

      1. ** Disclaimer ** the post above by (Jim Fetzer) is the sole responsibility of (Jim Fetzer). It may contain disinformation or misinformation and if read it should be read with proper caution and skepticism. Neither this blog nor any of it’s members endorse or condone anything said in the post above unless they explicitly say so in writing themselves. It is my opinion that the post above is designed to disrupt, confuse, upset, or mislead those who read it. ** end disclaimer **

        \\][//

    2. Hi OSS,

      there’s probably millions of people around the world who, like us, find it impossible to believe a plane impacted the WTC towers. And it makes no difference whether this was a ‘special’ ‘modified’ ‘missile’ ‘plane’ packed with ‘buster-bunker-bombs’, and what not!

      You’ll probably claim the same amount of people supporting your beliefs – and we must not forget the billions of people who are still convinced it was Flight 175 that effortlessly glided through the building facade.

      What really disturbs and saddens me, is that you, of all people, have joined the pack of ‘hyænas’ here, who relentlessly and with predacious animal instincts, or like beasts of prey, have singled out Jim Fetzer as target for their haughty ridicule and disdain, borne by their conceited imagination and ‘superiority complex’!

      It appears that you people have steeped to such depths that you’re now “aping” the despicable mobs at truthfraction and jref, and taken the ‘high-road’, like all evil people have done through the ages, putting yourselves up on the pedestal or the throne, appointing yourselves to be ‘the’ infallible “experts” of the-know-it-all.

      You have even gone so far as to now stupidly mimicking what not so long ago took place over at 9/11 blogger (banning CIT and P4T) by calling for the censure of Jim, labeling him a ‘disinformation’ist’!

      What you’re displaying here is really ‘history repeating itself':

      Like the ‘vanquished’ who later themselves become the ‘aggressors'; and it all starts all over again, endlessly!

      What you mob is doing, is foolishness personified, and i see you all in no other place than in the sandpit over at the kindergarden!

      Here is another person you mob might like to turn your attention to:

      Cheers

      1. ** Disclaimer ** the post above by (Tamborine man) is the sole responsibility of (Tamborine man). It may contain disinformation or misinformation and if read it should be read with proper caution and skepticism. Neither this blog nor any of it’s members endorse or condone anything said in the post above unless they explicitly say so in writing themselves. It is my opinion that the post above is designed to disrupt, confuse, upset, or mislead those who read it. ** end disclaimer **

        \\][//

  57. Fetzer,

    You are a confirmed disinformation agent as far as I am concerned. You have evaded my relevant question 3 times and evaded virtually the same question from others numerous more times. I have no interest in ever talking to you again. Sell your garbage to someone else, I am not buying. From now on any posts of yours will be ignored and skipped over. If I have an opportunity to see you at an event I will confront you on camera WAC style.

    1. This guy would have you believe that the tower was like a stack of coins, with 50 cent pieces at the bottom, then quarters, then nickels, pennies and dimes. If you took a sharp edge, you might be able to knock one out while the rest remained. But that ignores the building was welded together as an integrated structure. So modify the model to assume those coins were welded together and constitute one solid structure.

      The arguments coming from rogue1 are completely ridiculous. He would have you believe that a car traveling really, REALLY fast would pass through an enormous tree–as though it were not rooted to the ground, just as those buildings were set in the ground rock. I can’t believe anyone would be taken in by faulty analogies like this or the Sandia experiment. But apparently there are suckers and saps around, such as ruffadam.

    2. I AM SUPPOSED TO BE AN OP BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS?

      That’s the quality of argument I expect from rogue1 and SEO. There is plenty on holograms out there. But the point is that you don’t even understand why a real plane could not have been used. You disregard all the proofs I present and then change the subject to an ad hominem attack. That is really not good, ruffadam.

      How do you explain the tracks on the military radar that are parallel to the path of the plane approaching the South Tower, which Richard Hall presents in his fine study? How do you explain that? Not to mention points (1) thought (4) I make to OSS in the post above yours. You can’t deal with them so you attack me. Pathetic!

  58. Fetzer,

    We have addressed each and every one of your ludicrous assertions too many times.

    Why are you here trying to promote palpable nonsense?

    \\][//

    1. I apologize to all [except the F-Troops], but I just can’t resist.

      Dr. Fetzer writes [with my emphasis] August 27, 2012 at 11:45 am:

      And Richard Hall’s study seems to me to be impeccable in taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path (locations and times) based upon those that were useful for that purpose, so I am not entirely clear why OBF wants to dispute it.

      Dr. Fetzer writes August 27, 2012 at 12:32 pm:

      How can this guy, ruffadam, post something this ignorant while complaining about posts on NPT, when he OBVIOUSLY does not have any idea what he is talking about? Astounding!

      The backstory that eventually makes it so funny?

      Mr. RuffAdam commented on the video last twelve seconds of UA175 previously linked by me and embedded by Mr. OneSliceShort:

      Outstanding video OSS I am adding it to my collection immediately. I am glad a lot of the debunking work has already been done of NPT so I don’t have to do it again.

      The punchline: When Dr. Fetzer praises Richard Hall’s “impeccable … taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path”, he is in fact referencing the exact same video. At this point, let’s quote Dr. Fetzer back to himself:

      [Dr. Fetzer] OBVIOUSLY does not have any idea what he is talking about. Astounding!

      My recollection is that the work was not Mr. Hall’s and that he makes no claims of ownership. Mr. Hall’s value-add is in malframing and dis-interpretting the radar data in order to promote holograms.

      More important to the hilarity, the video in question does mortally wound the NPT theory.

      And I should know, having been chumped by NPT and championed NPT for four years waiting for something like this to convince me otherwise. A cornerstone of my chumping was the seeming multiple flight paths, hyped by September Clues and its offshoots. When these seeming multiple flight paths are proven to be a singular flight path AND in agreement with two sets of rada data that only ping off of physical objects, not photons from holograms or video manipulation, then the probability of an actual special plane being used starts approaching 1. The impossible speeds and targeting accuracy were only impossible for the alleged aircraft of known model type, not special plane-looking-missiles of a different unknown model type or modification.

      Dr. Fetzer writes:

      NPT means Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

      “NPT” [No Plane Theory] means “no planes” and would also exclude Dr. Fetzer’s special cloaked plane, as well as special plane-looking-missiles that, after all, look like planes and may even have the infrastructure of a plane.

      Correction to the language used by an esteemed former professor of logic and scientific reasoning:

      NCPT [No Commercial Plane Theory] means Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

      Because I think it is important to document the depth of the purposeful disception, let’s look at Dr. Fetzer’s August 27, 2012 at 5:16 pm posting:

      I AM SUPPOSED TO BE AN OP BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS? … How do you explain the tracks on the military radar that are parallel to the path of the plane approaching the South Tower, which Richard Hall presents in his fine study? How do you explain that?

      This was addressed in my
      August 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm
      posting, so a quick summary is merited here.

      Rhetorically speaking, the military radar tracks are parallel to what, Dr. Fetzer? They are parallel to the civilian radar tracks, which were proven the same as the tracks in the fine source video referenced by Mr. Hall in his not-so-fine study. Neither the civilian radar nor the military radar record two objects. When the accuracy of each system is taken into consideration, greater uncertainty enters the path for where exactly an aircraft flew. In the case of the militar radar, the aircraft could have flown a path (a) that overlaps civilian radar or even to the left of it, (b) that is the data point from military radar that is 1400′ to the right of the civilian radar path, or (C) that is 2800′ or more to the right of the civilian radar path. See this image:

      Let us now mangle Dr. Fetzer’s rhetorical question:

      {Dr. Fetzer is} SUPPOSED TO BE AN OP {in part} BECAUSE {he proves he doesn’t} UNDERSTAND PHYSICS {but mostly because he purposely skews physics to push bullshit.}

      I wish to offer my condolenses to Dr. Fetzer for the loss of income that ought to result from losing all credibility that only has a few (non-mutually-exclusive) explanations ranging from early onset of dimentia to being on an agency’s payroll. Dr. Fetzer has other outlets for his free-speech, so thankfully maybe his paid-to-post income won’t suffer too tremedously from such a pounding to his reputation.

      Alas, any additional postings from Dr. Fetzer (and his wingman Mr. Tamborine Man) permitted on T&S will be looked at by me for amusement purposes only.

      // a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual

  59. rogue1 cites the part of John Lear’s affidavit (which is archived on 911scholars.ning.com but omits the most important parts, which explain why no real plane could have been used. That is known as “special pleading” by citing only the evidence favorable to your side and omitting the rest, which, I submit, is more important by far to this exchange:

    II.

    8. No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted for the following reasons:

    A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun ‘telescoping’ when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

    B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact.(photo, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546355. shtml)

    C. When and if the nose of an airplane came in contact with the buildings 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns and then, 37 feet beyond, the steel box columns of the building core the momentum of the wings would have slowed drastically depriving them of the energy to penetrate the exterior steel box columns. The spars of the wing, which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would have crashed to the ground.

    D. The argument that the energy of the mass of the Boeing 767 at a speed of 540 mph fails because:

    a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.

    b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.

    E. The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed 39 inches in center, at over 500 mph. This fuselage section would be telescopically crumpled had it actually penetrated the building as depicted in the CNN video. It is impossible for it to have then re-emerged from the building and then fallen intact and unburned as depicted.

    F. The Purdue video fails because no significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine thereon could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground. The Purdue video misrepresents the construction of the core of the building and depicts unidentified parts of the airplane snapping the core columns which were 12″x36″. The Purdue video also misrepresents what would happen to the tail when the alleged fuselage contacted the core. The tail would instantaneously separate from the empennage (aft fuselage). Further, the Purdue video misrepresents, indeed it fails to show, the wing box or center section of the wing in the collision with the core. The wing box is a very strong unit designed to hold the wings together and is an integral portion of the fuselage. The wing box is designed to help distribute the loads of the wings up-and-down flexing in flight.

    G. My analysis of the alleged cutout made by the Boeing 767 shows that many of the 14-inch exterior steel box columns which are shown as severed horizontally, do not match up with the position of the wings. Further, several of the columns through which the horizontal tail allegedly disappeared are not severed or broken. In addition, the wing tips of the Boeing 767 being of less robust construction than the inner portions of the wings could not possibly have made the cookie-cutter pattern as shown in the aftermath photos. The wing tips would have been stopped by the 14 inch steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

    H. The debris of the Boeing 767, as found after the collapse, was not consistent with actual debris had there really been a crash. Massive forgings, spars from both the wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear retract cylinders, landing gear struts, hydraulic reservoirs and bogeys oxygen bottles, a massive keel beam, bulkheads and the wing box itself cold not possibly have ‘evaporated’ even in a high intensity fire. The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.

      1. Señor El Once,

        Why do we have these theories out there? NPT? Video Fakery? HOLOGRAMS?

        Why the ‘No-Planes Theory’? Cue Bono?

        If there were no planes on 9/11, then NORAD and the military are no longer culpable for failing to intercept. Cheney gets a pass as well. How would you shoot down a hologram?…Lol

        Why the ‘Video Fakery Theory’? Cue Bono?

        It takes ALL the visual evidence off the table. There is no case for anything in that case.

        This triad of “theories” castrates the truth movement and sends it out into the wilderness to die of thirst of knowledge.

        Cue Bono? The vicious warmonger system.

        \\][//

      2. “I thought we weren’t buying the military’s “failure” to intercept anyway.”~Craig

        I am speaking to their culpability for plainly allowing events to proceed. If they were the ones running it, the actions still occurred. The failure to intercept is one of the first dead-give-away’s of military/NATO culpability.

        \\][//

      3. Craig,

        Fetzer says on August 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm:

        “Has it crossed your mind that some here are deliberately offering fantasy scenarios IN ORDER TO DERAIL THE DISCUSSION?”~Fetzer
        . . . . . . . . . . . .

        Fetzer is obviously not talking about derailing the discussion on the topic of your essay is he?

        Of course not, this was presented as a complaint against those who are tired of FETZER DERAILLING THE DISCUSSION on every single thread he squats on trying to sell HIS fantasy scenarios.

        \\][//

  60. TM has found a brilliant video that makes the key points that matter in this debate. I would now expect that rogue1, SEO, and ruffadam will take out their wallets and contribute to the experiment proposed of testing whether the wing of a 767 can slice through steel! Enjoy!

    1. “I would now expect that rogue1, SEO, and ruffadam will take out their wallets and contribute to the experiment proposed of testing whether the wing of a 767 can slice through steel!”~Fetzer
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

      I would have expected that months ago Fetzer would have realized he is not going to get away with selling his phony bullshit on the forum. And I do think that he continues this crap because of something to do with HIS wallet…like that Sunstienian paycheck that keeps him in schnapps.

      \\][//

    2. I would point out as well that Fetzer has just blown Tamborine man’s cover, as this shows that they are indeed conferring at the sidelines and a confederates in disinfo.

      As obvious as this has been for months it is good to see the confirmation from horsey’s mouth.

      “Stupid is as stupid does Mr Fetzer”~Gump

      \\][//

    3. What Grandpa here in this video fails to grasp – and this goes for the F-Troop here as well, is that the “little bird story” actually defeats the “materials strength” argument and “mass differential” argument all in on fell swoop.

      The bird hit by aircraft is an exact analog of Fetzer’s “building flying through the air hitting the jet.”

      What do you suppose the material integrity of a little bird made of flesh and blood is compared to the aircraft materials?

      And the weight differential? Ounces compared to tons. Is it then that the bird penetrating airplane is a violation of Newton’s laws?

      NO…neither events; the planes penetrating the towers nor the bird penetrating the planes violate Newton’s Laws.

      Grandpa is repeating the same nonsense that Fetzer and his disinfo team is.

      \\][//

      1. We had an expression in the Corps that captures rogue1 perfectly: 20 pounds of shit in a 10 pound sack! This is far beyond absurd, Craig. This guy should be permanently banned.

      2. Grandpa here.

        So are you saying the jet would slice 37 wood stoves in half?

        I take it you’re in support of the 9/11 Crash Test then? According to you, it should vindicate your position.

        I look forward to your donation when the fundraising drive commences.

        Steve

      3. Grandpa Steve,

        I should think you have read the commentary on this thread and should be able to grasp my position.

        I am not concerned with wood stoves. I am concerned with the actual crash physics of this event, which I have addressed in great detail here.

        If you want to put on a ‘crash test’ be my guest.

        \\][//

  61. “rogue1 cites the part of John Lear’s affidavit …That is known as “special pleading” by citing only the evidence favorable to your side and omitting the rest”~Fetzer
    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    >18. “While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.” ~John Lear’s affidavit

    Fetzer cites only part of John Lear’s affidavit, that is known as “special pleading” by citing only the evidence favorable to your side and omitting the rest. Fetzer also continues to prove himself a disingenuous hypocrite by doing the very same thing he complains of in his intro to his comments.

    He claims that the parts of Lear’s affidavit I left off are the more important to this discussion. I think not – as when it is shown by Lear’s own testimony that he was involved as a cut out for the CIA as a pilot for AIR AMERICA – especially during those crucial years of proven heroin running by CIA and that very subsidiary air transport system, it shows the type of interconnected character that Lear is.

    Taking the fact that Fetzer seem to be [as shown on TV] on first name basis with “Ollie”, that being Oliver North, the infamous traitor, drug and gun dealing fascist of “Iran-Contra” infamy, plus these following curious facts:

    That Fetzer has been allowed to be an outspoken champion of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ yet at the same time allowed to maintain a ‘Chair’ in a prestigious institution, to keep all his trinkets and ribbons of “Authority” – within the system he pretends to dispute to the core of its essence.

    What is he saying that is profitable to this system, that they would not merely tolerate him, but promote, employ and honor him?

    That Fetzer is considered a “genuine Leader” of the 9/11 Truth Movement is one of the very real dangers the movement faces, for a traitor within the gates can do much more harm than those without.

    Fetzer is a pretender, a Pied Piper, a Judas Goat, a dissembler, and a plant of the system attempting to lead astray with ludicrous and ridiculous ‘theories’ and Orwellian rhetorical nonsense.

    Every one of Fetzers repeatedly redundant points have been rebuked by myself:

    [August 24, 2012 at 10:06 pm]

    and Señor El Once on, August 25, 2012 at 11:39 am, August 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth also has these critiques as to Fetzer’s nonsense:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804215

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804220

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804226

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    And the Show Stopper is: There is ZERO evidence that it is possible to project a HOLOGRAM into thin air – even at the cutting edge of the technology today it is impossible.

    Again it is shown that Fetzer is a pretender, a Pied Piper, a Judas Goat, a dissembler, and a plant of the system, attempting to lead astray with ludicrous and ridiculous ‘theories’ and Orwellian rhetorical nonsense.

    \\][//

    1. You are a good man, TM, and I am grateful you are here. The latest on holograms

      IARPA’s Synthetic Holographic Observation program: developing advanced dynamic holographic displays More at EndtheLie.com –

      http://EndtheLie.com/2012/08/28/iarpas-synthetic-holographic-observation-program-developing-advanced-dynamic-holographic-displays/#ixzz24u3qGtom

      http://endthelie.com/2012/08/28/iarpas-synthetic-holographic-observation-program-developing-advanced-dynamic-holographic-displays/#axzz24tOUJ0tq

      1. That’s right Fetzer, the latest on holograms is volumetric displays, just as I have been explaining. And this is eleven years past…

        Do you even grasp that volumetric displays are material screens? These holograms must be projected onto some material, they can not be projected onto thin air.

        You seem to have a confusion over what is ‘future’ and what is ‘past’, “Dr” Fetzer.

        Holographic displays are just now reaching the sophistication of being projected into a cylindrical display medium of a new synthetic material that can reconfigure molecularity to give the appearance of animated movement. These are solid plastic displays, cylindrical ‘monitors’ that can be viewed all around, rather than a flat screen — this is the cutting edge. Not even close to the technology you are trying to foist on the New York 9/11 event.

        Fetzer obviously has as little grasp on optical sciences as he does of physics.

        I’m beginning to wonder if he has been given too many doses of MKUltra’s “gravy”.
        It is rather disturbing to observe a mind melting in such a manner…fragmenting like HAL in ‘2001’.

        \\][//

        1. There is more stupidity/deception concentrated here than I have ever encountered in my life. The argument for holograms is AN ARGUMENT BY ELIMINATION. There is no alternative explanation that can explain (a) the impossible speed, (b) the impossible entry, (c) the lack of deceleration, (d) the absence of explosion on contact, (e) the screeching halt, (f) the fake cut-outs on the facades, (g) the planted engine at Church & Murray.

          This was an aluminum tube that was flying faster than any standard Boeing 767 could fly. It was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses and 4-8″ of concrete. This guy would have you believe that aluminum can cut steel, which is one of the fantasies he wants to palm off on you. The plane entered the building effortlessly. It did not blow apart into millions of tiny pieces. He is a scam artist, whom I have exposed.

  62. Some of the most corrupt posts I have ever read occur here from rogue1, ruffadam, and SEO. Everyone is going to have to sort this out for themselves. These guys are grotesque.

    1. Even more stupidity results from their ignorance about being featured on TV. They invited me because they wanted to use me as a foil. But I took control of those two with “Hannity & Colmes”. O’Reilly is a whole different matter. Phonies and hacks!

    2. SANDIA JET CRASH — THE FACTS:

      Sandia National Laboratories conducted a crash test of an F-4 Phantom jet impacting a MASSIVE CONCRETE BLOCK in 1988.

      Picture 1 is a still frame from the video segment used in the analysis (http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx) with an added overlay of blue and red equally spaced vertical lines. Although this particular segment is running in slow motion, Sandia reports that the initial velocity of the plane before impact was 480 MPH
      (http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html).

      The absolute time measured in units of frames (1/30 of a second) when the tail-end was aligned to each vertical line is tabulated in Table 1. Since the error bars are quite large (+/- ½ frame), the time difference was calculated between every 2 vertical lines. For example, in Picture 1, the time difference calculated at the first red vertical line is taken as the time it takes for the tail-end to traverse both adjacent blue vertical lines, and the result placed into the row labeled “Red 1” in Table 1. Since velocity = change in distance / change in time, and the distance is constant (the distance between every other vertical line), the relative velocity ~ 1/change in time and is tabulated in the third column of Table 1. The average of this column is computed and is used to normalize the data, resulting in column 4. The resulting graph of the normalized velocity is shown in Figure 2. The red and blue vertical lines in the graph correspond with those in Picture 1 (left-aligned). An arrow marks where the point of impact begins. Each data point should be thought of as a rolling average over the distance of 2 units of the x-axis.

      Data could not be taken for the last 20% of the impact since the tail was obscured by debris.

      No change in velocity was measured before or during impact to within an error of
      3%.

      Picture 1: F-4 Phantom jet impacting a massive concrete block (far right). Equally spaced blue and red vertical lines are overlaid on the original video.

      http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf – [Appendix]
      . . . . .. . . . .

      \\][//

      1. The Sandia plane DID NOT PASS THROUGH THE CONCRETE BARRIER. But the plane shown in the videos in New York PASSES THROUGH THE BUILDING.

        The velocity of the Sandia plane DROPPED TO ZERO. Is this guy telling us that a plane blown into millions of tiny pieces CONTINUED THROUGH THE BARRIER?

        The velocity of the plane in the videos continues at the same velocity and passes though its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. Does this guy deny that d = r x t? How dumb is he?

        Of course, he ISN’T dumb at all. He is a carnival snake-oil salesman who wants to obfuscate and obscure the role of elementary physics, because no real plane could have done what this plane is shown to have done. IT CAN’T BE A REAL PLANE.

        The facts are actually SO OBVIOUS TO THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND NEWTON that I have been dumbfounded that such worthies as SEO and ruffadam have been taken in. I would have thought that would occur only with the cognitively impaired.

        And of course it is THE WITNESSES who reported seeing (what they took to be) a plane BEFORE IT ENTERED THE BUILDING that shifts the weight of the evidence to the use of holograms rather than CGIs or video compositing, as I have explained.

        And now we have the completely brilliant study of Richard Hall, which demonstrates how it was done. I mean, NOW DUMB ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE? This guy is a Richard Pryor joke: “Who are you going to believe–me or your lying eyes?” Unreal.

      2. James H. Fetzer says on August 29, 2012 at 12:25 pm:

        >”The Sandia plane DID NOT PASS THROUGH THE CONCRETE BARRIER. But the plane shown in the videos in New York PASSES THROUGH THE BUILDING.”

        Lol…NO, wrong again “Dr” James H. Fetzer:

        The Sandia Jet did not pass through a MASSIVE CONCRETE BARRIER – The 9/11 plane did NOT PASS THROUGH THE BUILDING – the 9/11 plane DID pass through the outer facade of the building exploding as the center of gravity reached the entry point, portions of debris of both the plane and building DID exit the right side of that building to that entry point, as clearly shown on numerous videos.

        The “professor” continues with:

        >” I mean, NOW DUMB ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE?”

        As an open ended and scurrilous ‘question’, it can be answered in a variety of ways.

        One is to parse out who “we” are in this equation. “We” in my equation does not include the nutty professor.

        BUT, the “we” that includes this crackpot, seemingly Tamborinus Goombazious and Unbornfreak; they are as DUMB as it takes to buy all the PULP FICTION fabricated by their fevered imaginations.

        \\][//

        1. Each time I read rogue1’s posts, I want to vomit. The plane was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel columns. They provided ENORMOUS HORIZONTAL RESISTANCE.

          No real plane could have passed through them any more than the Sandia plane could have passed through the concrete barrier. The man wants you to FORGET that the plane shown is an elongated aluminum tube that is akin to a flying beer can. It is not a solid, lead bullet.

          Yet he would like for you believe that that is an appropriate analogy. High velocity rounds exceed 2,600 fps. That would be 156,000 fpm, which times 60 minutes equals 9,360,000 fph, which divided by 5,280 equals more than 1,772 mph–a bit more than even 560 mph!

          Newton’s first law states at rest or in motion remain at rest or in motion unless acted upon by a force. His second law states that the effect will be in the direction of the force applied and that F = m x a. But he ignores the third law, which applies regardless of the force applied.

          So everything he writes about this is RUBBISH. Aluminum is less dense than steel. No real plane could have entered the South Tower without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, seats and bodies and luggage falling to the ground. This guy is playing us for saps, big time!

      3. James H. Fetzer says:

        >”The man wants you to FORGET that the plane shown is an elongated aluminum tube that is akin to a flying beer can. It is not a solid, lead bullet.”
        . . . . . . . . .

        While I pity Fetzer’s barf bag, let us note that:

        The man wants you to FORGET that the building is not a solid massive block of concrete. That the façade of the building is a structure very much “like the mosquito netting on a screen door..” {See: DeMartini} “- this intense grid – and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

        That the aluminum that modern aircraft are made of is not the same soft material as that of a beer can: Aluminum 2219-T81 UNS A92219; ISO AlCu6Mn; Aluminium 2219-T81; AA2219-T81 – with a tensile strength greater than that of structural steel.

        Again Fetzer claims at one point that the NY plane “passes through the building”;
        But it did not, the plane crashed THROUGH through the outer façade, exploding when the center of momentum reached the entry point as that is where the engines were and the fuel in the wings blew out as the wings shattered entering the building.

        As this was an angular hit, the debris of the plane and the building structure in effect blew out the right side of the building in the memorable huge fireball.

        The very fact that Fetzer can refer to this crash as “the plane entering effortlessly” is an instance of obvious rhetorical nonsense. A crash with the energy of this is hardly an example of ‘effortlessly” -effort, implies “work”, energy is the capability to perform work. The energy required to do the “work” of crashing through the façade was enormous, as described in the second and third laws of Newtonian physics.

        Fetzer also tries to impute that I imply that the Sandia jet “continued through the barrier,” which is simply more rhetorical spin-blather. Of course I do not think any such thing. Fetzer completely dis-interprets the Sandia test, and my commentary on it.

        As such, it should again be noted that the Sandia jet’s momentum did NOT drop to zero in a single instant, it did not drop to zero until the end portion and tail met the concrete barrier. This was indeed a matter of microseconds, but that is still a matter of time – just like the microseconds it took for the aircraft to pass through the façade of the tower.

        As this issue has been addressed countless times, one can only wonder whether Fetzer is serious, thus insane – or if he is agenteur of the Sunstein kind. {Speculation}- As a victim of MKUltra it could very well be both. That might explain his feelings of illness when encountering the facts that I offer here.

        \\][//

  63. Here is part of the post i wrote August 28, 2012 at 3:43 am, wherein i link to the same video Jim Fetzer is referring to in his post of August 28, 2012 at 12:09 pm, with the title: “Tired of war without end”:

    …….

    What really disturbs and saddens me, is that you OSS, of all people, have joined the pack of ‘hyænas’ here, who relentlessly and with predacious animal instincts, or like beasts of prey,
    have singled out Jim Fetzer as target for their haughty ridicule and disdain, borne by their conceited imagination and ‘superiority complex’!

    It appears that you people have steeped to such depths that you’re now “aping” the despicable mobs at truthfraction and jref, and taken the ‘high-road’, like all evil people have done through the ages, putting yourselves up on the pedestal or the throne, appointing yourselves to be ‘the’ infallible “experts” of the-know-it-all.

    You have even gone so far as to now stupidly mimicking what not so long ago took place over at 9/11 blogger (banning CIT and P4T) by calling for the censure of Jim, labeling him a ‘disinformation’ist’!

    What you’re displaying here is really ‘history repeating itself’:

    Like the ‘vanquished’ who later themselves become the ‘aggressors’; and it all starts all over again, endlessly!

    What you mob is doing, is foolishness personified, and i see you all in no other place than in the sandpit over at the kindergarden!

    Here is another person you mob might like to turn your attention to:

    This gave rogue1 the occasion to write the following:

    I would point out as well that Fetzer has just blown Tamborine man’s cover, as this shows that they are indeed conferring at the sidelines and a confederates in disinfo.

    As obvious as this has been for months it is good to see the confirmation from horsey’s
    mouth.

    “Stupid is as stupid does Mr Fetzer”~Gump

    Dear OSS, SEO and RA, there will undoubtedly come a time when you with deep regret will rue the day you decided to associate yourselves with this thoroughly deceitful and dishonest character called rogue1!
    Weak-willed have you allowed yourselves to be dragged down into the mud, unresistingly following this guy downward to where no self-respecting intelligent man would ever go, but rather with abhorrence recoil from instead. The reek down there would be pretty unpleasant – as one can so easily imagine!

    Cheers

    1. Tamborine man,

      I listen to and respect people who tell the truth and have something worth while to add to a discussion. I agree with much of what HR1 says and I have said so but let me make something clear. I don’t play the guilt by association game. If HR1 keeps making sense I will keep reading his comments and keep supporting his statements. If HR1 however starts promoting BS such as video fakery for example I will stop supporting him. In any case, whatever he says and does reflects upon him alone, not me. Likewise what I say does not reflect upon anyone but me. Guilt by association (McCarthyism by another name) is a game played by disinformationists. So why are you behaving like a disinformationist TM? I find you to be the deceitful one TM and I find you to be the one derailing productive discussions, spouting bogus theories, and attempting to sow discord.

      I am the last guy in the world who is going to be baited into feeding the trolls. I am done with you, OBF, and Fetzer. You three should request a new assignment because I suspect your objective here has failed and your BS has run it’s course. As far as I am concerned you three will be ignored from now on. I may however post a generic disclaimer such as the following under any future posts you make.

      ** Disclaimer ** the post above by (insert name) is the sole responsibility of (insert name). It may contain disinformation or misinformation and if read it should be read with proper caution and skepticism. Neither this blog nor any of it’s members endorse or condone anything said in the post above unless they explicitly say so in writing themselves. It is my opinion that the post above is designed to disrupt, confuse, upset, or mislead those who read it. ** end disclaimer **

      I will just cut and paste that rather than feeding the trolls by responding to their tripe.

      1. TM.

        PS. The difference between myself and truefaction is that I do not gag my opposition like they do. I face people head on and challenge them if I feel they are promoting bad information. I watch and see if they respond and how they respond. If they respond with valid counter points I consider them and discuss it further, if however they evade the discussion and use disinformation and disruption techniques then I consider them to be confirmed trolls and I choose to ignore them. I consider you to be a confirmed troll.

      2. TM, this guy doesn’t know his asshole from his elbow. He already demonstrated he can’t even distinguish NPT from what did or did not happen in New York. And for him to believe that a real plane could perform the feats attributed to it, when I have noted the problems–

        (1) He doesn’t understand that this “plane” was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns, where each of those trusses were filled with 4-8″ of concrete and represented an acre of concrete apiece. Has he ever seen the damage inflicted on real planes by impacts with tiny birds weighing a few ounces. What do you think would happen to a real plane encountering a single floor in space? I know I am being repetitive relative to posts I have made in the past, but he has OBVIOUSLY NOT UNDERSTOOD THEM. OK?

        (2) Does he, in his wildest imagination, suppose that a plane could have encountered the massive resistance posed by those floors of the 500,000-ton building and somehow NOT CRUMPLED? NO HAD ITS WINGS AND TAIL BROKEN OFF? NOT HAD BODIES, SEATS AND LUGGAGE FALLEN TO THE GROUND? NOT EXPLODED ON IMPACT? I do not mean to insult his intelligence, but the amount of intelligence he has displayed on this forum in relation to these questions is miniscule. So what do you think would happen? Could this plane have entered the building with NO DECELERATION AT ALL? NONE?

        (3) Given the stunning abilities of (what he takes to be) this real plane, effortlessly entering this massive 500,000-ton building without any loss in momentum, WHAT COULD HAVE BROUGHT IT TO A SCREECHING HALT WITHIN 40′? The plane is 160′ long and the building is 208′ wide. It does not burst out the opposite side–apart from its nose, which is of course the most fragile part of the plane. So we already know something is wrong. My question to you is this: HOW CAN IT HAVE EFFORTLESSLY PASSED THROUGH SUCH ENORMOUS RESISTANCE AND NOT HAVE IT HAVE COME OUT THE OTHER SIDE?

        (4) Has he been taken in by the Sandia plane crash again and again and again? Does he not understand that that fighter plane was filled with water and blew apart into millions of tiny pieces, which did not happen at the Twin Towers, where the plane simply disappeared into the building? That the Sandia plane came to a screeching halt and did not penetrate the barrier, which means that its velocity dropped to zero while the plane in New York did not display any diminution in velocity but continued at the same speed all the way into the building, which we have confirmed using frame by frame analysis? Why is he even here?

        –I have seldom encountered such a mediocre intellect EVEN IN A FORUM LIKE THIS. He does not understand the issues, even when they have been explained here in excruciating detail. I really think he should find more constructive ways to spend his copious free time.

    2. TM

      Do me a favour and link to all of the claims you’ve made about me regarding Jim Fetzer.

      Likening me to the scumbags at TrueFaction (that’s twice now) is way below the belt horseshite when I’ve gone into extreme detail on my own time.

      A fucking “know it all”?

      Ridicule? One example.

      Fetzer’s defence of that missile horsebollocks video at the Pentagon sums the guy up. What do YOU think of that video TM?

      1. OSS, how many times to I have to explain that (1) the video is out there and (2) that discussing it is not endorsing it. I know this is too simply a point for you to grasp, but perhaps you have some friends kind enough to explain it to you. OK?

      2. Hi OSS,

        at least i managed to elicit a response from you which i don’t mind at all, as i now understand you don’t really appreciate being lumped in with “this mob” referred to – and thank God for that!

        What bothers me though, is that you still make it a ‘personal’ thing with Jim Fetzer in spite of the fact, that many many others believe as he does. I’m one of those as well (as you know), and also one who cannot for the life of me fathom why we have to repeat again and again our reasons for thinking so, and again and again be called ‘disinformationists’ and ‘trolls’ by not very bright people.

        The reason i cannot believe as you, is not only because it leaves far far far too many questions unanswered, but also of course that for me, the whole scenario shown on the multiple videos ‘looks’ and ‘feels’ incredible false, wrong, staged, a fraud, unnatural and down-right impossible.

        As i obviously don’t believe we see a real plane, and as i believe some of the witnesses on the ground, when they say they saw what appeared to be a plane impacting WTC2, then there’s no more options, or no more alternatives left for me, except that it must have been a 3D projection of a plane the genuine witnesses would have seen from the ground, and some of the video-graphers would have filmed from their various locations.

        You wrote:

        On the other hand, he claims that holograms are the only viable explanation (ignoring precedent and valid examples of aircraft modification) and uses the “black ops top secret technology department” angle to wave away valid arguments against the feasibility of creating a hologram of this scale, without medium, viewed and filmed from multiple angles.

        Neither “he” nor i ‘ignore’ that aircrafts can be modified or strengthened, but even if so, that, in my mind, would make the videos much more difficult to comprehend and not less!

        I have quoted DARPA and the US Air Force, and i have linked to pages upon pages that deals with Holograms and 3D projections. You Tube got stacks of videos showing the latest technology in 3D holograms. I’ve told you about the first real hologram shown back in 1988 at the world Expo in Australia.
        All this has been hand-waved away, or being completely ignored, and it will of course be ignored again and again, ad nauseum, and as usual.

        As neither you nor i have any access to the inner workings of what goes on inside the Military complex, it would be impossible for you to produce “valid arguments against the feasibility of creating holograms of this scale”; as it would be impossible for me to produce “valid arguments FOR this feasibility”.
        We are therefore simply stuck with our opposing beliefs or theories – for the time being, at least!

        Fetzer’s defence of that missile horsebollocks video at the Pentagon sums the guy up. What do YOU think of that video TM?

        No it does not “sum up this guy”, OSS.

        Fetzer has already told you before, that he too think the video to be a fake. Why you go on about this, is beyond me!

        And i think about that video exactly the way you think about that video OSS, and this you have known the last “fifty years”, if not more!!

        Cheers

  64. ** Disclaimer ** the post above by (Jim Fetzer) is the sole responsibility of (Jim Fetzer). It may contain disinformation or misinformation and if read it should be read with proper caution and skepticism. Neither this blog nor any of it’s members endorse or condone anything said in the post above unless they explicitly say so in writing themselves. It is my opinion that the post above is designed to disrupt, confuse, upset, or mislead those who read it. ** end disclaimer **

  65. Jim Fetzer on, August 29, 2012 at 12:04 am, says:

    The same load of bullshit he has said countless times here – bullshit that has been rebuked as many countless times.

    The only thing new to these redundant piles of warmed over spazmata is the “colorful” intro’s James Fetzer PhD in Megalomaniac Disruption Programming, such as this cutie:

    “TM, this guy doesn’t know his asshole from his elbow.”

    Fetzer and his panting puppy Tamborine are determined to “win” by attrition; by continuing to flood this thread with the same limp and tired preposterous tripe over and over and over.

    Anyone with two neurons to click together should see the absolutely delusional absurdity in this sentence by the ass-steamed “professor”:

    “HOW CAN IT HAVE EFFORTLESSLY PASSED THROUGH SUCH ENORMOUS RESISTANCE AND NOT HAVE IT HAVE COME OUT THE OTHER SIDE?”~Prof.Fruitcake

    It’s obvious ‘this guy’ Fetzer is ready for a rubber-room in Hotel Institution.

    \\][//

  66. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

    Review of Analysis of Observed and Measured In-Flight Turns Suggests Superior Control of 9/11 WTC Aircraft
    Aidan Monaghan B.Sc. EET

    Abstract:

    “Video footage depicts United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) impacting World Trade Center tower 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 in New York City via a trajectory comprised of two separate banked turns. The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact. The first turn, which maintains a constant angle of bank (AoB), is evident at 1.2 miles before impact.[1] Although human control of UA 175’s observed maneuvers cannot be ruled out, the precise coordination of variables such as the selections of a correct bank angle and turn start time for the first turn apparently pose challenges to the unaided human control hypothesis. The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode. The probability that either of these two control systems were used is discussed. Flight deck images of United and American airlines 757s and 767s suggest that such CWS functions may have been disabled circa 2001. Constant radius turns utilizing plotted waypoints during commercial aviation operations are routinely supported by augmented GPS navigation service and related commercial Flight Management Systems (FMS) available circa 2001.[2] As will be demonstrated, the implementation of UA 175’s observed 1.2 mile constant radius arc, seconds earlier or later than observed, would apparently result in UA 175 missing WTC 2. Estimates of the likely effect of crosswinds on the approach to WTC 2 are also provided. It is noted that a projected impact via the first observed banked turn would have occurred under crosswind conditions capable of generating between 122 and 134 approximate total feet of lateral displacement from the calculated final position of the aircraft if not affected by such crosswinds. Aircraft distances and other calculations are based on reported aircraft speed for UA 175 of 799 feet per second at impact and measured times to impact [3]. The observed speeds of both attack aircraft were extreme by comparison to the typical speeds of similarly descending aircraft. While creating significantly less response time for possible human hijacker pilot course corrections during final target approaches that would demand superior control surface operation, a general vector analysis considering the final course and speed for each aircraft suggests that the unusually high speeds observed would generate greater accuracy of the aircraft while enroute to their targets, as a result of smaller course deflection angles and ground track displacements, created by existing and potential crosswinds.”

    \\][//

  67. Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote:

    The same load of bullshit [Dr. Fetzer] has said countless times here – bullshit that has been rebuked as many countless times.

    Unintentionally, you have hit a bat-shit crazy nail on the head that I will intentionally speculate about in a manner lacking any substantiation or foundation except my own fallible human observation. In doing so, it will also shed light on why the following statement from you may be in error, with the error highlighted.

    It’s obvious ‘this guy’ Fetzer is ready for a rubber-room in Hotel Institution.

    James Henry Fetzer PhD exists. But this guy in this forum whom we think is the good Dr. Fetzer might be a Q-bot.

    From Wikipedia:

    Internet bots, also known as web robots, WWW robots or simply bots, are software applications that run automated tasks over the Internet. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human alone.

    From Wiki again:

    A chatter robot, chatterbot, chatbot, or chat bot is a computer program designed to simulate an intelligent conversation with one or more human users via auditory or textual methods, primarily for engaging in small talk. The primary aim of such simulation has been to fool the user into thinking that the program’s output has been produced by a human.

    Here is something to try: Cleverbot.

    ** Disclaimer **

    This post by (Señor El Once) is the sole responsibility of (Señor El Once). It may contain disinformation or misinformation and if read it should be read with proper caution and skepticism. Neither this blog nor any of its members endorse or condone anything said in this post unless they explicitly say so in writing themselves. It is my opinion (of course it is) that: this post is designed to make readers laugh in an awkward manner, recognizing that as bat-shit crazy as it sounds… WTF?! The Fetzer-bot is repetitive (like from a database) and tries to simulate an intelligent conversation, but fails. This post, having reached its end, will now cease to disrupt, confuse, upset, or mislead those who read it.

    ** end disclaimer **

    //

    1. Yes, of course my posts are REPETITIVE because the EVIDENCE IS DEFINITIVE: no real plane could have entered the building in defiance of Newton’s laws, yet he and others of his ilk are CONTINUING TO ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE US THAT A REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM FEATS NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM.

      My posts are in fact no more REPETITIVE that those from rogue1 and others who are pushing the position that violations of elementary physics took place on 9/11. I resist their rubbish and explain–again and again–why they are wrong and have no respect for science or truth because I cannot abide liars, cheats, phonies and frauds.

      I am merely reminding readers who might otherwise be taken in that even SEO, who has a silver tongue, is peddling the same unscientific rubbish as rogue1, as I and TM and OBF have repeatedly explained. The cannot be allowed to obfuscate and obscure CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD AND FAKERY ON 9/11. Stunning.

    2. P.S. This is why nobody can win in a discussion with the professor. Many Derren Brown has a program, similar to his “The Assassin” show that was linked on the “Lone-Nut” Thread by Mr. RuffAdam, that will demonstrate how a Q-bot for weally kwazy 9/11 theowies can be created out of a Professor of critical thinking and scientific reasoning. [Being a former Marine Corps Officer, he already had foundational MK-ULTRA layer in place. He just needed a Cass Sunstein {or maybe Cash from Sunstein) activation.]

      1. James H. Fetzer finally speaks the truth when cornered:

        “Right! I am a Q-bot and Senor El Once and rogue1 are genuine truth-seekers!”

        Very good ‘professor’, now swallow this fact and desist with any more of your pulp fiction nonsense.

        \\][//

    3. LOL Senior your post did what it intended to do. I think there may be some merit to your Fetzer-BOT hypothesis. The only way to tell is to ask the Fetzer entity direct questions and see if you get a direct answer. If you do not get a direct answer to the question you asked but instead get some kind of repetitive response only loosly related to your question or not related at all then your Fetzer-BOT idea gains strength. After a certain amount of non-responsive replies you should assume your hypothesis is correct and that you are indeed dealing with a BOT.

      In my opinion there is enough evidence already that we are in fact dealing with a simulated Fetzer-BOT. To explain what that means is simple. A simulated Fetzer-BOT is where the actual Fetzer is present but behaves in the same exact non-responsive way that a genuine Fetzer-BOT would. The end result is the same as if you were dealing with an actual Fetzer-BOT.

    1. ** Disclaimer ** the post above by (Jim Fetzer) is the sole responsibility of (Jim Fetzer). It may contain disinformation or misinformation and if read it should be read with proper caution and skepticism. Neither this blog nor any of it’s members endorse or condone anything said in the post above unless they explicitly say so in writing themselves. It is my opinion that the post above is designed to disrupt, confuse, upset, or mislead those who read it. ** end disclaimer **

      1. Craig reminds us:

        “I think we can take it as a given that everyone is speaking for themselves…”

        Thank you, you are correct.

        So just let me agree with the “professor” one more time when he says:

        {The} “cheats, and frauds is abundant on this very thread! JUST READ IT!”

        I do agree that any with a lucid mind will be able to parse out just who the “cheats and frauds” are here.

        \\][//

    2. The James H. Fetzer Q-bot asks the simple question repeatedly, “Does this look like a Q-bot?” followed by links to videos.

      Going out on a bat-shit crazy limb of unfounded speculation, I’ll say that the repetitive postings do have the finger-prints of a Q-bot. The linked videos? They do not look like a Q-bot, I’ll give him that. They look like a hologram. [**Ba-da-boom**]

      Returning in a serious manner to an August 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm from Dr. Fetzer, where he boldly writes:

      The argument for holograms is AN ARGUMENT BY ELIMINATION. There is no alternative explanation that can explain …

      Is that so? An elimination argument?

      Dr. Fetzer should kindly explain how he eliminated a special plane as well as a special plane-looking-missile? If nothing else, just contemplating those highlighted words proves wrong his assertion of no alternative explanation, which is a bit too blinders-on narrow in its scope.

      Let’s not lose sight of how Dr. Fetzer right away jumps to the strawman: “This was an aluminum tube that was flying faster than any standard Boeing 767 could fly.”

      It was? Aluminum tube? I say the special plane-looking-missile wasn’t or didn’t have to be. And if it wasn’t made out of what he assumes it to be, because it wasn’t what he assumes it to be [e.g., a standard aircraft], then the (a)-(g) items and other statements that he brings up support more so a plane-looking-missile than they do holograms.
      After all, [A] holograms can’t be projected (yet… and he has offered no proof) [B] by no-less than a cloaked plane flying impossible speeds according to him, and [C] he & Richard Hall completely flumuxed the radar data analysis.

      Due to [A]-[C], the “abundant proof of liars, cheats, and frauds on this very thread” is belched out like a pre-emptive smoke screen. Dr. Fetzer wrote:

      The plane entered the building effortlessly.

      Here’s a bat-shit crazy diversion from me. How many years did Dr. Fetzer champion pods-on-planes based on what appeared to be a pod as well as the flash on the exterior wall prior to impact caught by many different video clips?

      Maybe Dr. Fetzer should revive the flash.

      In the paradigm of a special plane-looking-missile, the payload could have been anything, including DEW. DEW-on-the-plane-looking-missile could explain what Dr. Fetzer decries — “the plane entered the building effortlessly” — because the DEW-pod “vaporized” or “weakened” a path for the fuselage. As for the wings? If they weren’t aluminum, then he would need to reassess what is within the range of possibilities for the damage to the building face.

      1. “The argument for holograms is AN ARGUMENT BY ELIMINATION. There is no alternative explanation that can explain …”~Fetzer

        So there we have it. Fetzer realizes there is no empirical evidence of holograms that can be projected into thin air. Thus he admits that his arguments FOR holograms are based on the arguments – not direct proofs of.

        As his arguments have been totally destroyed by counter argument, Fetzer has nothing left – ZERO.

        But like the Black Knight in the Monty Python spoof, on the Holy Grail, his decapitated head continues to bark insults and challenges to his victorious opponents.

        One might find this sad and tragic, but for the vile nature of the “professor’s” agenda, and the spoilage it does to the truth.

        \\][//

  68. “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” ~Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

    \\][//

  69. The confused people here (no insult, but they’re confused) have an impression of bullets. Bullets are compact and dense metal — planes are not. Parts would fly off. Bullets travel much faster than these planes — even low velocity bullets. And bullets go through that seemingly without resistance only into materials such as apples, butter, etc. The buildings had space behind the concrete walls and steel girders, so yes they were not solid inside, but the materials of the floors were not soft like an apple and nor were the concrete and steel. The wings were not compact bullets at top speed, so they would not cut; and the floors would not disappear. The comparison in the confused people’s minds, with bullet-like behaviour into an apple or butter is so grossly inaccurate that they must change their impression. Then the other arguments about resistance details and flight trajectories and other problems can take hold. Failing to throw out the bullet impression will always lead them down the wrong path. They’re wrong. These planes would, given their materials and the materials of the building, esp. the floors and steel, have to have travelled FASTER than a bullet to do what was supposedly done in the TV images. Period. NO BULLET PLANES.

    1. Even a missile-looking plane, intersecting all those floors (7 and 8 respectively) would have to be hard and fast as or more than a bullet. 1) It’s still not a plane, thus “no plane” as claimed, 2) the images don’t show that level of speed and the wings don’t break off or the tail. NO BULLET PLANES or MISSILES WITH FALSE WINGS AND TAIL. 3) And the images have to be at least partly false (at least as claimed) because in one video the wingtips go in without a hole’s being there from the part of the wings nearer to the body of the plane. Nor could this be a video interlacing problem (where frames show previous image onto the current moment’s image), since nothing else in the butterplane video is overlapped from interlacing in those frames. NO BULLET PLANES/MISSILES. If there was a missile, it went only near the centre, but still the wings and tail were not able to do this, if added — not at this speed. So even a missile can’t be depicted with modifications in real time. The centre portion, if a missile, is still going too slow anyway, but maybe that. It’s still NO PLANES and no MODIFIED missile in the TV. Missile centre portion, maybe. Still TV faking and no planes.

    2. CK,

      Let me warn you off of, Fetzer’s Strawman:

      (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
      (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
      (3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
      (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

      There is not a single commentator on this blog that agrees with the official story involving these specific commercial aircraft.

      Any argument you attempt to conflate our critiques of Fetzer as a disagreement with this list of four points will be seen as spurious and disingenuous.

      \\][//

      1. So you believe there were no planes as advertised. That is the main thrust of no planes theory: that no BOEINGS were used as we saw and the event was a fraud. Beyond that, there are different lines of inquiry. However, no planes at ALL could do this due to the 7 to 8 floors which offer the same lack of resistance as the airspace around them, if anything like a plane went in. A missile could have hit some small portion, but nothing broke off for wings or anything so it could not have been much modified. TV fakery and/or a hologram are required in any case left after realizing no plane could go in without resistance worth mentioning even on the floors, no slicing and dicing and no parts gone out or crumpled.

      2. CK says:

        “So you believe there were no planes as advertised. That is the main thrust of no planes theory: that no BOEINGS were used as we saw and the event was a fraud.”
        . . . . . . . . . .

        Look, I am not going to deal with the Newspeak spazmata. No planes mean exactly what it says; “No planes” – it doesn’t matter what make or model, it simply means no planes.

        There is absolutely zero evidence to the assertion that real airplanes did not crash into the World Trade Towers.

        As I mentioned in my first comment to you, if you cannot provide anything of substance, but simply make the same empty assertions that have already been shot down, you are going to be in for some heavy ridicule. I would like to avoid that. Wouldn’t you?

        \\][//

        1. Well, since Flights 93 and 175 were in the air but were nowhere near Shanksville or New York at the times that they were crashing or effortlessly entering the Twin Towers and since faked planes (phantom planes, holographic images) are not planes even though they look like them, I don’t think rogue1 has scored any points here. Even if he wants to play the very childish game of “no planes” means no planes, the position that I have defined can still accommodate that extension, even though it is not really part of NPT, properly understood, because no real planes hit either the North or the South Towers, as I and TM and OBF and CK have explained to you, again and again. So if no real planes hit either building in New York, it remains true that NPT is correct, even when it has been expanded as rogue1 has demanded. Which is one more indication that rogue1 is a mental and a moral mediocrity.

    3. Dear Ms. CK,

      Sorry. You are the only one bringing up bullets, so the confusion belongs to you as your posting goes on to split nomenclature hairs about “no planes.”

      When I brought up bullets in past discussions, it was to explain the concept of energy transfer and energy much greater than structural energy of material in “vehicles”, particularly when velocities are high.

      My recollection is that there were 44 or so videos of the 2nd “plane.” What was seemingly lots of different flight paths has been proven with 3D modeling to be a single flight path that also agrees with two different sets of radar flight path data that more than suggest a real object was flying. After many years of being NPT, I’m now convinced by this analysis that something was flying and looked like a plane. All of these correlated pieces of data easily allow the object’s speed to be calculated and determined to be in excess of the alleged commercial plane’s abilities even at high altitude. Thus, the “plane” was not a commercial plane, so all bets are off when trying to guess what damage certain parts of the “plane” would create if the model and modifications to the “plane” are unknown.

      I use the expression “plane-looking-missile”, because once seats, passengers, luggage, and even pilots are removed, its payload functionality and precision can approach quickly that of a missile, even though it may still look like a plane.

      The intersection of floors is misframed in your posting, as it is with Dr. Fetzer. The fuselage of the plane-looking-missile hit only one or two floors while piercing the exterior columns that had 60 cm window gaps on 100 cm centers. The empty space between columns and floors would have been “soft like an apple.” For the columns and cross-section of a floor that did resist what was impacting them, the path of least resistance after impact was “around” and into the empty space.

      Once the fuselage’s impact is considered, then we can go into the additional floors hit by the wing span. As for the damage from the wings, two factors need to be considered.

      [1] The engines were solid and made lots of damage.

      [2] The construction and assembly of the exterior walls allowed for natural failure points. From
      WTC1 and WTC2 with my highlighting:

      [A] total of 59 of these perimeter columns were present along each of the flat faces of the building. These columns were built up by welding four plates together to form an approximately 14-inch square section, spaced at 3 feet 4 inches on center. Adjacent perimeter columns were interconnected at each floor level by deep spandrel plates, typically 52 inches in depth. In alternate stories, an additional column was present at the center of each of the chamfered building corners. The resulting configuration of closely spaced columns and deep spandrels created a perforated steel bearing-wall frame system that extended continuously around the building perimeter.

      Figure 2-3 presents a partial elevation of this exterior wall at typical building floors. Construction of the perimeter-wall frame made extensive use of modular shop prefabrication. In general, each exterior wall module consisted of three columns, three stories tall, interconnected by the spandrel plates, using all-welded construction. Cap plates were provided at the tops and bottoms of each column, to permit bolted connection to the modules above and below. Access holes were provided at the inside face of the columns for attaching high-strength bolted connections. Connection strength varied throughout the building, ranging from four bolts at upper stories to six bolts at lower stories. Near the building base, supplemental welds were also utilized.

      Side joints of adjacent modules consisted of high-strength bolted shear connections between the spandrels at mid-span. Except at the base of the structures and at mechanical floors (Figure 2-8 shows one of these mechanical floors. Note that all the perimeter wall columns are joined/spliced at this one level.) horizontal splices between modules were staggered in elevation so that not more than one third of the units were spliced in any one story.

      The highlighted phrases above contained the keyword “bolted”. Bolts are easier to slice than steel columns. Look at the impact damage with respect to the staggered exterior walls.

      Impact damage to the north face of WTC 1
      Impact damage to exterior columns on the north face of WTC-1 (showing staggered assemblies)
      Impact damage to south face of WTC 2,
      Impact damage to exterior columns on the south face of WTC-2 (showing staggered assemblies)
      – {I was in a hurry. Better pictures ought to be posted.}

      The questions to be asked are: What was truly sliced or cut, and where? What was pushed backward? Where did the engines and fuselage hit? How many of the “breaks” in the exterior wall (not attributable to engines or fuselage) happened at “weak” spots where bolts would have failed or spandrels crossed? [Wild-ass speculation] Had there been DEW-in-a-pod-on-the-plane-looking-missile, what could be attributed to it (columns 421-425)? [End Wild-ass speculation]

      In the third image above, we observe that the left wingtip certainly cut the aluminum cladding and looks to have made an impression on the steel, but this superficial analysis suggests that it would be hard to say “the aluminum wingtip sliced the steel column.”

      The Fetzer/Hall alternative to a plane-looking-missile is that the outlines of the planes were created by pre-planted explosives. Shaped charges is his answer, but getting the hologram to align with this would have been challenging, and how about that fabulous cloaking technology on the plane that projected the hologram (which is itself an unprecedented and unrepeated technological feat).

      TV faking of planes? The two sets of radar data and untainted witnesses’ statements about seeing planes are hard pieces of evidence for it to overcome. Worse, if you were going to fake it with media, you could at least do it right, like by not depicting speeds in excess of what the alleged aircraft could fly even at high altitudes.

      //

      1. With the whole plane or plane-like missile hypothesis this is the problem: the whole thing disappears. It intersects with 7 and 8 floors and leaves no slices pushed at different rates through space; the whole thing goes in one gulp. Those floors are air? Of course not, never mind the cladding of the walls themselves for the moment. These planes disappeared like bullets into an apple. Impossible. And impossible for any plane parts on missiles either. Unless the missile (putative missile) went in in some small hole, then fine. But the image of and missing body of planes of some size is what’s left. Planes acting like hardbody bullets into apples. Impossible. Period. This leaves us with missile and TV faking; holograms if that’s possible (and a missile or no missile); or just TV faking, though that latter is probably not the case due to some witness statements and “the blob” TV image which was missed and later “fixed” with a black blob and then taken off air.

      2. Also, I’m not a Mr. and no I was not asked by Jim to come on here. I heard his show about this thread and took a look. (hybridrogue1 suggested maybe I was asked to speak here.) Have a good day.

      3. Dear Ms. CK, you write:

        With the whole plane or plane-like missile hypothesis this is the problem: the whole thing disappears.

        This is what bunker-busting missiles do. They penetrate and then explode.

        It intersects with 7 and 8 floors and leaves no slices pushed at different rates through space; the whole thing goes in one gulp.

        Your glib wording leads easily to misframing. You need to talk about it in stages and what is being hit.

        Stage one is when the fuselage hits and has one or two floors: 4″ concrete slabs on thin metal pans supported by trusses that are spaced apart. It should be noted that these were designed for vertical loads, not horizontal ones. The concrete slab might start to slice the fuselage, but “equal-and-opposite” it would start to crumble. The thin pans and the spaced apart trusses would receive forces from unaccostumed directions that relatively soon would allow them to bend or deform into the “path of least resistance” — the emptiness between floors. The steel column assemblies have natural failure points at the bolts connecting them with other assemblies. The pictures show cases where the bolts failed and the columns of the assemblies were bent into the building. In some cases, the spandrels connecting the columns acted like a knife’s edge; the plane pushed the columns against the steel spandrel that then sliced them from the other side. It should be noted that the columns were welded to spandrels, but this welding process makes for a slightly weaker spot.

        Stage two is when the shoulder of the wings starts to hit, but it would serve to help widen the hole by pushing columns and column assemblies out of the way. Also in stage two, the heavy engines hit the side and push out of the way what ever is in front of them. Because the planes didn’t impact dead-level, in stage two the wing damage expands to other floors.

        Stage three is when the portion of the wings to the outside of the engines make contact. However, the engines have already made a gaping hole. We see evidence of where wing tips hit the aluminum cladding and indented the steel, but in stage three ultimately the path of least resistance would permit the wings to get sliced and to enter through the window slits.

        Stage four is when the tail arrives. The vertical fin is in the same direction as the widow slits, leaving mostly the spandrels and floors to resist and cut it up and into the empty space between floors. The horizontal fins align mostly with the opening created by the forward wing’s shoulders and engines.

        Those floors are air? Of course not…

        Those stage one floors act like knifes with blades that also experience failure, crumbling, bending, and deforming. Those stage two and three floors cut.

        These planes disappeared like bullets into an apple. … Planes acting like hardbody bullets into apples. Impossible. Period.

        Wrong analogy. The plane is the apple and it disappears into a maluable slicer made up of blades (floors), mesh assemblies (walls), and space between floors. The floors and wall assemblies have natural failure points and properties which allow them to resist and then bend, break, or be moved so that they no longer resist as strongly further penetrating action of the fuselage or engines. “A pencil piercing a mosquito screen.”

        This leaves us with missile and TV faking; holograms if that’s possible (and a missile or no missile); or just TV faking, though that latter is probably not the case due to some witness statements and “the blob” TV image which was missed and later “fixed” with a black blob and then taken off air.

        No it doesn’t.

        Moreover, my duped useful idiot nature has had me explore and champion heavily TV faking, holograms, and missiles… until I found their weaknesses in 100% applicability to 9/11 as well as the disinformation and disinfo tactics of their main sources of propagation.

      4. CK says:

        >”Also, I’m not a Mr. and no I was not asked by Jim to come on here. I heard his show about this thread and took a look. (hybridrogue1 suggested maybe I was asked to speak here.)”

        Oh, you were not “officially” asked to speak here….I get it.

        That in no way excludes you from being part of Fetzers propaganda team, whether you were asked, or simply given the incentive is of little difference. You are obviously repeating the same tripe that Fetzer is.

        Let me tell you something CK, you have been brainwashed by an enemy of truth by this charlatan. If you really understood physics you would get this. Just repeating Fetzers ‘talking points’ makes you nothing but his puppet.

        \\][//

  70. “Well, I knew there were world-class LSAs here.”~Fetzer

    I asked some time ago what this “LSA” refers to. As usual Fetzer never seems capable of answering a direct question.

    Can you, “Professor” explain what these initials mean – without going on another rhetorical rampage???

    \\][//

      1. CK says, August 29, 2012 at 3:47 pm:

        > “Moot and insulting sideline only. Deal with the issues.”

        I have dealt with the issues in the greatest of detail CK, you have merely made a lame analogy having to do with bullets.

        You say:

        > “Even a missile-looking plane, intersecting all those floors (7 and 8 respectively) would have to be hard and fast as or more than a bullet.”

        So CK, if you wish to participate successfully in this conversation, you are going to have to come up with more than such empty assertions as this.

        Given your sudden appearance here, just as Fetzer has begun fragmenting and tearing his hair out; let’s get this question out and up-front; Are you here due to a call for reinforcements?

        Yes, all that is implied in that – don’t hold back now, y’hear?

        \\][//

      2. In a reply to hybridrogue1 below (there was no reply button there for some reason): My comments are not mere assertions. Any plane doing to all those floors: no deceleration of plane in contact with the floors, all the way in. Compared to the sections above and below in the air, never mind the initial wall impact, the same lack of deceleration. We didn’t see slice and dice different decelerations. Planes swallowed like bullets in an apple. Not possible. Missile maybe in one spot, but that is still no plane.

      1. Jim Fetzer says, August 30, 2012 at 12:24 pm:

        “It’s common knowledge. Why don’t you simply ask one of your friends?”
        . . . . . . . . .

        Fetzer isn’t even capable of answering a straight forward question such as: What does LSA stand for. Whattadick.

        Yea, I’ll bet, just like NPT stands for anything you decide…

        According to wiki, this is all I came up with:

        LSA stands for, Lysergic Acid Amide, when refering to morning glory seeds.

        The left side of the gun has the initials LSA .. It stands for Landespolizei Sachsen Anhalt.

        So are your friends that use these initials LSA, hop heads or gun freaks? Both?

        \\][//

  71. I have never been one for coincidence theory, so I will put this out front and center; I do not think for one moment that, now just as Fetzer is reaching his wits end, that it can be taken as mere coincidence that reinforcements for the F-Troop have suddenly popped out of a wood stove; those being, Grandpa Steve and CK.

    Before they go through the standard shtick, let them read this thread carefully and address the actual issues here as they have been produced, avoiding the lame analogies and Fetzerian spazmata that the original F-Troop have displayed.

    \\][//

  72. Just an odd question I have related to the plane being able to penetrate the outer lattice of the WTC tower.

    How would the steel lattice stand up to the two 12,000 LB engines slamming into them at such high speeds? Would the lattice give way to such massive kinetic energy? Hmmm…I wonder…how would the weight of the rest of the plane effect the lattice? I wonder if it would break through the lattice? Hmmm yeah I really really wonder…NOT!

    1. I also wonder how much the wings filled with fuel weighed just by themselves? I have to ask myself if the plane actually broke through the lattice rather than slicing through it as it is often mischaracterized.

      WOW here is a video I just found of a pumpkin smashing through a car door.

      I wonder if a plane could do more damage then a pumpkin? Hmm I really wonder.

      1. Hey a pumkin is softer than an airliner isn’t it? I wonder how it went right through the much stronger and heavier car door made out of steel? Why didn’t the pumpkin just explode into a ball of goo and fall to the ground outside the car door? Hmmm let me think…

      2. Unrelated. Door broke off because door attached weakly and whole thing thin. We are talking of thick steel leaving no visible plane at any point and no slicing of more resistance going into the steel girders or the floor steel.

      3. CK your argument is extremely weak and consists of nothing more than hand waving. A jet liner has BY FAR enough kinetic energy to smash through the outer lattice of the WTC. The engines alone weigh in at 24,000 lbs. Travelling that fast there is no way in hell that outer wall could stop those engines let alone the whole plane. The pumpkin blasting through the car is a very apt analogy and nothing you said provides ANY reason to dispute it.

        I get the feeling that you are the kind of person who NEVER changes his mind no matter what. In other words I strongly suspect that you are not someone who can or will debate in good faith. I will be happy to be proven wrong by you actually addressing my points with a valid counter argument that consists of more than your opinion. If you are planning to just follow the same pattern as Fetzer by evading valid arguments I will not be continuing to talk to you at all. So my statement is:

        The plane that hit the WTC had more than enough kinetic energy to break through the outer wall.

        A valid response from you would consist of evidence showing that statement to be in error. Evasion of the question will not suffice. So the ball is in your court now and we will all see how you respond or fail to respond and we will make our judgement about your credibility based on it.

      4. Regarding the comments of CK on August 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm, at 11:20 pm and11:25 pm :

        I’m sorry but you aren’t offering anything relevant here.

        Despite the fact that it is obvious English isn’t your first language, your assertions have all been dealt with and dismissed.

        This isn’t going to work out for you here.

        \\][//

  73. Characterizing the plane as an empty aluminum can is highly innacurate and deceptive by the way. It is obvious that the plane had more than enough weight and kinetic energy to easily break through the outer lattice. The extremely heavy and fast moving plane broke through the outer lattice of the WTC. It was more than a match for the outer wall regardless if it was “reinforced” or not. Just as the pumpkin smashes right through the car in the video above the plane smashed right through the outer wall of the WTC. All the BS to the contrary is just that, BULLSHIT.

    1. Yes indeed Adam,

      Just as I noted in the bird hit by airplane arguments made by the F-Troop here, they actually defeat both the Materials argument, and the Mass Ratio argument by their own reckoning.

      And I have given that exposition as far as three or four threads back, and including this one. This is a good enough evidence that the group is simply hand-waving and not thinking through ours – or even their own arguments.

      This indicates following a script…or taking arguments that one doesn’t really understand and repeating them. All PR, whether amateur or pro.

      \\][//

    2. So ruffadam,

      if we imagine that no floors existed at all between the area of the supposed ‘impact’, and keeping in mind the cartoon-cut-out-hole in the South facade, is it then your contention that ‘your’ plane (minus part of the port side wing that could have hit some of the core columns) would have continued its flight out through the North facade as well?

      Cheers

    3. According to rogue1, everyone here actually agrees to the four
      propositions that define “No Plane Theory”, also known as NPT.
      So do you, ruffadam, AGREE to the following four propositions:

      (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
      (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
      (3) Fight 93 did not creash in Shanksville;
      (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower?

      Because, as I have explained multiple times here, these four
      theses defined NPT (“No Plane Theory”), which you have
      previously rejected. Do you now concede you accept it?

      And, if you accept NPT, is the only difference between us
      how the videos were made of these “planes” hitting the North
      and the South Towers? Is that the only difference between us?