Gage concedes his entry into 9/11 Pentagon ‘quagmire’ has been divisive


By Craig McKee

Richard Gage admits that his pronouncements on the Pentagon research of Citizen Investigation Team have done more harm than good.

Since he first waded into the debate two-and-a-half years ago, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has taken plenty of heat from people on all sides of the question of whether a 757 hit the Pentagon on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Gage now feels he should never have gotten involved – and most people agree with him.

“Entering into and rendering a recommendation and then withdrawing that recommendation ended up really stirring the pot in ways that I don’t think were helpful either time to the 9/11 Truth movement,” Gage said in an interview last week in Montreal, the last stop on his 12-city Canadian tour.

“Had we never rendered an opinion (on CIT’s film National Security Alert) and just limited our attention publicly to the World Trade Center towers we would not have sustained such criticism from both sides of that argument, that argument being the flyover theory that CIT is promoting, which has been a source of great animosity within the 9/11 Truth movement.”

Gage and I discussed several subjects related to 9/11, including his hotly debated decision to speak at the annual convention of the Nation of Islam in early March, and, of course, his own evidence that the three World Trade Center towers were brought down in controlled demolitions (I attended his excellent two-hour presentation the night after our interview).

In this article I’ll look at the Gage/Pentagon controversy with a later follow-up addressing the other subjects, including my reaction to Gage’s presentation.

AE911truth has never officially taken a position on the Pentagon – even aspects of the evidence that would fall directly under their members’ areas of expertise. Gage explained to me why the organization won’t pronounce itself on the physical evidence there:

“We’re concerned that there’s such a lack of information, a lack of good, accurate information,” he said. “There’s so much disinformation, there’s so much misinformation, and there’s so much animosity within the 9/11 Truth movement that our entry into that arena would be more disruptive than helpful – and has been actually already.

“So we confine ourselves to the World Trade Center evidence because the evidence is so clear, so convincing, and irrefutable that almost everybody gets it. And we have agreement on it, in general, within the 9/11 Truth movement. And so we don’t need to take on an area that is a quagmire.”

Is the Pentagon a quagmire, a no-win situation for the Truth movement? I am one of those who feels the Pentagon “quagmire” is a contrived controversy, and that most 9/11 truthers have no problem accepting the idea that no 757 ever hit the building. It is just a few who seem to feel attacking CIT is the best way to move forward.

Attacks on CIT go back well before Gage got involved. By the time the summer of 2009 came along, CIT had been the subject of vocal attacks from those who inexplicably believe that the Pentagon was the scene of a 757 crash on the morning of 9/11. These critics (in some cases people whose work on the World Trade Center was and is well respected) found a home on 911blogger.com, a site that has since banned just about anyone who has a positive word to say about CIT.

Gage chose that summer to recommend CIT’s work in this original statement, joining major figures like David Ray Griffin and Barrie Zwicker in praising CIT for its significant findings:

 “The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD “National Security Alert” deserves serious attention – particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day.”

So far, so good. In December of that year, Gage issued a “clarification” in which he distanced himself from CIT’s belief that the large airliner that approached the Pentagon flew over it instead of into it:

Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT’s National Security Alert in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the “North path” of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT’s investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth’s focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn’t perform an exhaustive review of CIT’s material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT’s conclusion that the airliner “flew over” the Pentagon.”

This was odd. He says his statement shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of flyover. Fine. But he also insinuates that CIT’s methods were wanting without coming right out and saying it. Still, had he stopped there, it wouldn’t have been disastrous. But he didn’t.

In February 2011, just a couple of weeks after CIT opponents David Chandler and Jonathan Cole had posted an attack on CIT on 911blogger, Gage released a “complete withdrawal of support” for CIT on the same site.

He cited many of CIT’s most enthusiastic attackers to support his case that the group had used improper investigative methods. He based this on a claim that CIT had not made it clear that some witnesses interviewed in the film not only supported the north of Citgo flight path, but also say they saw the plane hit the building.

“It would have been a more honest approach to declare that, ‘We think the plane flew over the Pentagon, but our witnesses who we using to make that point didn’t see anything like that. In fact, they said they saw the plane hit the building.’ Now, I know that CIT is suggesting that they were the victims of a magic show, an illusion. I do understand that.”

In fact, the film makes explicitly clear that ALL the witnesses believe the plane hit (some might have been in a position to see the alleged impact, others certainly weren’t). In another upcoming post I’ll look in detail at Gage’s claim that the film was misleading and that improper methods were used.

Gage’s statement prompted loud protests from prominent truthers who support CIT’s work. A letter signed by 27 truthers criticized Gage’s decision. Here’s an excerpt:

“Richard, we admire the work you’ve done with A&E,” it read. “However we simply cannot stay silent about the stance that you and other members of A&E have taken about CIT and the Pentagon, as we believe it is hurting the movement and could potentially cripple it.”

While Gage never responded to the letter, he did freely discuss the subject of CIT in our interview. Here’s part of the exchange Gage and I had about the Pentagon:

CM: If you listen to the witnesses, the two things (impact and north of Citgo flight path) are completely incompatible. The witnesses say the plane flew on the north side of the gas station and they say the plane hit the building. Hasn’t that been ruled out?

RG: “I don’t know. Can you explain that to me?”

CM: Because had it been on the north side of the gas station it could not have knocked the light poles over.

RG: “Right. I agree.”

CM: Which means that the light poles had to have been staged. And I believe Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done a study in terms of G forces to indicate that there’s no way the plane could have been on the north side and then banked…

RG: “Well they said they saw it bank, the witnesses.”

CM: Yes, they said they saw it bank to the right. But that doesn’t help the [impact] theory. It doesn’t help it because they’re still missing the light poles (the official story has a straight south of Citgo approach, no banking). So if the plane really hit the building, why would you stage knocked-over light poles? What would be the purpose of that exactly, if you’re planning to fly the plane into the building? That certainly supports the idea of the illusion, doesn’t it?

RG: “Right. Ya. There’s a lot to be resolved there. I actually don’t have an opinion on whether the plane flew over the building or went into it. That’s not part of my statement. But I do believe there was a plane. These witnesses saw a plane, that’s an important distinction and also a disruptive set of elements in the 9/11 Truth movement. Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement think there was a plane.”

CM: Absolutely, including David Ray Griffin.

RG: “Didn’t he at some point support CIT as well?”

CM: As far as I know he still does.

RG: “And he believes there was some kind of plane present.”

CM: He believes there was a plane, he just doesn’t think it hit the building.

Gage admits he broke a promise to CIT’s Craig Ranke when he released his withdrawal of support:

CM: I spoke to Craig Ranke in Toronto in September and he mentioned that you had made a commitment to him that before ever withdrawing your endorsement you would talk to him first.

RG: “That’s probably accurate.”

CM: What was the reason you didn’t?

RG: “I didn’t want to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, because both sides of this argument are very convincing and very difficult, and I needed to be done with the issue and get off the fence.

“I’m not interested in pursuing the points any further because I’m already behind in the work that I’m doing and I need to focus on that. But if there’s some kind of information that proves something I might be inclined – probably not, though – if it draws the 9/11 Truth movement together instead of splitting it apart then I’d be … I’m a servant of the 9/11 Truth movement, ultimately.”

I don’t think we’ll be hearing any more official Pentagon statements from Gage as much as I might think a withdrawal of his withdrawal of support would be best for the movement. He is going to focus his energy on spreading the message that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives. On this subject, Gage has much support, which he deserves.

While I’ve criticized his decision to give in to pressure from CIT opponents, I must give him full marks for his bold and courageous decision to speak to a large and well-informed audience at the Nation of Islam convention. He did this despite pressure from AE911truth colleagues to decline the invitation because of Minister Louis Farrakhan’s controversial reputation. AE911Truth’s Kevin Ryan also spoke.

This is exactly the kind of gutsy action we need more of from Truth leaders like Gage. The route of excessive caution and caving in to pressure has not served us well.

886 comments

  1. RICHARD GAGE has my admiration and gratitude that he found the courage to reverse himself on this really important subject.

    It gives me hope that more people will now seek out and look into the important evidence presented by CIT – and then increase pressure to allow open discussion.

    It appears that 911 blogger is thoroughly corrupted at the top levels and has become useless at best – and at the worst it will continue to censor and ridicule important new evidence (like CIT).

  2. Richard still seems confused about what the CIT witnesses actually said. He seems to be suggesting there is some kind of no plane theory involved with CIT. That is NOT the case at all. CIT clearly establishes that a large airliner was indeed present. His statements seem to indicate he is confused about that point which would indicate to me that he is listening to disinformation talking points. Some CIT detractors deceptively equate CIT with no plane theorists. Some of those detractors are directly involved with A+E. This retraction of his retraction just confirms to me that Richard is being intentionally misled and confused by people close to him.

    It is also distressing to me that Richard has not taken a strong stance against the outrageous censorship and purging of CIT supporters from 911Blogger. If he is indeed uncertain about the pentagon issue and about CIT then surely he would support an open discussion about the topic and oppose in the strongest possible terms the suppression of the topic right? Even if he himself doesn’t want to get into the pentagon topic surely he can oppose Stalinist suppression tactics right? Is supporting the right to free speech not the duty of all truthers?

    1. Adam,

      Not only does Richard not condemn the Stalinist purges at 911blogger, he (at least off the record) enthusiastically supports 911blogger owner, AE911Truth webmaster and AE911Truth board member Justin Keogh (and now, asst. to Gourley at the “International Center”).

      Our blog friend “LillyAnn” who lives in Las Vegas saw Richard speak, and afterwards, she approached him and mentioned the whole 911blogger situation. Apparently, Richard heartily defended Justin as an incredibly hard worker and a tireless patriot and activist for 9/11 justice, and basically seemed to imply that he put 100% trust in Justin, knows that Justin makes good decisions, and, from that perspective, he assumed that anyone who had been purged at blogger deserved it because they were supposedly “violating the rules.” He also said he believed Justin to be transparent and explanatory when it came to banning people, i.e. emailing them to point out the apparent “broken rules.” LillyAnn informed Richard that she had been banned with no explanation. Richard’s forehead apparently wrinkled up with frustration as he must have at least momentarily wrestled with a wave of cognitive dissonance; he apparently was quite eager at that point to change the subject.

    2. CIT are not no-planers , they are in fact the opposite, saying that the plane flew over and away from the Pentagon i.e. they are think there was a plane were there wasn’t one..

  3. Since a real 757 has zero chance of escaping unnoticed, it’s natural to associate the flyover theory with “no planes” and hologram theories.

    1. Mr. Good writes and entry intended to restart a merry-go-round:

      Since a real 757 has zero chance of escaping unnoticed, it’s natural to associate the flyover theory with “no planes” and hologram theories.

      Contrary to your bold statements April 15, 2012 at 10:19 pm in another thread just a couple of hours before this one, the 757 [or whatever model it was] was noticed on its path out of there and did have a place to go in the form of runway 15.

      The association between fly-over and “no planes” and hologram theories is made entirely by you. This is thus an example of you putting words in our mouth, eh?

      All witnesses say there was a plane. The issue is that scant few can actually claim it impacted the Pentagon. They have the data points of (a) [alleged] planes hitting towers in NYC and repeated footage of those plane pixels all over the networks, (b) seeing a low-flying plane on a path to the Pentagon, and (c) an explosion at the Pentagon more or less in the path of the visible plane. Ergo, they extrapolate that a real plane really hit the Pentagon to account for the explosion, although they didn’t see it. Cognitive dissonance at work.

      So, who ordered you into this discussion? Why your sudden return? And with retread arguments, no less. Tsk, tsk.

      1. Runway 15 is not long enough for 757s, and it crosses the main runway. Landing a 757 on Runway 15 would have been very noticable to the ATCs, airport employees, planespotters, pilots. And then what do you do with the plane? Dump it in the river when nobody’s looking? Grind it up and wash it down the sewer?

        You are alleging a huge conspiracy to accomplish . . . nothing at all. That is why your proposition is legitimately compared to hologram and no plane theories.

  4. Good article, Craig.

    It’s pretty obvious that a concerted effort on the part of the, now, well-known cadre of Anti-CIT activists were able to put a great deal of pressure on Richard Gage to retract his praise of CIT. What we should be trying to find out is why they did so. It must have seemed easier than refuting the CIT evidence.

    Boiled down, CIT’s case turns on two well-established facts – (1) that the aircraft passed North of the Citgo inbound to the Pentagon, and (2) an aircraft in that positon cannot possibly do anything that allows it to create the directional damage trail observed after the event. It doesn’t matter how many people think it hit the building. When something is definitively shown to be impossible we don’t normally stand around arguing strenuously over whether it happened.

    “Me (sic) and my girlfriend had tickets to see Copperfield at MGM during our Vegas trip. I was excited because I have never been to a magic show before. Let me tell you something, this man WAS and STILL is AMAZING. I don’t see how everyone could say his show was terrible. I have never seen such fascinating illusions performed in front of my face. Yes some of them you can figure out most likely but what magician now a days has 100% secret material anyway? Just to name a few tricks he did: He opened the act by having his assistants show us an open box. Then they closed it and spun it around and he appread in the box on a MOTORCYCLE and it was running! He turned paper roses into real roses, he turned a paper butterfly into a real one, he called a person up onto stage for almost every illusion he did. He made a car appear on stage and started it up right on stage! He predicts the future by asking you questions about yourself and then pulling the answers out of a locked box written on paper!! Yes he does show some old film of himself doing tricks from the 80s and yes he does have some funny jokes and some non funny jokes. all in all I did NOT feel like I wasted my $100 per ticket I paid. I enjoyed the ENTIRE 90 min of his show and gave him a standing ovation when it was over. Best magician on earth.”
    (From a review of David Copperfield’s Las Vegas show, http://www.tripadvisor.com/)

    OK. Now lets have a debate about which of these events described above, all witnessed by a large audience, most of whom were, no doubt, trying hard to spot the secret of the tricks, were real and which were illusions carefully set up and executed. Frank Legge – you go first. Maybe you could write a peer-reviewed paper about it.

  5. Craig McKee said: “While I’ve criticized his decision to give in to pressure from CIT opponents, I must give him full marks for his bold and courageous decision to speak to a large and well-informed audience at the Nation of Islam convention.”

    With Richard Gage living off Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, all decisions must be heavily influenced by cash flow concerns. This is obviously a bad situation. Mr. McKee you’re profoundly naive, you’re broadcasting a fantasy here, and you’re in a cult.

    1. We know Gage receives a salary for his full-time work with AE. Regardless of this, he has to live with any decision he makes. You can only presume that certain decisions are affected by money concerns. I really think this is so minor. I care about how effective Gage is at carrying the message. The rest seems to be of interest to a tiny minority.

      As for “broadcasting a fantasy” and being in a cult, I think you’re being silly. How can your primary interest in 9/11 involve who is making money? Really.

      1. Craig McKee said: “How can your primary interest in 9/11 involve who is making money?”

        It’s not. I never said it was. And you have no evidence that it is. Your question is not a question. It’s a form of argument that should not be used.

        Craig McKee said: “We know Gage receives a salary for his full-time work with AE.”

        “We”. Right. I don’t think that Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth broadcasts financial transparency reports. Why not?

        1. 911artists,

          You wrote: “It’s not. I never said it was. And you have no evidence that it is. Your question is not a question. It’s a form of argument that should not be used.”

          You never said it was, but that’s all you ever comment on. Evidence? It’s all you ever comment on. Not a question, an argument that shouldn’t be used? I have no idea what you’re talking about.

          To your second point, I don’t know, and I don’t especially care. I care about the evidence, not Richard Gage’s expense account. I can tell you one thing: I met him at the home of a local truther. This was where he was staying. A small, modest room in someone’s home. No hotel, no luxury.

      2. I meant that you stated a fallacy as a question in your argument. To me, this was improper. As far as the rest goes, let me think about what you said here a bit please. Thank you.

      3. “I don’t think that Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth broadcasts financial transparency reports. Why not?”

        Paul,

        AE911Truth is a non-profit organization, and the 990 forms of all non-profits are in the public domain. There is a website called guidestar.com. It’s free to register, but you do need to register. Then, you can search for any non-profit and from there, you can go to AE’s 990 form and see exactly what their total annual budget is, how much Gage made last year, how much Justin Keogh made, etc.

      4. Mr. McKee, you showed in your article that his word is no good. When you questioned him on it, he did not say that it was wrong to break his word and that he would make an effort to correct the error. He responded with a statement including these words beneath:

        Richard Gage said: “I’m a servant of the 9/11 Truth movement, ultimately.”

        Look, sir. Listen.

      5. Mr Syed, here is the 2010 Form 990 from AE911truth at guidestar.org:

        http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2010/261/532/2010-261532493-07c3d3aa-9.pdf

        It does not show where most of the money went at all. I think it shows total revenue at $434,526 with $288,893 of that listed as contributions, $416,220 spent on functional expenses, and $80,652 to Richard Gage in salary. Some examples:

        Quoting AE911truth 2010 990: “Other salary and wages – $35,250”

        Who did that money go to and for what work?

        Quoting AE911truth 2010 990: “Other – $27,305”

        Where exactly did that money go?

        Quoting AE911truth 2010 990: “Sales production – $97,551”

        Is someone getting paid to produce what is being sold there? If so, who?

        Their address according to guidestar.org is 3527 Mt Diablo Blvd 370 Lafayette, CA 94549. The address listed on their site now is 2342 Shattuck Ave., Suite 189 Berkeley, CA 94704. I Googled these two locations and I didn’t see anything about AE911truth but I saw there is a UPS Store at both locations. Are these addresses offices or mailboxes?

      6. Did you make an audio recording or something else of your conversation? Will you show the original so that your accuracy can be checked? Did Richard Gage know that he was being recorded and that you were going to broadcast it?

      7. Mr. McKee, since you are not answering my questions above I retract and apologize to Richard Gage for my comment five posts up:

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4258

        I was quoting Richard Gage from this article and I did not think then to check any further. At this time what I wrote appears to me to be a quote and commentary without proper support. Mr. McKee, I ask you to remove that one comment from your blog now please. Thank you.

        1. I’m aware of one question I didn’t get around to answering. No hidden reason; I just forgot to do it. You asked: “Did you make an audio recording or something else of your conversation? Will you show the original so that your accuracy can be checked? Did Richard Gage know that he was being recorded and that you were going to broadcast it?”

          What are you saying here? Because I didn’t provide you with details of how I gathered my facts, you can’t trust them? What are you insinuating?

          To answer your question about my interview:

          1) Yes, I did make an audio recording.

          2) No, I will not show the original so that my accuracy can be checked. That’s not how it’s done. Trying calling up Carl Bernstein at the Post and asking him if you can listen to recordings of his interviews. He’ll politely tell you to get lost. A reporter who misrepresents what a subject says, or misquotes, will cease to be trusted. You may notice that Mr. Gage has not written to complain of inaccuracies. He’s the one who would know.

          3) Yes, he knew he was being recorded.

          4) I am not going to broadcast it. But I could if I wanted. An on-the-record interview is just as the name implies. But I always tell a subject what I’m doing. I told him that was a print interview, not radio, not video.

          If you want a past comment removed, you’ll have to explain why.

  6. Richard said: “both sides of this argument are very convincing and very difficult”. That is untrue. The anti CIT argument is not convincing at all which is why the anti-CIT crowd will not debate the subject in the open. If the anti-CIT argument were actually convincing 911Blogger would not have to have done the mass purge to silence all the CIT supporters. In short, the anti-CIT argument is a load of crap.

    You have people like Brian Good above using JREF straw man arguments such as:

    “Since a real 757 has zero chance of escaping unnoticed, it’s natural to associate the flyover theory with “no planes” and hologram theories.”

    Look what happens if I change the context of Brians statement from the 757 at the pentagon to the explosives in the towers and tell me if JREF’ers do not use this exact same straw man argument against CD.

    “Since so many people placing explosives inside the towers have zero chance of escaping unnoticed, it’s natural to associate the controlled demolition idea with crack pot conspiracy theories.”

    Classic JREF straw man. Also Brian’s blanket statement about there being zero chance of the plane flying over unnoticed is a logical fallacy and an unsupported conjecture for a number of reasons. First because multiple people may have indeed seen the plane fly over and have simply not come forward to testify. Secondly it assumes wrongly, just as Jim Hoffman did, that all the people in the area had a clear unobstructed view of the area where the plane would have flown over. NOT TRUE. In fact very few viewpoints offer a view of that area because of the topography and visual obstructions present. Thirdly it ignores completely the single most important factor that explains why people could have missed the fly over. The giant explosion and fireball distraction which would have drawn peoples attention like a magnet.

    Now my blanket statement that “Brian Good uses disinformation tactics” however is based on multiple solid pieces of evidence.

    1. Adam, I am surprised that you have not learned by now what a straw mam argument is. A straw man argument is when you attribute to someone else an argument they are not making.

      The difference between a 757 escaping unnoticed and demolition charges being planted unnoticed is that demolition charges could be placed on vacant floors and in elevator hoistways in complete privacy. I was not aware that there were 757-sized elevator hoistways around the Pentagon, though JimD3100stein claims something along those lines.

      There is zero chance of a 757 flying away unobserved because every escape path is foreclosed upon. The plane can’t fly to the SE because that’s against the aircraft traffic pattern. It can’t fly E because that’s parallel to the Interstate bridge as it crosses the river, and it’s right over a golf course. It can’t fly NE or N because that trespasses on the Mall no-fly zone. The only possible escape path is to make a screaming hi-g 110 degree turn to the NW and fly away up the river,

      Your belief that a 757 could perform this turn that was visible from the marina, the golf course, the park, the interstate freeway, the airport, and the planespotters’ park and nobody reported it is unreasonable. You think the explosion distracted the people in the marina so they didn’t see the plane flying right over them?

  7. Sheldon, your demand that a fly-into plane create the damage that you claim was faked is not logical. You might as well claim that a north path fly-into plane is impossible because it’s inconsistent with the broken light poles.

    You can have bullet wounds and knife wounds. You can’t argue “since bullets can’t cause the knife wounds, therefore there was no bullet.”

    Also, nobody has ever put forth a plausible explanation for how the lightpoles could be faked.

    1. What you say makes no sense.
      I think you missed the point. The position of the plane (and the fact of the plane itself) is well established by credible witnesses who corroborate each other. Obviously, the plane collision with the Pentagon was a created illusion, of a piece with the downed light poles and the multiple explosions engineered to simulate the destruction caused by the plane. The impossibility of the plane actually causing the damage observed is established by the science of aerodynamics and the laws of motion. Once the plane is established on the north side of the Citgo inbound to the Pentagon, it is eliminated as the cause of the damage.

      Craig and Aldo pointed out that all the poles wound up on slopes that would have tended to mask them from observation from the road, except for the one implausibly embedded in the cab windshield and back seat, extending over but sparing the simonized hood. There is also the long scratch on the road bed that appears to have been made when it was dragged into position.

      And it’s Shelton, with a t.

      1. I’ve seen the claim made many times that the NOC plane can’t hit the building. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence that this is so. Normally the claim is accompanied by the bogus demand that the plane’s attitude and altitude match the 5 frames. It’s the usual silly demand that a real plane conform to evidence that you say was faked anyway. So when you want to say the plane flew over, the 5 frames were fake. But if somebody suggests the plane flew in, then the 5 frames are solid?

        If Craig and Aldo claim that the poles on the slopes were masked from the road, then they’re just wrong. The poles are on the slopes visible from the off ramp, from the onramp, and from westbound traffic.

        Why would the conspirators plant the lightpole evidence and then fly the plane in on a different flight path? Doesn’t it bother you that you can’t explain that?

    2. nobody has ever put forth a plausible explanation for how the lightpoles could be faked.

      Wild-ass speculation.

      Work could begin as soon as the September 10, 2001 evening rush hour was over and the sun had set. The task itself would not take all night long, so could be delayed such that completion was an hour or two before sunrise and the September 11, 2001 morning rush hour.

      Use a cherry-picker to attach a cable up high on a light pole. The other end of the cable is attached to a tow truck that pulls it over. Once the poles are on the ground, tools akin to a fireman’s jaws-of-life set to squeeze puts a crimp or two into the light poles or outright tears it into two to simulate where the wings hit. Of course, the jaws-of-life could crimp things from the cherry-picker as well, and would thereby have a nice notched area for the cable to rest in to facilitate the pull-down. Having the cable afixed higher up gives it more leverage on the base to bend & break its bolts. Up high is where the alleged wing impact force was applied, so is where the cable would need to be afixed.

      Most of the downed light poles can be left at the side of the road, in the grass, or dragged to their “throw down” positions (not on the road). Once the small crew had completed their task and were gone, traffic would hardly notice or care what rested there.

      Of course, a pole or two could be left standing with their crimps up high and with their bases rigged to fail on command so that they would fall into the road, mess with traffic, and eye-witness testimony.

      It would be easy to make or acquire bent or sheared bolts from light poles that had been damaged from other vehicle-versu-light-pole accidents. The light poles do not need 4 bolts to hold them in place for a day or two with known good weather; one or two would suffice. Therefore, a day or two before 9/11, one good bolt or three on some of the lamp posts could be substituted with bent salvaged bolts from other light pole damages. Only the remaining good bolt or two would need to be rigged to fail on command.

      Lloyd’s cab is another situation. According to his story, a full length light pole impaled his car. He and another man (from another car?) lifted it out. Yet his hood was undamaged, and a full-length pole would have been two heavy and unwieldy for just two people. More likely, it wasn’t a full-length pole, but a smaller fragment that two people could carry.

      1. Señor, it’s a hoot that you concentrate on the nuts and bolts of taking the poles down. That’s not the problem with creating a plausible lightpole-faking scenario. The problem is placing them on the cloverleaf slopes. The facile claim that they can be planted in the dark the night before is silly, because then they would be sitting there in the cloverleaf through the 8:00 am rush hour and the 9:00 a.m. rush hour and people would see them before the plane hit. So then you’ll claim that people are too dumb to notice. When I drive I am always on the lookout for the unexpected, and I would notice downed lightpoles in the cloverleaf.

      2. Mr. Good,

        Driving and being on the lookout for the unexpected and noticing such [e.g., downed light poles] is different than noting it as important or relevant and bringing it to the attention of others.

        Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and its slick video.

        Of the few morning rush hour drivers who might have noticed light poles on the ground, what importance are they going to make of this? What connection would they make with light poles allegedly hit by a plane that would allegedly hit the Pentagon shortly after their commute took them by? And if their commute took them regularly by the Pentagon, how distinct is their recollection going to be regarding what detail they saw when?

        My goodness, how many years went by before CIT did their interviews?

  8. “There’s so much disinformation, there’s so much misinformation”

    Yeah, and I can prove that those who “convinced” him are guilty of this.
    He actually believes that NPT is in the mix? No wonder he was easily “convinced”…Jesuus..

    Then of course we have this idiot, Brian Good, who as far as I know wasn’t allowed to post until he answered relevant questions on another of Craig’s blogs?

    “Sheldon, your demand that a fly-into plane create the damage that you claim was faked is not logical. You might as well claim that a north path fly-into plane is impossible because it’s inconsistent with the broken light poles.

    You can have bullet wounds and knife wounds. You can’t argue “since bullets can’t cause the knife wounds, therefore there was no bullet.”

    Also, nobody has ever put forth a plausible explanation for how the lightpoles could be faked.

    Brian Good”

    Brian “the extraordinary lightpole operation – 3 skyscrapers were brought down before our very eyes but how on EARTH did they manage to topple lightpoles whose removal wouldn’t have caught anybody’s eye in daylight hours” Good.

    Brian “the plane flew NOC and SOC and the damage is compatible with either trajectory, although all damage preceding impact proves inside job, I don’t give a rat’s ass” Good.

    Brian “myself and Chris Sarns decided from the outset to accept the NOC evidence as valid but we would push for impact anyway regardless, though push for the equal validity of OCT path witnesses whose testimony falls apart on closer inspection” Good.

    Been there, done that.

    For Christ sake. Why is this lunatic here? Did he answer those questions on the other blog? If he did, I apologize. If he did, can somebody please link me to them? Cheers.

  9. OSS, the question is not “how did they topple the lightpoles?” The question is “how did they plant them unobserved?” You guys are still struggling with basic logic, I see. And the answer to the question is “they didn’t because they can’t”.

    1. This argument, Brian, is rubbish. I’m frankly tired of reading it from you. You think people will start screaming foul when they see a pole lying on the ground? In fact, I’m tired of reading all your arguments. Highly credible eyewitness accounts place the plane on the north side of the gas station. If this is correct, it could not have hit the poles. Simple.

  10. “When I drive I am always on the lookout for the unexpected, and I would notice downed lightpoles in the cloverleaf”

    Brian “eagle eye” Good, which of these poles specifically wouldn’t escape those beady eyes?

    Lightpole 1?

    Lloyd England allegedly had one through his CAR and is apparently “confused” as to where he actually was.

    Lightpole 2?

    Hidden down the embankment behind the bridge?

    Lightpoles 3, 4 and 5?

    4 and 5 laying neatly below the field of vision orbehind a matallic barrier?

    Lightpole 3 on a clover leaf road used for people who want to drive off of Route 27 to get on to Columbia Pike?

    Would you notice in this traffic?

    Can you see the traffic using this clover leaf in the minutes leading up to the explosion?

    Okay….

    Brian “I demand specifics on one of the four black ops carried out on 9/11 although I will ignore the observations recorded by CIT” Good.

    Brian “the extraordinary lightpole operation – 3 skyscrapers were brought down before our very eyes but how on EARTH did they manage to topple lightpoles whose removal wouldn’t have caught anybody’s eye in daylight hours” Good.

    Brian “the plane flew NOC AND SOC and the damage is compatible with either trajectory, although all damage preceding impact proves inside job, I don’t give a rat’s ass” Good.

    Brian “myself and Chris Sarns decided from the outset to accept the NOC evidence as valid but we would push for impact anyway regardless, though push for the equal validity of OCT path witnesses whose testimony falls apart on closer inspection” Good.

    Been there, done that.

    For Christ sake. Why is this lunatic here? Did he answer those questions on the other blog? If he did, I apologize. If he did, can somebody please link me to them? Cheers.

    1. Oneslice, 3 of the lightpoles were very conspicuous on grassy slopes and visible from the offramp, the onramp, and westbound on the pike. Your claim that they were “hidden” and “behind barriers” is ridiculous. You are restricting your witnesses to a viewpoint on highway 27.
      I can’t believe you guys after all these years are still so out of touch with the facts.

      1. Brian “I’ll ignore sourced, relevant facts and information provided just 2 or 3 posts up and troll this blog with lazy, illogical, irrelevant ramblings” Good.

        Let’s put this another way. You claim that people should have seen those lightpoles on the ground, Shown in my post above (there was one car driving through the ringroad in the “5 frames” video – there was NO view of these areas from those traffic filled lanes). No matter.

        Answer me this. Lloyd England allegedly had a lightpole protruding over 20ft out of his cab for 6 or 7 minutes. Nobody is on record as seeing this.

        Yet you defend his story. Now which spectacle are people going to take notice of more? Lloyd’s cab or obscurely placed lightpoles beside an area that was under renovation?

        Why do you not accept the observations on record of witnesses who place the aircraft nowgere near these poles?

        You’re placing more weight on what people “should have seen” (badly Imight add) and dismissing what people ACTUALLY said.

        Welcome to the Good Roadshow. Let’s all drop debate and thought out posts and entertain Brian Good and his wacky ramblings…

  11. Gage just said to McKee, “I actually don’t have an opinion on whether the plane flew over the building or went into it.” However in his “withdrawal” he can be quoted saying, “The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon” and the shady attack articles he recommends overwhelmingly argue for a plane impact.

    Now he’s going so far as to imply that the “no plane” argument has something to do with this discussion? The only way he could do such a thing is if he didn’t bother to read the content in the withdrawal he signed off on (let alone write it). The truth is that he has very strongly promoted disinformation articles that categorically argue for a plane impact but here he is yet again flip-flopping in this interview by pretending like he is agnostic on the topic (as if he didn’t read any of the articles he recommended either). He is not being truthful.

    1. I think he did pretty well, considering. When it comes to this material it’s not easy to be both truthful and nice.

    2. So the Monty Python skit, “This is not an argument” is going to roll again…
      Fabulous As Bingham is purported to have said: “Let’s roll”

      ww

  12. “most 9/11 truthers have no problem accepting the idea that no 757 ever hit the building. It is just a few who seem to feel attacking CIT is the best way to move forward”

    Craig,
    this is inaccurate. I believe it is more likely than not that a plane hit the pentagon and it has nothing whatsoever to do with CIT, nor do I attack them.

    I also support Richard Gage in his decision to remove his recommendation for CIT’s NSA and its conclusions. I appreciate the pressure that he must receive from both sides of this debate … of which infiltration on both sides so as to stir up hostile division is very likely.

    I would ask that all on both sides review all the evidence without passion and let every person come to their own opinion on it. The ‘dividers’ will be obvious to all by their unnecessarily hostile divisive tactics.

    1. Greg,

      I think you must be the exception, then. I’m tempted to ask you why you think a 757 did hit. Whether or not you attack CIT or not, it seems to me that you have to come to terms with their findings, which indicate very convincingly that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station and therefore could not have knocked over the light poles – or caused the “exit” hole we see in the middle Pentagon ring.

      1. Aldo Marquis contacted me shortly before the PentaCon webpage was put up. He told me of the Citizens Investigation Team which had just been to DC to question witnesses in follow-up of the fly-over thesis. He told me that my findings had been independently corroborated by new witnesses and with confirmation of one of my own witness sources, Sgt William LaGasse. Also told me this was vindication of my position. This was great news, but then I learned the bad news. The CIT were adding to their findings a different conclusion. Whereas I had the Boeing flying north of the Citgo station on its way from the west towards the west wall of the Pentagon where it could not have hit the first lamppost which was actually south of the gas station – which hit I explained by a killer object under 50 feet in length and with a tail fin similar to that of a jet fighter – I said that F-16 outfitted for remote control warfare would fit the known data, but that it could also have been a missile etc. How disappointed I was to learn that CIT were denying any killer object coming from the air and hitting the building. They chose it say that the lampposts were downed by other means as so much false evidence, to leave a false trail of physical damage — which included making a hole in the fence and making the groove on top of the generator. Why in the heck would they add of of those improbables after supplying exactly the proof that was needed of the thesis that did account for all of those events along the damage trail? Richard Gage Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashely, Legge, Gregg Roberts, Chandler and Hill urge arguments against CIT that do not apply to the earlier theory they were seeking to confirm or disprove. I should add that CIT also differ from my thesis in another respect. My jetliner has American Airlines Livery – because that is what witnesses who saw the Boeing coming directly over the Naval Annex said they saw. Unlike CIT I state that some of the witnesses claimed to have seen the plane crash. I did not contradict those witnesses – but I explained how when the mind was filled with the WTC towers crashes and when one sees a large Boeing jetliner headed for a building and then sees the building explode with a bright white flash — as attested to by the security camera video pictures — and then the absense of the plane — the mind will “see” the crash – even a crash that did not happen – because the brain must make sense of the situation in an emergency so it makes up the simplest explanation that fits what was seen. The psychology term for this is anchoring. It is very powerful as can be shown in laboratory tests. Having completed post graduate studies in experimental psychology I can assure you that it is real. Google anchoring and the name Amos Tvarsky.

        By the way, the first to say that the Pentagon evidence should be ignored were Mike Ruppert, Carol Brouillet, John Judge and Mark Robinowitz view. They argued with other “truthers” that to claim that that no Boeing hit the Pentagon would “alienate people inside the beltway, and make us look foolish among D.C. professionals.” The argument largely worked. And others have played that note all the way up to the conversion of Richard Gage. There are many things that are not well known. For example, Howard Cohen has paid Griffin for the movie rights to Griffin’s books. Both Griffin and Gage are involved as consultants in Cohen’s fictionalized docu-drama. Cohen send out this offer: [Begin quote]”I have attached the script for your review.
        Please write or call me so we can discuss a role for you (in front or behind the camera) in what will become the 9/11 Truth Movement’s “Weapon of Mass Instruction” – based on the books of David Ray Griffin and supported by research and evidence provided by the leading 9/11 truth advocates and truth groups – including the nano-thermite team.” But there are no “laughing Israelis” in this version. In Cohen’s new script, Bush and Cheney cook up the plan themselves. [End quote.]
        In another letter Cohen writes:

        Howard Cohen also writes:

        …you’ve heard the expression. It means that when the reigning monarch of a country dies a new one is immediately named to replace him/her in power.

        Such was the case with our feature film, “A Violation of Trust”.

        Shortly after the January “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” newsletter featured a story about our proposed film I was contacted by what I can only call a “Hollywood bottom-feeder” who informed me that he had gotten hold of a copy of our script and “copyrighted our script” without our knowledge and definitely without our permission.

        He was trying to use that copyright registration to extort money from us. Several attorneys informed me that while this is both illegal and unethical, it’s not the first time this has happened in Hollywood.

        Faced with lengthy and expensive legal procedures to reverse this illegal copyright, we were advised to close down production of the film based upon the illegally copyrighted script. That’s what we did…..

        …..and then immediately turned this negative into a positive – by having an entirely new script written that presents an even more provocative and captivating film opportunity. A new script for a completely new feature film that touches the human side of this tragedy – making it an even “greater value” to the public – exposing not only the lies about the official account of that day, but the consequences of those lies (such as the false pretenses for the illegal invasion of Afghanistan) – which brings the movie into the current political, social and economic climate we are all suffering through as a result of whatever really happened on 9/11.

        For example:

        Charges of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (re: the Bush administration) addressed in our new film:

        1. Waging a war of aggression against Afghanistan and the Afghan people (President Bush said it was in self-defense – but our script proves it wasn’t);
        2. War Crimes committed against the people of Afghanistan by the use of weapons of mass destruction that make no distinction between civilians and the enemy. That cause unnecessary injuries and suffering (fuel-air bombs, cluster bombs and munitions containing radioactive depleted uranium – all illegal under international humanitarian laws);
        3. Crimes against Humanity in respect of the depleted uranium weapons used on the people of Afghanistan to exterminate the population and for the crime of “Omnicide” the extermination of life, contamination of air, water and food resources and the irreversible alteration of the genetic code of all living organisms including plant life as a direct consequence of the use of radioactive munitions in Afghanistan affecting countries in the entire region;
        4. Crimes against Humanity for exposing soldiers and other personnel of the United States and other soldiers of coalition forces to radioactive contamination by the use of DU weapons, hazarding their lives, their physiology, and that of their future progeny by irreversible alteration of the genetic code.
        5. DITTO FOR IRAQ!
        PLEASE CLICK and GO TO:

        AA911Truth.com

        Scroll down about a third of the way on the home page. Look for “Trickery and Treachery” (our new film’s title).
        Thank you.
        Howard Cohen

        Both Gage and Griffin have failed to respond to my writings — although Griffin’s first book devoted half of the Pentagon chapter to the flyover thesis, giving me more index references than Condoleza Rice — but both have indicated that they do not want to be involved in identifying who committed the crime, just in determining how it was done.

        I write to tell you that Gage and Griffin know that the weaknesses of the CIT thesis that no flying object at all struck the Pentagon, that it was all pre-planted bombs do not apply to the earlier thesis that the Citizens Investigation Team initially set out to test.

        You talk about investigators being excluded — Jim Hoffman has been running away from defending his turn-around — he once supported the fly-over thesis — and did so knowing all of the facts that he later decided prohibit endorsement of the thesis.

        I think Gage and Griffin have compromised themselves making this limited hangout fictionalized movie that Cohen isthat Cohen was going to call “Violation of Trust” — but after Griffin and Gage signed on – he – pretended? – to have legal difficulties over copyright ownership and so had to switch to a different script and title, the new one being “Trickery and Treachery” – which sounds like something Webfairy, Fetzer and Nico Haupt would come up with. I have a 9-11 Pentagon video – cheaply made but with all of the relevant photo evidence — see

        One last thing. I was sending Griffin, Gage and Cohen letters discussing the Pentagon attack when I received this from Cohen:

        “The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement. ” — Richard Gage

        from John Judge, expert researcher in the Washington DC area:

        Families of victims and others who work at the airlines, as well as many witnesses I have spoken to, are offended and shocked by these unfounded speculations. Those willing to do a modicum of investigative work here in DC will be quickly disabused of this disinformation. For a more thorough presentation of the range of witness testimonies, and linking sites, see the work on Flight 77 and the Pentagon attack by Penny Schoner at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentaToC.html

        ——————————————————————————–

        From: Howard Cohen
        To: oldickeastman@q.com, Peter Wakefield Sault
        Cc: Anthony Lawson , Susan Clarke , Carol Brouillet , Gilad Atzmon , 9-11 NeXuS , galen
        Sent: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:33:55 -0400 (EDT)
        Subject: Re: Dear Dick… Re: 9-11 truth must not be pursued except in a permanent spirit of prior blanket forgiveness – lest discovery bring more …

        Please remove my name and the names of David Griffin and
        Richard Gage from these emails you are sending around. I have
        removed them from this one already but would appreciate
        your removing them for the future.

        —-

        ——————————————————————————–

        From: Carol Brouillet
        To: galen , KenJenkins@aol.com
        Cc: galen , Peter Wakefield Sault , Lawrence Gerald lawrencegerald33@yahoo.com
        Sent: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:43:01 -0400 (EDT)
        Subject: Re: 9/11 Truth Film Festival 2012

        Galen,

        There is no unanimity over the Pentagon within the Northern California
        9/11 Truth Alliance, it is still a divisive issue. We did vote to table
        Christopher Bollyn’s new Solving 9/11 at our events, including the Film
        Festival. I don’t think our speakers have been asked to pass a
        litmus test enabling them to speak, but this is the lineup for this
        year’s festival.

        Carol

    2. @Greg

      ” of which infiltration on both sides so as to stir up hostile division is very likely.”

      I can only say that the proof is in the pudding. CIT are in no position to launch attacks on those who have taken control of “truther sites” or who have manouevred themselves into positions to fill so called Truthleaders’ heads with proven lies and egoistic, personal reasons.

      I CAN say that those who openly defend the NOC evodence are as good as their word. CIT’s work is there for anybody to scrutinize. They deal in substantiated facts and on the ground interviews with people who were there the morning of 9/11. They presented the results and drew the only possible conclusion based on the only independent verifiable evidence available to us. Nothing more.

      That there are witnesses who claim to have seen an alleged impact has never been hidden. But for detractors to lie and exaggerate. To use alleged government controlled “evidence” and “fill in the blanks” as per the alleged FDR data (which still doesn’t add up to impact) instead of demanding answers from the NTSB or FBI. Censorship. Making fraudulent claims and character assassinations on sites, or on radio interviews where CIT can’t defend themselves.

      THOSE are the traits of people trying to “stir up hostile division”.

      Now you just need to search for where CIT have been guilty of the same thing for your comment to have any validity.

    3. Greg said: “The ‘dividers’ will be obvious to all by their unnecessarily hostile divisive tactics.”

      Quite true Greg and now Richard Gage has in fact admitted guilt as being the “divider” on this issue. Clearly there is nothing divisive about him offering his initial support. The only divisiveness involved came from his withdrawal statement that he apparently signed his name to without bothering to read as his statements to McKee indicate. The withdrawal statement is mutually exclusive with this: “I actually don’t have an opinion on whether the plane flew over the building or went into it.”

      Since his initial statement of support did not take a stance on this at all (and he even went so far as to “clarify” this in a later statement as McKee has outlined in this article) then his “hostile” and admittedly “divisive” withdrawal was entirely unnecessary.

  13. larry27 says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:20 pm
    It is this type of reactionary lunacy that pisses me off, guys like you larry27, who can take an obviously neutral conciliatory statement by Gage and turn it in to a “hostile” attack. If you consider Gage’s remarks hostile, you ought to read my mind right now. And you’ll have to pick those thoughts up in the ozone, because I’m pretty sure Mr. McKee wouldn’t publish them.~ww

    1. hybridrogue1,

      I was not referring to his interview with McKee as being hostile. I was referring to his ” complete withdrawal of support” from 2011 in which he attacked CIT’s “methods” and promoted other attacks based on false claims that had already been addressed. That most certainly was “hostile” and even Gage himself just admitted that it was a “disruptive”. It seems as though you haven’t even read it let alone the response:
      http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/2/CIT-responds-To-An-E-mail-Re-Richard-Gages-recent-Withdrawal-of-Support-statement.html

      1. Alright Larry27,

        As you will. I didn’t get it how you could draw that from what we see here. So, maybe you’re just a leetle bit poopy…{gin}

        Whatever…I think we all get tweaked over different things, and I’m not going to charge around the web for every little thing. So I will hold nice neutral thoughts of you and the waters calm, and today’s another day.

        Carry on.

        ww

  14. Thanks for a good article, Craig! Thanks also to all the CIT/Truth supporters in the comments- the usual suspects🙂 I just want to point out that Richard initially made the correct call all by himself. It wasn’t until massive pressure was applied that he made the mistake of retracting. However, given that the attack on the “Pentagon Controversy” is obviously “cognitive infiltration” or a divide and conquer strategy, I think it would have been best if he had only given private encouragement and not gone public with it. The focus on WTC demolition is incredibly sensible and I fully support Richard for now sticking to it, and wish he had all along. But, now that the damage has been done, I’m happy that he has done this interview to help steady the ship somewhat. I’d also like to point out that the function of the contrived “controversy” is to get us fighting amongst ourselves and to waste time and effort. I don’t see how these endless arguments bring us any closer to justice- our ultimate goal. I appreciate the need and desire to challenge disinformation and identify potential agents, but endless discussion of obvious matters does seem counterproductive, which is why I don’t get involved in them. Prior to the disinfo campaign, there was no controversy. Everyone agreed that no plane struck the Pentagon. CIT shows up with very solid evidence and good gum shoe work that does nothing but fill in the details a bit and suddenly there’s a huge, divisive controversy. It’s a pretty obvious situation to me. This link is one of my favorites on magic and is posted for Shelton Lankford.

    It’s a real shame that Penn and Teller have been so anti-9/11Truth, likewise many others who are well versed in deception, Myth Busters, etc. Hopefully, people like these will be coming around and speaking out. I think that celebrities, movies like Experts Speak Out, media breakthroughs and the like will have more to do with turning the tide than endless internet arguments.

    I am deeply grateful for everyone’s honest efforts and I think it’s very likely that these efforts have prevented very bad things from happening. Thank you!

    1. Thanks, Michael. Glad to have your comments here. And you’re right, that initial endorsement was the not the result of outside pressure, but the withdrawal certainly was.

    1. Enver (I assume),

      I appreciate your work immensely, and also your sentiments… however, I get frustrated when I see people characterizing it as “believ[ing] CIT,” which puts the spotlight on the researchers, rather than the eyewitnesses to the event. The question should be: Do you believe the North of Citgo witnesses, or not? Even the most ardent CIT detractors like Jim Hoffman and Arabesque agree that NoC =/= Impact. So, are the witnesses all lying or all coincidentally wrong in the same way?

      But I agree with you that even without the NoC evidence there is ample evidence that the OCT is BS. For me, the NoC evidence was the cherry on top.

      1. Exactly, Adam.

        My personal thoughts are that many people like Gage want to appear as 9/11 truthers, but in fact immerse themselves in ideas and research that are most likely never going to get them or us anywhere. Harmless ( to the Govt) running around in circles forever dead ends.
        In other words, they are intent on making sure what they do wont make 9/11 and its perpetrators ever have to swing by their necks, which is what they deserve.

        The fact is, the Pentagon( and Cit’s work there) provide the by far most legitimate, clearcut, evidence of a false flag government ran operation.

        Its in that way a true litmus test of 9/11 truth. IMO, 9/11 Blogger, Gage, Ryan,Legge and a bunch of others are disinfo. The fact something could come( in a courtroom) out of the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon scares the Govt. Loyalists and is why they are scared to death of the cut and dried evidence, and try and stay far away from it by attacking and marginalizing this evidence.
        In short, anybody who is against CIT, i flat dont trust

    2. Great article Wisdom Fund. The NIST building assessment and the Arlington publication are new to me.
      Food for some deep contemplation.

      Thanks, ww

    3. And what if the government is feeding you disinfo to encourage you to engage in unproductive and even self-discrediting activities?

      1. I am assuming Brian, that you are addressing me. I don’t know, is that what you are doing?

        Let’s face it, the NIST Report on the towers had a lot of good science in the body of it, it was the spin of the ‘conclusions’ and the obvious tweaking of the modeling software input that was the disinfo, especially their admission that they didn’t actually model the “global collapse”, but left off at the point of “initiation”, or “poised” is another term used. This is unlawful by the way, the mandate the came with the funding was to explain why the towers suffered global collapse – NIST didn’t. Those responsible are culpable for prosecution.

        So accepting credible reports is one thing, analyzing their subtext and spin is another. In other words, it is inevitable to prove yourself wrong, if you are wrong. That seems what NIST has done in all of the reports they issued on the 9/11 case.

        ww

    4. Hi TWF,

      I also was at your presentation in DC in 2009, with Mike Cook. I admire your research also, and agree that the govt’s own evidence contradicts its “theory.”

      Where I get frustrated is when I see people framing the issue as “believing CIT.” This puts the focus on the researchers and not the witnesses. The issue should be about whether you believe the witnesses in where they place the plane.

      1. Adam, since none of the witnesses saw a flyover, it really is a question of “believing CIT”. It’s unfortunate that they framed the issue in terms of flyover as they did, because that does distract from the witness testimony.

  15. I’ve done the research, and I agree with you, Wisdom Fund. I saw your presentation in DC in 09. CIT has just been a lighting rod, a focus of the attacks, which also cover other parts of the Pentagon situation.

  16. A few thoughts from me:

    First, my dear friend Michael Cook and I were chatting the other night, and he made a point worth repeating here. Both the uproar w/r to CIT and the uproar Richard/Ryan speaking at the Louis Farrakhan Nation of Islam event have something significant in common. Both instances have been ones of huge reverberation and backlash purely within the 9/11 truth movement, but of absolutely none outside the movement. I have not seen any mainstream media hit pieces going after Gage either for speaking at NOI or for supporting CIT. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen any MSM hit pieces attacking CIT or the flyover. I often see hit pieces that say: “These people believe the buildings were blown up, or that a missile hit the Pentagon.” Ironic, eh? Similarly, two years ago, Yours Truly wrote a favorable 5-star book review on Amazon (under my “kameelyun” moniker) for a book called “Debating the Holocaust.” Though the book disputes specific aspects of the holocaust, it certainly does not “deny” its occurrence, yet for that review I invoked the ire of a bunch of “cred cops” within the movement… people like Chris Sarns (who referred to me as “psyops”), Jon Gold, zombie bill hicks, snowcrash and others. But I have yet to see Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck or Piers Morgan do a hit piece on 9/11 truth and point to Adam Syed’s Amazon review of Dalton’s book as “proof” that “those truthers are like the whackos who say the holocaust never happened.” Incidentally, the book doesn’t “deny” the holocaust and neither does my review. I only bring this up to prove your point, Craig, about the “cautious” route. I speak truth wherever it leads, popularity be damned.

    Some other thoughts:

    At least one other person here has pointed out how Gage’s comments to McKee were indicative of the possibility that he didn’t even know what his withdrawal statement was actually saying (i.e. didn’t fully read it), and that his current statement that he has no opinion either way w/r to whether a 757 hit is incompatible with his withdrawal statement, which forcefully promotes the OCT of plane impact. I watched NSA again the other night, and there is no way that Richard, if he really watched the whole thing, could be “surprised” to later learn that the witnesses say the plane hit. Ranke makes this perfectly clear in the film.

    Some have criticized CIT for promoting the flyover conclusion so boldly, rather than simply pointing out how the witnesses contradict the OCT, and letting the viewer make up their own mind. But, I’ve scratched my head and thought about it a lot, and I can’t figure any other scenario which reconciles the physical damage with the witness’ flight path. Craig Ranke and I once talked about strategy on this point. I said to him: What if you hadn’t promoted the flyover in your videos, but simply pointed out how the witness’ path contradicts the official damage path, and let the viewers form their own conclusion? Wouldn’t that have given your critics less ammo to use against you, since they fixate on the flyover conclusion (to the point of ignoring the light pole anomalies)? I think that’s a valid point, but Craig’s retort to me was equally valid. He said: Yeah, that’s like pointing out the squibs, and the molten metal, and the freefall, but then, for the sake of being ‘politically correct,’ stopping short of firmly endorsing the controlled demolition conclusion, and simply saying: “You, the viewer, can make up your mind.” In other words, pussyfooting around the issue in order to not look like a conspiracy theorist.

    Adam Ruff is correct to call out Richard for his comment about both sides of the argument being equally convincing. To the contrary, Barrie Zwicker said: “…the arguments of CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable, in fact, as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.”

    What bothers me about Richard’s reluctance to accept the “magic show” concept, that the witnesses were deceived, is that the exact same scenario applies to the WTC. People were DECEIVED into believing the planes and fires caused all the damage, including some people who were on the scene and quoted in Loose Change.

    Great job once again Craig.

  17. Excellent write up Craig. I thought it was a very fair and balanced the way you handled the issue (and I don’t mean “fair and balanced” in the Orwellian way the Fox News defines it🙂 ).

    Adam, you bring up some very interesting points. I agree with you that the truth movement should not be overly cautious in pursuing the truth to the point where they worry too much about how the mainstream media and the public will judge them. It’s also interesting to look at how in so many cases the supposed allies within the truth movement who seemed to be overly focused on PR have been way more critical and hostile towards their fellow truth advocates than the msm and those outside the movement. The self-appointed truth movement police (particularly those led by the gang currently dominating 911Blogger and TruthAction.org) need to chill out and stop being so incredibly divisive and overly critical towards their fellow truth advocates. It’s pretty obvious that this group has often done more damage to the movement from within than the professed enemies of the movement have done from the outside (which also begs the question of whether they are really on our side or Cass Sunstein’s side).

    In the realm of science, the word “proof” is a very strong statement with a very tough standard to meet. Things that have only 99.9% probability of being true don’t even meet the standard of “proof”. I have been a long time supporter of CIT’s research efforts and agree with their conclusions for the most part. I will say, though, that the CIT crew’s absolute insistence that people must fall inline with their assertion that the eyewitness testimony “proves” a flyover or expect to be brow beaten and harshly criticized has been a tactical mistake that allowed would-be dividers and disrupters (led by Jim Hoffman and his partner Victoria Ashley) to successfully hijack the debate over the Pentagon and create a straw man.

    Physical evidence (as long as it is not planted or tampered with) trumps eye-witness testimony in science and in criminal justice detective work. Although many people in the movement are not aware of it, CIT has done excellent and extensive research in the physical evidence aspect of the Pentagon attack on 9/11 that absolutely disproves the OCT. The physical evidence (that can be independently verified) does not lie. The physical evidence proves that there was no crash of a large airliner that day at the Pentagon. Because of the confiscation of videos and other cover-up efforts by the perps, however, there is insufficient physical evidence to prove what DID happen. So naturally the CIT crew had to rely on eye-witness testimony to try and fill in the gaps in order to ascertain what actually happened. By examining all of the eye-witness testimony and then attempting to verify and confirm what people were able to see, they have made a very compelling case that the perps performed a magic show that tricked many people into believing that the plane hit the Pentagon when it actually flew over the building. I agree that this is the most probable scenario. However, technically speaking, a flyover has not yet been proven because it relies purely on eyewitness testimony that has been interpreted, which is a secondary, lower quality type of evidence. Eye-witness testimony is problematic because humans are so fallible and can be so easily confused and tricked (in fact CIT’s flyover theory ironically makes the case for the fallibility of eyewitness testimony since it is based on so many people apparently being fooled to not see what their eyes saw), can forget, can lie, and be plants, etc.

    Had CIT utilized a PR strategy in which they led with their physical evidence that simply disproves that AA77 crashed there, without insisting the people agree that flyover has been proven, I believe they would have been less marginalized. Just changing a few words, I believe, would have made a huge difference in their PR strategy. Scientifically speaking, the flyover theory is very compelling, but it has not yet been “proven”. Had they been more technically accurate on this, I believe that it would have been much easier to create consensus on the Pentagon issue and the attackers would have had a harder time marginalizing CIT.

  18. The moral of the story is …. don’t take on any part of 9/11 unless you really (and I mean really) research it or you will fall into all of the traps laid along the way.

    The NoC evidence stands all really well – especially when you try to find contrary witness evidence on the flightpath.

  19. I’d like to offer a heartfelt thanks to posters Hybridrogue1 and Brian Good. Their pathetic “counterarguments”, avoidance and denial on this and the “Hollywood” blog against the NOC evidence sum up more glaringly than I could ever explain, just how weak and illogical the claim is that there are “two sides of the debate”.

    Thank you. 

    On the other hand, the tactics of obfuscation, circular logic and basic taking piss out of and insulting the intelligence of genuine truthseekers posting here is more apt on the JREF forum and unfairly pins the tag of “quagmire” on anything Pentagon research related.

    Craig, we saw last time what happened when the likes of Good was forced to address points raised and not permitted to dance his way round honest debate. He either ran away or the posts that ignored the points raised were blocked. It’s the first time I’ve seen the guy post here in months!

    Here are just some of the points raised that Good has danced around.

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2720

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2746

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2747

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2754

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2759

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2765

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2778

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2783

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2766

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/breaking-the-back-of-the-official-story-911-consensus-panel-cant-be-timid/#comment-2779

    any chance Good?

    1. Hmmm OSS,

      Your dogmatic, hard core attitudes remind me of another guy…

      “You’re either with us, or your against us.” ~ George Bush

      [Note:slightly paraphrased]

      ww

      1. You know Brian,

        I haven’t said much to you. But I have to agree with others here. A lot of the crap you posted here is just stupid. You lead with suppositions, and never seem to land anywhere firm.

        I think it’s pretty clear that those with the North-side argument understand that these witnesses are pretty weak. I was somewhat familiar with this aspect, and that is one of the reasons I got tweaked with OSS on the thread before this, I had asked over and over for him {or someone} to name these witnesses. There are two, and yea, one is second hand. But what tightened my jaw was that I knew OSS was stalling through almost the whole thread…so I started giving him the raz.

        But really, considering the method used in this little magic act, it shouldn’t be too surprising to find that the majority of the audience were taken in, in fact most of those with the POV to see the approach would have practically no way to tell when the plane went into the smoke screen.

        Now I am saying this now, with my foot on the strong probability factor for the flyover. Much of the reason I have been unwilling to speak to this earlier is – I will not concede to anything with a allegorical gun to my head. And I hope there is a larger lesson in this for all concerned.

        ww

    2. Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

      Just wanted to express to you kudos for the detailed links and references that you post. I acknowledge the nuggets of truth from CIT’s flyover, as well.

      The tag-teaming A-Team of the NSA Q Group seems to be active here, as would be expected given the high quality of Mr. McKee’s articles and blog moderation, as well as the themes that we respectfully and intelligently try to address in the discussion. The agents here are clearly more talented than the hit-and-run bots of yesteryear.

      The perspective you should keep in mind is to write for the readers and latter-day-lurkers, whereby postings from others gives you the opportunity to enlighten the masses more.

      Remember that a useful debate tactic is sometimes to ignore or to not respond directly.

      1. @Senor (and indirectly to Keenan)

        Thanks.

        I guess I fell (and usually do) into the trap of slapping the keyboard without taking “a wee walk” first and this tactic is also mentioned in this very informative link that should be read by all truthseekers

        http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

        18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

        Example: “You are such an idiot to think that possible — or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the ‘gubment’ is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.” After a drawing an emotional response: “Ohhh… I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What’s the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help…”

        Keenan, I personally don’t demand that people accept the flyover but I can’t stand illogical, unfounded nonsense from the likes of Good or Sarns. Or the OCT hugging condascending ramblings and lies of the “Legge camp”.

        In fact, I’d be content if people said that they can’t accept a flyover but that they accept the validity of the NOC testimony. Problem is, both are incompatible, so I personally (I’m not CIT) can’t leave that conclusion hanging. And there’s been a concerted effort both by tptb and entities like Good to claim that impact is possible from NOC. To mix the NOC evidence in with the “official data”.

        I said in a previous post that one possible solution would be to accept that based on the dearth and blanket censorship of the Pentagon op (plane part identification, the Citgo camera stolen by the FBI, sequestered 911 calls, etc), the multiple witnessed NOC flightpath, the contradictory and register number void FDR data and the alleged damage to the building itself vis-a-vis an alleged Boeing 757 entering the first floor of a reinforced building, that the stance should be that no plane hit the Pentagon (I mean, just looking at that partial list – I haven’t even mentioned the EOP flightpath – how could a genuine truthseeker not reject the official impact story?)

        It could save face or make some space for those who genuinely can’t accept flyover without sticking their hands in the air and crying “quagmire”. It would also pull the rug from under the feet of those at 911Blogger and TruthAction who prefer the antagonism and sticking to outdated disinfo.

  20. We have to all remember the supporting evidence that proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon…

    – The supposed Flight 77 black box data doesn’t support an impact.

    – The official south of gas station path is irreconcilable with the official story impact due to obstacles and the decline in topography.

    – The plane actually approached north of the pentagon, crossing over to the east side of the Potomac and into DC skies, before looping back around toward the Pentagon. The official NTSB and RADES radar data shows a loop far to the SW of the pentagon. ATC and ground and FAA witnesses confirm this.

    1. The supposed Flight 77 black box data doesn’t support a flyover, either,

      Actually, the official path is not at all impossible. Rob Balsamo over-estimated the pull-up g-force by a factor of ten, and he instituted an arbitrary demand that all the pull-up take place at one spot instead of a perfectly practical gradual pullup.

      1. Hi Brian,

        This an absolute lie on your part. But as many people paying attention already know, this is what you do.

        There is nothing arbitrary about it. It’s the NTSB data + obstacles/topography decline.
        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

        Here’s their own animation, showing the plane’s flight path being incompatible with the impact.

        It’s their data. I’m sure most people can study the very serious issues surrounding it without an anonymous, provocateur trying to dissuade them.

        Can you show us how the plane approached and hit the light poles on the south path, Brian?

        Also, why are you ignoring that the plane flew into DC airspace and they altered radar and the alleged black box data? This is well documented.

      2. “Brian Good says:
        April 17, 2012 at 2:46 pm
        The supposed Flight 77 black box data doesn’t support a flyover, either,”

        “The screenshot below shows the very last frame of the recorded data. Its stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepency is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet according to Google Earth. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue.

        Rob Balsamo”

        I think the NTSB released data can’t show anything but a flyover…480ft ASL 1 second before the Pentagon?

  21. What I do not understand is how there can be any debate about the official account, when it is not even aerodynamically or physically possible. As Nila explained to me long ago, at the speed that the government attributes to Flight 77 of over 500 mph, it could not have flown closer than 60-80′ above the ground and therefore could not have hit any lampposts. As he is quoted above, even its engines resting on the lawn would leave the wings some 20′ above the ground. Think about it.

    Moreover, a plane hitting stationary lampposts at 500 mph would have the same effects as those lampposts traveling 500 mph hitting a stationary plane: its wing would have been ripped off, the fuel stored in the wing would have burst into flame, it would have lost its tail and trajectory and no doubt cartwheeled into the ground–but the lawn is clear, smooth and unblemished. I suggest any serious student read “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery” and related articles on Veterans Today.

    1. Jim Fetzer claims that:

      ”..same effects as those lampposts traveling 500 mph hitting a stationary plane: its wing would have been ripped off..”

      I have heard this assertion before, and I don’t buy it. There is the whole issue of weight – coupled with inertia. You cannot simply reverse the scenario as stated above. It is not the same physics as a bat and a ball. The overall weight of the plane and the forward momentum is the core factors in this equation.

      I am not saying that a plane DID knock down the light poles, but I am saying that it COULD have as a physical reality.

      ww

      1. Dr. Fetzer wrote:

        …same effects as those lampposts traveling 500 mph hitting a stationary plane: its wing would have been ripped off.

        Mr. HybridRogue1 replied:

        I have heard this assertion before, and I don’t buy it. There is the whole issue of weigh– coupled with inertia. You cannot simply reverse the scenario as stated above. It is not the same physics as a bat and a ball. The overall weight of the plane and the forward momentum is the core factors in this equation.

        Exposing your credentials in boojie woojie high school physics again, Mr. HybridRogue1? Man, you can imagine how much I hate pointing this out.

        To your chagrin, Newtonian physics does allow thinkers to reverse “a plane’s wings hitting a lamp post at 500 mph” to become “a lamp post hitting a plane’s wings at 500 mph” or even “a lamp post flung by a tornado at 250 mph into a plane’s wing traveling 250 mph in the opposite direction.”

        The point in all of this is that damage to the plane’s wing would be crippling and questions whether the plane could even remain in flight.

        As for the overall weight of the plane and forward momentum, this factors into which direction and what speed its fuselage and wing fragments continues to travel after impact. The strength of the plane’s wings and the strength of the joint of the wings to the fuselage are entirely different matters. And you also neglect that one end of the lamp post was bolted to a concrete foundation.

        Of course, all of us are making the bad-ass assumption that the plane was actually traveling at 500 mph at ~100 feet above sea level.

      2. “The strength of the plane’s wings and the strength of the joint of the wings to the fuselage are entirely different matters. And you also neglect that one end of the lamp post was bolted to a concrete foundation.”~Senor

        And you neglect to note that lamp posts are bolted to a concrete foundation in such a way as to add a safety factor wherein they can be knocked over by the impact of a car, rather than giving them the strength of hitting a firmly planted tree. Modern urban code is almost universal in this aspect.

        ww

      3. Why do so many who know so little about physics post so much? This is ridiculous. I have given three rock solid explanations about the impossibility of the official account of the Pentagon trajectory, which are built on Newton’s laws and the laws of aerodynamics. Not only that, but the absence of debris at the hit point is extremely telling, rather like visiting your living room only to find no indications of an elephant there.

        Check out “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, “Seven Questions about 9/11”, “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, and (with Dennis Cimino) “The official account of the 9/11 Pentagon attack is a fantasy”. Even Gen. Albert Stubbelbien, who was in charge of all US photographic analysis, concluded that no plane had hit the building because there was no impression of the wings on its soft, porous limestone facade.

      4. Why do you mix in the Pentagon impact debris with the lamp post question Fetzer?
        I will tell you what this tactic means to me, you are stealthily insinuating that someone countering the disability of the plane to knock over the light poles is therefore in favor of the official story. And this type of disingenuous argumentum us a common mode for many of the posters on this thread. If one disagrees with the slightest point they are suddenly enemies of the truth movement. What is this the ‘Church of the Immaculate North-Path’
        Consider this:
        “It’s as if you’re reading from the hymn-sheet”~Onesliceshort
        That’s rich coming from a dogmatic heretic slayer like OSS.
        Personally, I am very close to certain that the magic act of the plane flyover is what actually happened. But I am not willing to kneel to the “hymn book” as OSS puts it. Talk about the kettle calling the chinaware black.

        ww

      1. My opinion of your incompetence could not be lower. Planes can only land because they slow down. Nila Sagadevan, who is both an experienced pilot and also an aeronautical engineer, explained to me back in June 2006 that ground effect would have made the official trajectory impossible. At that speed (of 500 mph), a Boeing 757 could not have come closer than 60-80′ to the ground. You need to do some homework, because your posts are making you look like a fool.

  22. Your dogmatic, hard core attitudes remind me of another guy…

    Hybridrogue1

    What’s the name of that flyover witness, BTW?

    Brian Good

    Let’s see how many of your responses fall into these characteristics. It’s as if you’re reading from the hymnsheet at the link below.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

     6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint. 
    Example: “This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.” Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

     Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)? 

     9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Example: “Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.”

    Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 – play dumb)?

    12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

    Example: “I don’t see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can’t prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It’s hopeless. Give it up.”

    Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 – enigmas have no solution)?

    14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

    Example: “Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?”

    Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?

    19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

    Example: “All he’s done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren’t qualified. Where’s his proof? Show me wreckage from Flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!”

    So obvious it hurts..

    1. “So obvious it hurts.”

      Yes I can tell how bad you are hurt OSS. Some things one just never gets over.

      But, “never say never,” you could be feeling chipper as soon as tomorrow, or the next day…and remember, “there’s always tomorrow, it’s only a day away.” {yea I hate that song too-grin}.

      ww

      1. “Brian Good says:
        April 17, 2012 at 5:03 pm

        Oneslice, they ought to call you spamloaf instead.

        hybridrogue1 says:
        April 17, 2012 at 5:46 pm

        “So obvious it hurts.”

        Yes I can tell how bad you are hurt OSS. Some things one just never gets over.

        But, “never say never,” you could be feeling chipper as soon as tomorrow, or the next day…and remember, “there’s always tomorrow, it’s only a day away.” {yea I hate that song too-grin}.”

        http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

        “6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
        Example: “This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.” Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

        Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?”

      2. Yea right OSS,

        I’m number 6…I scampered off so far your can’t even read this post I am so gone from here.

        You’re so “cute when you’re mad”, now you are even dribbling in your shoes.

        ww

      3. hybridrogue1 says:
        April 17, 2012 at 10:58 pm

        “Yea right OSS,

        I’m number 6…I scampered off so far your can’t even read this post I am so gone from here.

        You’re so “cute when you’re mad”, now you are even dribbling in your shoes.

        ww”

        This is the relevant part of that quote…

        ” simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.”

        You claim to accept the validity of the NOC testimony and the obvious physical implications that go with it (no impact) yet go with tactic 14.

        You then claim that there are witnesses to the official path, name 2 witnesses who turn out to be nothing of the sort on closer inspection.

        You then ridicule a thorough post regarding two witness testimonies regarding the flyover, looked at from all angles and resort to tactic 19

        Now you and your bud Good are in full flow tactic 6.

        You may be here posting, but they’re irrelevant, almost childish posts. They’re half-arsed, illogical posts that are empty, lazy soundbites and wordsmithery disguised as “debate”.

        You may as well not be here. Same thing.

        Know the funniest thing though? Each time you and Brian Good post, you’re always going to represent one of those tactics. And you’re going to doublecheck lol.

        I’m chilled by the way. It’s actually going to be interesting watching which tactic you guys use. Unless of course you want to actually discuss the evidence in a mature manner. Your call.

  23. Craig, I don’t see why anybody should care about my opinions, and I suspect that most of those who are interested are just looking for an excuse to disregard my facts. Right off hand the only things that come to mind that I’m certain are false is NIST’s chart showing fires in a place on the 12th floor of WTC7 at a time when photos show there was no fire there, and NIST’s claim in the FAQs that long heating in the rubble pile could have caused steel to melt. I suspect that the tale that Cheney did not arrive in the White House bunker until a few minutes before 10:00 is not true.

    I’m sure there are others, but I can’t think of anything right now. What do I think is true about the official story? I think airplanes hit the twin towers and they fell down, I think building 7 fell down, I think Bush sat on his ass in a Florida schoolroom.

    I try not to have opinions about things unless there’s some very good reason–especially when my data are incomplete and my sources are unrealiable and contradictory.

    1. Okay Good,

      I’ve picked just one of your gems of wisdom or “facts” that you left lying there like an abandoned pup.

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4164

      “Oneslice, 3 of the lightpoles were very conspicuous on grassy slopes and visible from the offramp, the onramp, and westbound on the pike. Your claim that they were “hidden” and “behind barriers” is ridiculous. You are restricting your witnesses to a viewpoint on highway 27.
      I can’t believe you guys after all these years are still so out of touch with the facts.

      Brian Good”

      To which I replied..

      “Answer me this. Lloyd England allegedly had a lightpole protruding over 20ft out of his cab for 6 or 7 minutes. Nobody is on record as seeing this. Nobody.

      Yet you defend his story. Now which spectacle are people going to take notice of more? Lloyd’s cab or obscurely placed lightpoles beside an area that was under renovation?

      Why do you not accept the observations on record of witnesses who place the aircraft nowhere near these poles?

      You’re placing more weight on what people “should have seen” (badly I might add) and dismissing what people ACTUALLY are on record as seeing.”

      Either Lloyd’s a liar or your argument has no legs. Which is it?

      And how do you know that nobody saw the lightpoles on the ground?

      1. spamloaf, your answer to my facts about poles 3,4, and 5 is to raise point 1. Have you learned nothing in all these years about maintaining an orderly and coherent discussion? Why do you spread confusion?

    2. I agree with Brian Good. No one should care about his opinions. The Pentagon case is so clear- cut I cannot imagine why anyone is still debating it, unless they want to obfuscate what we know:

      (1) not only was the alleged pilot incompetent to fly a Boeing 757 but the government has not been able to show that any alleged hijackers were aboard any of those planes (Elias Davidsson);

      (2) the alleged phone call were faked, where cell phones then did not work at speeds above 200 mph and altitudes above 2000′ and 757’s were did not have airphones in 2001 (Dewdney/Griffin);

      (3) the official trajectory–flying over 500 mph just skimming the ground–is aerodynamically and physically impossible, since ground effect precludes getting anywhere closer than 60-80′ of the ground at that speed (Sagadivan) and the lampposts would have ripped the wing apart, the fuel stored in its wings would have burst into flame, its tail snapped off and cartwheeled into the lawn, none of which happened (Newton and “The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy”);

      (4) there is no massive pile of debris from a 100-ton airliner at the hit point: no fuselage, no tail, not wings, no bodies, seats or luggage; not even the engines were recovered, even though they are virtually indestructible (see “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, “Seven Questions on 9/11”);

      (5) a study of the black box data given to Pilots for 9/11 Truth corresponds to another approach that was due east at an altitude too high to hit any lampposts which, one second from impact, was too high to hit the building and swerved over it (“Pandora’s Black Box, Part II”, YouTube);

      (6) the trucker buddy of a friend of mine from JFK research, Roy Schaffer, told him that he was in front of the building at the time and watched as a large plane flew toward it and swooped over it (as I’ve reported many times, including “The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy”);

      (7) the so-called “Pentagon witnesses” appear to be phonies and frauds, as emerged during six- hours of discussion reviewing their testimony with Mike Sparks (http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com);

      (8) the hole in the C-ring is perfectly symmetrical, which would have been impossible from a part of the plane on an angled trajectory, and has “punch out” spray painted on the wall (see photos);

      (9) Jamie Mcintyre, reporting for CNN, explained that there was no indication of any large plane having hit anywhere near the Pentagon, which everyone can find in CNN archives (YouTube);

      (10) April Gallup, who was working in the Pentagon at the time, walked out through the hole (made to coincide with the fly-over) and observed no indications of any plane crash (YouTube).

      There is much more, where the evidence of a crash appears to have been planted, as I explained to the BBC (see “The BBC’s instrument of 9/11 misinformation”), which interviewed me twice for its “Conspiracy Files” documentaries on 9/11, once for eight (8) hours, then again for four (4). For more, see “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Pubic Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. Gen. Albert Stubbelbine (USAF, ret.), who was the head of photo analysis for the Pentagon, also concluded that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon (YouTube). Those who continue to deny the evidence are obfuscating the truth. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

      1. Dr. Fetzer, how do you know that Hani Hanjour was incompetent? Is it not reasonable to think he might try to paint himself as an incompetent dabbler to divert suspicions? After all, Project Bojinka was known since the capture of Abdul Hakim Murad in 1995.

        Ground effect is a low-speed phenomenon that disappears at high speeds.
        http://www.911myths.com/Ground_Effect.pdf

        The lamp-posts were breakaway lamp-posts designed to pop off their bases at impact.

        The Whitehouse picture shows aluminum confetti all over the lawn. How do you know the engines were not recovered? The Pentagon has asserted the principle that Pentagon business is none of our business. Lack of a transparency you unreasonably expect is hardly evidence.

        What if the government is deliberately feeding you disinfo black box data to make fools of you? Have you considered that?

        Why would you expect the C-ring hole to be anything but symmetrical? What exactly made that hole? Landing gear? Part of the keel? An engine?

        Why would you expect April Gallop to see plane wreckage just inside the outer wall? Wouldn’t plane wreckage penetrate further inside?

      2. Mr Fetzer, my apologies for jumping in here, but I’d like to ask you a philosophical question concerning scientific methodology as it relates specifically to ongoing “scientific” 9/11 research, but do not wish to do it here [it would be inappropriate, obviously ].

        Assuming you are even interested in answering my question [no need to reply here if not ], you can reach me at : onebornfree at yahoo dot com . Regards, onebornfree.

        P.S. your book “The 9/11 Conspiracy- the Scamming of America” , http://www.amazon.com/The-11-Conspiracy-Scamming-America/dp/0812696123/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1334765060&sr=8-4 was the one that first opened my eyes- thank you.

      3. Brain Good,

        You mention:

        “The Pentagon has asserted the principle that Pentagon business is none of our business. Lack of a transparency you unreasonably expect is hardly evidence.”

        And this is fine with you? You think this is reasonable and everyone should accept this?

        You show yourself the perfect mindless automaton with such an attitude – free human beings find such supplication disgusting.

        ww

  24. Mr Fetzer beat me to it. Yes, the lightpoles would have shredded the plane wings, as Mr Fetzer rightly points out.

    Those poles were either staged, real time plants on the scene, or they are just photoshop pixel entities [i.e. faked photos].

    Just as at the main [WTC] “crime scene”, many official [if not all] official Pentagon scene still photos were products of photoshop or similar, as researcher Jack White has shown: http://www.911studies.com/ . Why should we therefor believe that any of the Pentagon photos [including those showing allegedly downed light poles], depict reality at the time allegedly taken? Beats me.🙂 As P.T Barnum supposedly said: “There’s a sucker born every minute”

    And I should _not_ be surprised [but somehow still am] , by the spectacle of what appears to be a bunch of grown adults seriously arguing over the veracity [or otherwise], of non-cross-examined , 3rd party, “eyewitness testimony” . ‘Never ceases to amaze, but again, I have to remind myself “There’s a sucker born every minute” . Regards, onebornfree

    1. Why would Pentagon conspiracists plant phony lightpoles that would be obvious fakes to aeronatical engineers and airframe mechanics all over the world? Is this part of the psy-op?

      Dr. Fetzer, your bullying response is the same as in our most recent discussion before this. I was right then, and I’m right now. The chart shows that ground effect is a low-speed phenomenon that disappears at high velocities.

      1. @Brian Good

        Funny seeing your last comment given how you claimed once at 911Oz that Lloyd’s lightpole and the alleged damage to his cab may have been caused by “ground effect”…

      2. Brian, We have to treat the evidence of what happened, not speculate about why they “coulda / shoulda / woulda” done it differently than they actually did. I have found your posts in the past to be similar to those you are making here: based on ignorance, you attack those who have done more research and understand the issues better. Then you whine and whine and whine. People like you give the search for truth a bad name. onebornfree has your number–as do many more.

      3. Brian Good said: “ground effect is a low-speed phenomenon that disappears at high velocities.”

        Whether or not that is true [I don’t know for sure] , it entirely ignores the fact that a large airliner is incapable of flying at 500mph at close to ground level, where the air is 4x as dense as it is at its normal cruising altitude of 35,000 feet [where a 500mph cruising speed is easily attainable], let alone make sharp turns while at the same time rapidly descending below 1000 ft. – the frame simply is not built to withstand that amount of air resistance and resultant torque, nor are the engine air intakes able to do their job in the manner they are designed to.

        The exact same applies to Flights AA 11 and 175 at the WTC – physically impossible plane antics. All part of the fairytale that is the official story.🙂

        regards, onebornfree.

    2. Onebornfree,

      Your endorsement for Fetzer:

      “Yes, the lightpoles would have shredded the plane wings, as Mr Fetzer rightly points out.”

      Would strike him as rather a curse than praise if he had any idea of the soup-brained nonsense I have seen you come up with on this blog.

      You quote that, “There’s a sucker born every minute” … some might say that as far as suckers go, you are the grand 5 inch swirl with extra sturdy handle.

      ww

  25. This is the most complete and plausible explanation for 9/11 and the Pentagon. This hypothesis only uses technology that has been demonstrated, and is known to exist on 9/11/2001. Remote Control (RC) of a Boeing 720 jet was demonstrated at NASA on December 1, 1984, doing 10 takeoffs and 13 landings.

    A covert Ground Crew equipped Flight 77 with enhanced RC of navigation, communications, Cabin Air Pressure Outflow Valve (CAPOV), and placed bombs the cargo section and wings. After take-off, the pilots suddenly found they could not steer, or call for help. By RC, air flowed out of the CAPOV, so everyone could not breathe, call for help, or concentrate effectively on how to regain control of the jet.

    By computerized RC, the plane made a large loop, then flew North of Citgo, instead of the planned southern approach (possibly blown off course), into the Pentagon, Light poles were staged. The passengers included duped “hijackers” – confidential informants going to their next assignment in LA. Voice Morphing (demonstrated at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and reported in the Washington Post on February 1, 1999) and pre-recorded clips (from hijack simulation training exercises) got the Official Story out.

    Just prior to impacting the Pentagon (approximately 90 degree angle), bombs went off in the cargo area and wings, fully explaining the smaller-than-expected holes and lack of engine and wing marks (without the need for any fly over). Additional bombs, pre-planted during the Pentagon construction, made the controlled, directional damage (approximately 45 degrees) targeting the Accounting records. After about 30 minutes, allowing some Pentagon staff to escape, additional pre-planted bombs covered the impact area to complicate the scene.

    This hypothesis is the most complete explanation of 1) the aircraft, 2) what happened to the people, major testimonies (including 2 police officers) of a plane going towards the Pentagon, 3) internal damage and smaller than expected hole, 4) external physical evidence and plane parts, and 5) angle of approach.

    1. You had me at hello…..

      Impact from NOC is impossible. And there were people within the vicinity of the heliport, both inside the heliport and at groundlevel below it who would have been injured or killed by explosives pre-entry. Flesh-friendly explosives?

      There is no crater at the entry point (look at the lawn for Christ sake)

      How on Earth would an exterior explosion on the aircraft not leave major debris outside?

      How would an exterior explosion not run the risk of desintegration of the aircraft before reaching the facade ie leaving no “impact hole”?

      Etc,etc,etc…

      1. @Brian Good

        “Shaped charges”

        What have shaped charges got to do with the destruction of the aircraft “pre entry”??

        Read again

        “Impact from NOC is impossible. And there were people within the vicinity of the heliport, both inside the heliport and at groundlevel below it who would have been injured or killed by explosives pre-entry. Flesh-friendly explosives?

        There is no crater at the entry point (look at the lawn for Christ sake)

        How on Earth would an exterior explosion on the aircraft not leave major debris outside?

        How would an exterior explosion not run the risk of desintegration of the aircraft before reaching the facade ie leaving no “impact hole”?

        Etc,etc,etc…”

        Read…

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1614

    2. Better look out TruthMakesPeace,

      You’re not singing their song.

      I think your scenario has some merit. I am not saying I agree to the entire abstract.
      I am with you on remote control. and voice morphing.

      However I don’t think the plane had to drift – the light pole damage was staged to match an approach causing damage of preset directional explosives placed during the “refurbishing”.

      But we are both off-script here {grin}

      ww

      1. http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

        9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Example: “Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.”

        Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 – play dumb)?

    3. TMP, yes, that’s very thorough theory. All I would add to it is that we can suppose the light poles were moved out of the way to remove the threat that they might cause the plane to crash, and we can suspect that the reason the plane came in off course was sabotage to the flight path programming by someone who wanted to expose the op. (We can also similarly suspect that the plan was to blow up WTC7 when it was obscured by the dust cloud from WTC1’s collapse, but that too was sabotaged by someone who wanted to expose the op.)

      Your theory makes perfect sense and it explains everything. It even comports with the testimony of Staff Sergeant Mark Williams, who said he saw the bodies of passengers still strapped in their seats, and it would explain the dimensions of the hole in the facade–which well fit a 757 on a NoC flight path but do not fit the official flight path (the official ASCE BPAT points out that the hole it too narrow for a 757),

      When there is such amazing evidence of an inside job–the contradiction between the light pole evidence and the witnesses’ testimony–I just can’t fathom why the CIT team insists on discrediting it by marrying the concept to an impossible flyover scheme, by indulging Roosevelt Roberts’s confused and useless testimony, and by libeling Lloyde England and Father McGraw with accusationt that they are secret agents.

      The one weakness in your theory is that it supposes that the NoC witnesses are telling the truth. In my opinion they may be highly motivated to prank a couple of conspiracy theorists from California, and the CIT crew refuses to consider this possibility.

    4. @Truthmakespeace
      What a brilliant plan! I mean what could go wrong? And here we were thinking just let these guys hijack a plane and crash it into the Penatgon.

      Now I know why people in the Truth movement are urged not to present any alternative theory about what happened on 911…

      1. A. Wright, TMP’s theory is very complicated it’s true. But is CIT’s theory really any less complicated? And it makes more sense than CIT’s theory because it supposes that the parameters of a mission-critical are all controlled, with little left to chance–while CIT’s theory demands that the planners of a covert op provided that a 757 makes an escape employing a high-g turn visible from a marina, a freeway, a gold course, and a planespotter’s park. CIT’s is a pretty dumb plan, isn’t it? Kind of like escaping from a bank robbery on a pogo stick.

        Maybe everybody should consider the possibility that the NoC witnesses are wrong, or that they’re pranking a couple of conspiracy theorists from California.

      2. “And here we were thinking just let these guys hijack a plane and crash it into the Penatgon”

        Is that what you guys were thinking A. Wright? Now since the Freudian slip has slipped, why don’t you explain to us how close to the planning you were, and explain what fricking hijackers?

        Did you pick these guys out of a phone book in Arabia?

        Are you really as stupid as you think we are?

        ww

      3. @Brian Good

        “A. Wright, TMP’s theory is very complicated it’s true. But is CIT’s theory really any less complicated?”

        http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

        15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

        Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet from the Warren Report.

        Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 – invoke authority)?

        Back in the real world…

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1614

      4. http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

        9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Example: “Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.”

        Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 – play dumb)?

        12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

        Example: “I don’t see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can’t prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It’s hopeless. Give it up.”

        Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 – enigmas have no solution)?

        14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

        Example: “Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?”

        Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?

        15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

        Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet from the Warren Report.

        Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 – invoke authority)?

      5. @Brian Good
        I agree with you about the CIT theory – it basically makes no sense and as I have pointed out it’s obvious when you look at how they come to their conclusion why it doesn’t ,but they talk about it as if it’s some kind of undeniable fact. The only explanation that makes any sense at all is flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, flown by a group of Islam fundamentalists with a hatred of the US , and arguably a justifiable one, a burning desire to hit back at the source of decades of injustice and a willingness to sacrifice their lives doing it. For the 911 Truth movement though they basically don’t exist , except of course as patsies and brainless cyphers, wandering about Arabland waiting for the CIA to stuff dollars in their hands to get them to pretend to be Islamic fundamentalists so the US can arrive on their doorstep and bomb the hell out of them. So they are written out of the script from day one – ‘When you first eliminate the impossible , then whatever remains, no matter how improbable , must be the truth’ . Of course if you first eliminate the truth ….

    5. Dear Mr. TruthMakesPeace,

      Your piece has potentially many nuggets of truth. If the alleged commercial planes were actually involved, then RC of navigation, communications, Cabin Air Pressure Outflow Valve (CAPOV), and voice morphing software seem within the realm of plausibility with regards to operational parameters. You wrote:

      By computerized RC, the plane made a large loop, then flew North of Citgo, instead of the planned southern approach (possibly blown off course), into the Pentagon, Light poles were staged.

      Although the deep “directional” damage into a few rings of the Pentagon was undoubtedly staged and enhanced to enforce the belief of the SOC flight path, this does not mean that a plane flying the NOC flight path could enter into the staged Pentagon entrance hole and have all damage indications (within the building) still being SOC.

      Had you been paying attention to Mr. OneSliceShort, his videos, and his satillite images of light pole and sign positions, you would see that a NOC flight path into the Pentagon would not have been possible without downed light poles and signage along its route. To avoid the poles, it would have been g-forces impossible to fly over such obstacles, then swoop down, and level off for the ground floor entrance hole that did not affect the foundation with any form of an impact crater.

      To underscore why this NOC flight path into the Pentagon did not happen, we can point to the age old argument of insufficient airplane debris. Where was the tail, the wings, the luggage, the seats, etc.? SOC or NOC, the question remains: where was the plane in the damage?

      A new spark of insight is elevating a nugget of truth I had not seen before. Namely, the light poles had to be staged as per the operation even if an actual plane were to have flown SOC and had been found lodged in the Pentagon. Why? Because if they wouldn’t have removed the light poles from the planned flight path, physics suggests that those poles might have damaged the aircraft significantly to the point of starting its disintegration (and explosion) over the lawn of the Pentagon and thereby not inflicting enough damage on the Office of Naval Intelligence who were investigating the $2.3 trillion in missing DoD expenditures. Remember the objectives.

      1. Senor, Your claim that that a NOC flight path into the Pentagon would not have been possible without downed light poles and signage along its route is not true. Unless oneslice has updated his work (and I doubt it, because he’s still making the same erroneous claims he was making years ago) he erroneously demands that the plane fly so high that its lowest point clears the light poles. That is not necessary. The engines hang below the wings and the wings have considerable dihedral , so it is not necessary that the plane fly as high as oneslice claims.

        Where’s the plane? Inside the building. Where would you expect it to be?

        Yes, your observation of the possibility that staging the light poles was a necessary part achieving plane impact is important. It suggests then that a NoC flight path was a mistake. If that is true, the implication of an inside job is inescapable. Thus CIT’s unsupported flyover speculations are extremely irresponsible, because they have the effect of discrediting the NoC testimony that would be extremely important if it were believed.

        1. Brian,

          CIT is discrediting the NoC evidence? You have to be kidding.

          This is truly disingenuous of you. You say, the evidence might have been serious if it had been shown to be serious? What the hell are you talking about? The evidence is either serious or it isn’t. Just because you don’t like the conclusion that CIT draws does not change what the witnesses said. You should acknowledge the contribution that CIT has made to the search for truth. Without their initiative, we would not know that the plane did not follow the official flight path.

          If you think the NoC evidence is valuable, then why don’t you spend your time supporting that instead of focusing on the flyover, which you think is unsupported. If you really wanted to help the Truth movement, you’d do that. But you don’t. You want to weaken the impact of this.

          You believe the NoC path is possible but the light poles were not faked. How do you figure? You join Chris Sarns in pushing the north path/impact “theory”?

          By the way, where would we expect the plane to be? I would expect a significant portion of it to be left outside the building given that there was no hole where the wings or the tail section would have hit. If you buy the “wings folded in” theory (and that all that is) then you have no credibility in my mind.

  26. OSS, concerning your comments at — April 17, 2012 at 11:31 pm:

    I’ve met many people in my life that are normally clear headed thinkers but when they get pissed at somebody they go off like baying Calvinist jackals, like you have been for the last how many days.

    And all this in spite of the fact that I have adjusted my thinking quite a bit due a lot to your own input. But nothing is enough for you but total obedience to your holy law. This ridiculous trivial nitpicking and nagging is for old maids and over zealous henchmen. Now put on a new pair of socks.

    ww

    1. Craig, I hope you don’t mind, but I’ll be answering posts like this in the fashion they deserve. You can decide to block them if you wish, but if these trolls are allowed to attack, ridicule, dodge and clog up rational debate and generally take the piss here, their tactics need to be pointed out.

      @Hybridrogue1

      “I’ve met many people in my life that are normally clear headed thinkers but…..”

      http://web.archive.org/web/20070118165142/http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

      6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
      Example: “This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.” Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

      Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?

      18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

      1. Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

        Too much of a good thing is still too much.

        I am not Mr. McKee, nor do I speak for him. I have been participating on T&S not quite since its inception or beginnings, but certainly early. I helped set the tone and deal with provocateurs along the way who would otherwise spoil the harmony of rational and intelligent debate.

        Alas, in this role, I now feel overwhelmed due to employment matters at the precise time T&S seems to be overrun with new participants as well as the active return of others with reputations and provocateur agendas. Your assistance is certainly appreciated by Mr. McKee and lurker readers.

        I disagree with the extent and details of your tactics that involves copy & paste of both an overview of the tactic, an unrelated example, and an almost unrelated “Proper Response.” This becomes unoriginal very fast. And the proper response isn’t. That is to say, it starts with a conclusion that is a flame-bait attack [e.g., “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics.”] The listed proper responses with their accusatory “you are pulling crap” language are not helpful in great measure, and are probably deserving of being edited out before publication.

        A lesson of all great (fiction) writers is to show, don’t tell. Show how their argument misses the point on purpose. Show where their argument is crap. This will set the knife pretty deep all by itself. No sense twisting the knife with insults.

        Valued participants of T&S — even those I disagree with — make an effort at least on the first spin on the merry-go-round to be original and creative. In my books, it is fine to write something like:

        I couldn’t help but noticing in your reply tactic #14 having to do with Demanding a Complete Solution when you wrote: […] All of the puzzle pieces do not have to be present in order to get an idea of what the picture is.

        If you are going to call someone out for using a known ploy, then tailor your response to the specifics of their comments. Pay attention to the link I placed over the tactic, so that research is still possible without boring readers and achieves your goals.

        People might call me old fashioned or a fuddy-duddy for the stilted “dear Mr. so-and-so saluations I put on my postings. I chuckle that this was even used as an excuse once to ban me from a (disinfo) forum, because the moderator thought I was being sarcastic in my (consistent use of) honorifics. [Let’s ignore the fact that he and his minions were losing the Dr. Wood debate.]

        I like to think of it as the “James Bond Effect”, whereby even 007’s most hated enemies would suppress their emotions and address him in the formal “So good of you to make your appearance, Mr. Bond.”

        When I start out in the formal, it tends to curb my baser instincts on what I would utter in response. The high road is indeed higher. The difference from having kept my cool as opposed to those going off in ad hominem homage is priceless.

      2. This OSS, has become “debate” at it’s goofiest.

        You should know from the beginning, that most of us in the research community, have already read your new found bible. Most of us however have never dreamed of using copy and paste to create a paint-by-numbers template to paint our opponents in a convenient one size fits all – almost rubber stamp..

        You have been nothing but YouTubes and this stupid copy/paste for most of this thread.

        If you are so bored with all of this, why don’t you take a break rather than bung up the thread with all of this long winded repeat of “the rule book for beginning debaters”

        You seem like the standard beancounter conformist who suddenly had a ‘revelation’ on 9/11 and are now rediscovering the wheel.

        Enough of this nonsense.

        ww

      3. Fair dos Mr Once, it was starting to do my head in too. I’ll take your advice. I’ll simply link to the relevant points.

        Peace

        OSS

    1. Not only have you not shown that any of my “assumptions” are unwarranted but you have made many claims that are not only unwarranted but clearly false: a Boeing 757 could not fly 500 mph at the altitude of the Pentagon; ground effect would have made it impossible to get closer than 60-80′ of the ground; and hitting those lampposts would have ripped the wing from the plane, its fuel would have burst into flames, its trajectory dramatically altered and tail broken off, with the consequence that it would have cartwheeled and done great damage to the unblemished lawn.

      Since I have made all of these points in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, where I substantiate them with photos and other graphics, I find it stunning that you continue to post comments in ignorance of the data that substantiates the points you are attempting to refute. That makes this a case of someone who knows less attempting to debunk those who know more, which is your style. I don’t mind having you here to demonstrate the depths to which those who want to obscure truths will sink.

      1. Dr. Fetzer, your assumption that my research is inadequate is unwarranted. I have trounced Craig Ranke and Rob Balsamo in debate–Ranke no less than five times. They can not refute my points and they can not answer my questions.

        If as I suspect, your information about the ground effect comes from the sole source of Mr. Sagadevan, then your assumption that Mr. Sagadevan’s claims are true would appear to be unwarranted and a clear case of confirmation bias. Have you read the paper by Karl Rader that claims that ground effect is a low speed phenomenon and disappears at high velocities?

  27. One reason I do not post much here or anywhere else for that matter is that I consider engaging with disinformation agents to be counter productive. The reason it is counter productive is that disinformation agents do not follow any debate rules. In a legitimate debate one side makes a point and the other side tries to counter that point if they can. If they cannot counter then that point is conceeded and the debate moves on having “resolved” that issue. Disinformation agents MUST avoid legitmate debate at all costs simply because their material is false and can be easily proven false in a legitimate debate. Disinformation agents therefore refuse to answer direct questions and constantly change the subject when cornered. They do anything and everything to avoid a real debate and instead try their best to muddy the waters by planting false information often repeatedly. The theory being that if it is repeated long enough and often enough it will begin to take hold. The disinformants have done this already quite successfully by getting even some of us truthers to refer to the WTC towers as “collapsed” instead of “demolished”.

    All Brian Good is doing here is trying to:

    1. Muddy the waters (through relentless repetition of false and/or misleading information)
    2. Discourage truthers (through relentless repetition of false and/or misleading information)
    3. Plant false meme’s (through relentless repetition of false and/or misleading information)

    He will not engage in a legitimate debate or answer direct questions. My sincere suggestion to all truthers is to not engage with Good and those like him. Ask a few direct questions of new people and if you do not get direct answers quit engaging them. Let them go blind posting their BS over and over until the end of time, simply skim right past their posts and treat them the way you do spam e-mails from Nigeria saying you are the beneficiary of a $1,000,000 dollar trust fund. I am supremely confident that I will not miss anything of value by ignoring Brian Good forever. Try it. Think of him as another branch of the MSM and store his babblings in the trash can where they belong.

    1. Very well stated, Adam. I think this is good advice for people to follow. I think you’re spot on with Mr. Brian Good. I’m starting to wonder why A.Wright is here and what his agenda is. He doesn’t seem to be a very honest fella.

      To me, what matters most about the other members of a blog community that I participate in is not whether their views are similar to mine, but that they are honest and well intentioned and can debate and share knowledge and learn together productively and civilly.

      I usually give people several chances to correct their disinformation or dishonest arguments, and to stop ignoring my questions, and if they continue to refuse to have an honest debate with me and it becomes obvious that they have an agenda far afield of honest debate, I set them on ‘ignore’ and stop allowing them to waste my time. At some point, though, it is up to the moderators to ensure that their discussion forum is not so overrun by trolls and disinformation agents and blathering idiots that the good honest members decide “the heck with it” and go elsewhere. Unfortunately, most discussion forums I’ve participated in in the past ended up being sabotaged by those types and became not worth my while. It has become very hard to find online discussion forums that keep my interest for very long because of this tendency. I really hope that T&S maintains the right balance and doesn’t end up like so many other forums that I no longer post at.

      1. @keenanroberts
        Can you tell what I have said here or elsewhere that has been dishonest? I’d really like to know what it is that is supposed to be dishonest because I try not to be. And just out of interest do you actually think I’m some kind of ‘disinformation agent’ or anything other than an ordinary person, like I assume you are, debating this and other topics?

      2. @A.Wright,

        You make regular use of fallacies in your comments, particularly non sequiturs and argument from incredulity, and ad hominems seem to be your favorites. I haven’t decided on whether or not you are a disinformation agent yet, but your continued intellectual dishonesty makes it hard for me to give you the benefit of the doubt as time goes on.

        Very few of your comments here that I’ve seen are of substance, and most seem to be attempting to belittle people here. The peculiar thing about this is the fact that many people who post here at T&S were banned from 911Blogger, such as myself. It seems that we were banned primarily because of our views about that Pentagon attack, and not because we violated any rules. I understand that you became a 911Blogger mod late in the game, and did not have much if anything to do with the banning. However, you have never indicated any willingness to properly investigate why all those dozens of people were banned, mostly silently without being warned and without being given any reasons. But you’ve indicated in the past that you side with the 911Bloggers in their banning actions against us, and agree with them that we are basically a bunch of misfits who deserved to be banned.

        And yet you’ve decided to come here and join the discussions with all of us misfits, and mostly stir the pot and insult and ridicule. For what purpose? Why even bother with us if you feel that we are mostly a bunch of dupes and misfits for endorsing CIT and refusing to just accept the “reasonable” position that AA77 crashed at the Pentagon? I really can’t be sure what your game is.

      3. A.Wright,

        I just realized that I may have errored in assuming you were John Wright from 911Blogger. If so, I apologize for the mistake. If you are not John Wright aka “leftwright” from 911ABlogger, please disregard any references to 911Blogger in the above comment.

    2. Adam, the reason that engaging “disinformation agents” is counterproductive for you is because you can not counter their arguments. The reason you label them “disinformation agents” is because you can’t counter their arguments.

      What false and misleading information have I repeated? Did CIT identity a practical flyaway flight path? Did they find flyaway witnesses? Did they explain how the light poles could be planted and nobody would see them?

      The suggestion that you not expose yourself to counterargument is a tactic right out of the religious cult playbook. Do you want to live in the real world, or live in a cult?

      1. Brian,

        I put a question to you because I want to know where you are coming from with respect to 9/11. I know what you’re against, but I don’t know what you believe happened. You’ve ignored my request for an answer. I would like to hear your “official story” before posting other comments from you. I look forward to your answer.

      2. 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

        14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

        Example: “Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?”

        Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?

        19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

        Example: “All he’s done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren’t qualified. Where’s his proof? Show me wreckage from Flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!”

      3. Note the dates and the complete reversal in statements by Brian Good

        Brian Good says:

        April 18, 2012 at 11:04 am

        “Adam, the reason that engaging “disinformation agents” is counterproductive for you is because you can not counter their arguments. The reason you label them “disinformation agents” is because you can’t counter their arguments.

        Did they explain how the light poles could be planted and nobody would see them?

        And…

        Brian Good says:

        April 17, 2012 at 11:41 pm

        “TMP, yes, that’s very thorough theory. All I would add to it is that we can suppose the light poles were moved out of the way to remove the threat that they might cause the plane to crash…

        “Quagmire”? Bollocks. It’s the unchallenged, unmoderated trolls like Brian Good and Chris Sarns that confuse, lie and spin to put people off the Pentagon issue.

        This behaviour wouldn’t be tolerated when discussing the towers. Why the laissez-faire attitude when the Pentagon is being discussed?

        For the record, I think it’s a fucking disgrace that a mockery is made of these people.

        I think some people need a reality check as to why some of us get a little pissed off putting up with this shit.

    3. Brian Good is also known by the name ‘truebeleaguer’.

      Beleaguer: To harass or oppress. To annoy persistently.

      Brian is basically a self-confessed public “shit-stirrer”.

      He has ‘proudly’ declared: “Annoying scumbags is kind of a specialty of mine.”

      It seems to me that’s probably the only reason why he’s here, so take heed all good people!

      I too, will support ruffadam’s suggestion and wise admonitions –

      Cheers

  28. No Plane Theory ,High School Physics, Versus The Official 9/11 Story:

    To try to make clear a few points about the here much derided “no plane theory” [NPT] :

    Was there an aircraft at the Pentagon that day? Nobody who was not there can know for certain, which makes all alleged “eyewitness testimony” unverifiable, and pretty much useless.

    NPT adherants [to the best of my knowledge] do _not_ claim that there were no planes at the Pentagon, only that because the elementary laws of physics as taught at the high school level [e.g. Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion] that were not , and could not be suspended that day, that if there were planes present at the Pentagon that day, then they were:

    [1] not captured on any “live” video to date released,

    and more importantly..

    [2] because of Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion [i.e basic principles of physics], if a plane was in fact present, it was not, is not, and could not be physically capable of causing the type of damage depicted in the official photos, either to the alleged downed lightpoles [which would have shredded the wings], nor to the walls/rings of the Pentagon itself.

    Exactly the same basic physics issues apply to the WTC complex itself. Planes may or may not have been in the vicinity. “No planers” simply assert that if they _were_ in fact present that morning, that:

    [1] they were not captured on any video released to date, because….

    [2] All claimed “live” network videos that depict plane-like images [e.g . the Fox 5 segment, the CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC etc. mainstream “live” footage ], and all of the [approximately] 36 “amateur” “live” videos released to date [e.g. the Fairbanks footage, the Hezerkhani footage etc. etc.], that supposedly depict a plane [ allegedly fl. 175] effortlessly gliding inside the steel reinforced concrete facade of the 500,000 ton WTC2, are fraudulent ,because, just as with the Pentagon, they depict events that were/are impossible, simply because they are in direct violation of those exact same fundamental laws of physics, [specifically Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion], that were in operation at the Pentagon that day. For example, see:http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

    And apart from the sheer scientific impossibility of the events so depicted in all of those “live” WTC1 and 2 “plane into/through building” videos, all of those videos have been exhaustively analyzed frame by frame, and are proven forgeries from a purely technical aspect [i.e. impossible camera tracking of a plane allegedly moving at 500mph., impossibly coincidental zooms, impossible exact centering of plane subject in the frame, physically impossible locations of alleged cameramen/women, incorrect lighting for time of day, entirely contradictory flight paths – the list is pretty much endless, see: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

    Also see Simon Shacks analysis of the Fox5 “live” , “plane into/ through building” footage, here:

    Bottom line? If planes were present at either Pentagon or NYC locations that day [or even in PA], then they obviously were not captured on any live film released to date [ because all of the released footage is obviously fraudulent for both fundamental scientific reasons and because of internal technical impossibilities] .

    Speaking only for myself, if planes were present that day at the Pentagon or WTC complex, [as some witnesses claim], they were: [1] not captured on any film released to date, and [2] in any case could not have caused the type of resultant damage subsequently depicted , either at the Pentagon, or at the WTC.

    Admit it, we bin had.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. There are some excellent commentaries here, but none of them come from Brian Good, who is practicing the very techniques of disinformation that he alleges others, such as me, to employ.

      NPT asserts 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.

      For proof that all four of these claims are true, see “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo” (Pilots for 9/11 Truth).

      Since Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day, those crash scenes have to have been faked. And Pilots for 9/11 Truth has made a major contribution by establishing that

      (5) Flight 93 was in the air over Urbana, IL, at the time it was allegedly crashing in Shanksville;

      (6) Flight 175 was in the air over Pittsburgh at the time it was allegedly hitting the South Tower.

      We have videos that are supposed to show Flight 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South. Given the evidence above, neither can have happened, where both planes were faked.

      (7) Check out the evidence for Flight 11 on “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, for example.

      (8) Check out the evidence for Flight 175 on “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, for more.

      Since the phrase “video fakery” covers any use of videos to convey false impressions of events on 9/11, the use of fake planes means that video fakery was being used for Flights 11 and 175.

      (9) But that means that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

      (10) And that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

      Which means that, not only was video fakery taking place on 9/11 in New York City, but that all four of the theses that comprise NPT have therefore been demonstrated to be true. Q.E.D.

      1. Dr. Fetzer, the problem with no-planes theory for flight 175 is the same as the problem for the flyaway theory for flight 11–the perps had no control over who might set up a video camera and record the fact that WTC2 suddenly exploded without an airplane hitting it or who might record flight 11 flying east of the Pentagon.

        I didn’t accuse you of practicing disinformation techniques. I asked you if you had considered the possibility that data upon which you rely, data which comes from the government, might be disinformation provided to incite conspiracy theorist to make fools of themselves.

      2. Dear Dr. Fetzer,

        Because I’m for the most part a no-planer and the resident champion of September Clues here, it pains me to point out that your Q.E.D. jumps some steps and exposes sloppy logic errors. You wrote:

        Since Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day, those crash scenes have to have been faked. … We have videos that are supposed to show Flight 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South. Given the evidence above, neither can have happened, where both planes were faked.

        Flights 11 and 77 not being schedule to fly on 9/11 only questions the extent of the alleged involvement of those specific aircraft. “Faked” is such a heavy description that you’ve left without clarifiers. If an actual aircraft were involved in those crash scenes, how “fake” does it make the crash scenes just because the aircraft were (purposely and disingenuously) misidentified as the alleged aircraft?

        In my mind, an actual albeit misidentified aircraft crash does not constitute a fake crash scene. My pointing this out just means that you are missing steps required for the true Q.E.D. proof of what was faked.

        The way I see it, Flights 11 and 77 not being schedule to fly on 9/11 and your other points about where aircraft were at the time of significant events at the WTC and Pentagon are data points. They combine well with data points about the lack of crash physics, excessive speeds, inconsistent flight paths, faking of radar blips (as per the multiple military exercises), no collaboration of serial numbered aircraft parts to actual aircrafts, and obvious tainting of imagery with pixels-of-planes.

        FTR, I believe that media imagery of aircraft at the WTC was faked: pixels on the telly. It became truly a low-risk operation compared to real planes. I believe that full spectrum domination translated on 9/11 to control of the network imagery and message to being the OCT fairy tale. The Clues Forum (and Mr. OneBornFree) take these nuggets of truth and bury them with concepts that they have only marginally provided convincing proof: the ole “take ownership of a topic and run it into the weeds” ploy.

    2. onebornfree,

      You lie a lot about the WTC attack to support your NPT. Repeating disinformation over and over again, such as

      “[no planes] were captured on any video released to date, because….

      [2] All claimed “live” network videos that depict plane-like images [e.g . the Fox 5 segment, the CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC etc. mainstream “live” footage ], and all of the [approximately] 36 “amateur” “live” videos released to date [e.g. the Fairbanks footage, the Hezerkhani footage etc. etc.], that supposedly depict a plane [ allegedly fl. 175] effortlessly gliding inside the steel reinforced concrete facade of the 500,000 ton WTC2, are fraudulent ,because, just as with the Pentagon, they depict events that were/are impossible, simply because they are in direct violation of those exact same fundamental laws of physics, [specifically Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion]”

      does not make it true no matter how many times you repeat it.

      onebornfree, you don’t know your physics. Kinetic Energy explains how fast moving planes were able to penetrate the sides of the steel towers. No physics laws were violated.

      The “nose out” disinfo has been debunked years ago.

      Craig, I really hope that this place does not become overrun by these NPT disinfo trolls. It would be a shame, as there aren’t very many places left for intelligent discussion on 9/11 issues.

      1. Keenan,

        While I agree with your critique of Onebornfree’s lack of lucidity, I think that the terms, “Lying” and “Liar”, are such strong indictments that they should be abandoned in such forums as this.

        I may find Onebornfree a whacky duck, but the thought of tossing him out of the lake is an obvious injustice to free debate.

        I agree that there aren’t many places left for intelligent discussion of 9/11 – and there aren’t many 9/11 threads left with a moderator willing to post opinions that are far from their own, such as the tolerance and balanced fairness Mr. McKee has become known for.

        I think the banning of agent Albury Smith was and remains justified, as per his MO of being a total disruptive ingredient to any sane discussions. He is the only poster ever banned at my home base blog, COTO.

        Banning should be seen as the most extreme of acts in a society that cherishes free speech.

        ww

      2. Craig,

        I very much support what Keenan has said with regard to the trolling of blogs, and muddying the waters by mixing excellent rock solid evidence in with wild speculations and nonsense, such as what we’ve seen in this thread by known provocateur Brian Good (aka “truebeleaguer”, at truthaction, “snug.bug” at blogspot.com and “punxsatawneybarney” on youtube), and also the ridiculous “plane bomb” theory put forth by TruthMakesPeace.

        I do appreciate the fact that you’re trying to keep speech as free and open as possible here, since censorship and bannings were the order of the day at 911blogger and similar sites, to where many sincere and legit activists were purged.

        But on the other end of the pendulum, too much disinfo spamming from the trolls serves to adulterate the scene in the opposite way from the censorship and bannings; good activists won’t leave because they’re purged; they’ll leave because the quality of the discussion has been so intensely diluted. I’m glad you pulled the plug on SnowCrash being allowed to post here; keep those senses active.

        There must be a balance.

      3. keenanroberts says: “You lie a lot about the WTC attack to support your NPT Repeating disinformation over and over again, …”

        Yes , I get it , keenanroberts , I lie, you tell the truth.I’m just a disinfo agent blah blah blah. :- 0

        Bottom line: if you choose to believe that commercial aircraft can :

        [1] attain speeds of 500 mph at below 1000 ft. and still have their engines function normally, _and_ at the same time perform maneuvers requiring pin point accuracy, [with or without a real pilot] , and …

        [2] that those same thin-skinned [with aluminum] commercial aircraft [with, I might add, plastic nose-cone sections ], can slice virtually uninterrupted through multiple 20 ton sections of steel columns and floor trusses embedded in 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, without even losing any parts on initial impact , or without even slowing down considerably upon impact , but just merrily go on their way into the building, virtually unimpeded,like a hot knife through butter, as the Fairbanks video allegedly depicts: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html , that is your choice, and yours alone.

        Mr Roberts, for your information, I have no interest in debating or trying to change your choice of belief.

        Personally speaking, I think your post displays an alarming lack of understanding of basic 200+ year old scientific principles of motion that govern moving bodies in collision with stationary objects, but if you choose to believe that I know nothing about physics ,and you, on the other hand, know everything, so be it, but you are going to have to find other people to argue with about it .I am not into “greater expert” games.

        And I especially am not here to discuss these issues with someone whose first post [or is it the 2nd?] to me starts out by calling me a liar and one who is allegedly “Repeating disinformation over and over again” .

        You will be studiously ignored by me from now on.[Except possibly as source of entertainment when bored] .

        Goodbye Mr Roberts, have a “nice” life, and no regards, onebornfree [Keep taking those blue pills by the way🙂 ]

      4. Dear Mr. KeenanRoberts,

        As the resident champion of no-planes (at the WTC), you make some valid points about Mr. OneBornFree’s defense of the same. I have chided him in other threads for his obtuse debating behavior being counter productive to an agenda of truth.

        You wrote:

        onebornfree, you don’t know your physics.

        This has been proven true in other venues. No argument there. (However, it doesn’t apply to me, so be careful.)

        You continued:

        Kinetic Energy explains how fast moving planes were able to penetrate the sides of the steel towers. No physics laws were violated.

        Not completely true.

        – The speed of the aircraft at sea level in heavy air exceeding its maximum rating at high altitude violates laws of physics both for the integrity of the structure of the aircraft as well as the thrust capabilities of the engines to even obtain that speed in anything other than a steep dive — which the telly pixels don’t show.

        – The aircraft exhibiting no crash physics in terms of deformation and deceleration violates laws of physics.

        – The tail of the aircraft entering the towers and into its own fuselage space at the same speed it traveled through thin air violates laws of physics.

        – The miraculous zoom-in’s that upon reverse-play zoom-out’s did not show the aircraft where its calculated speed predicts where it should be violates laws of physics.

        – The differences in depicted flight path from view-to-view violates laws of physics.

        Consider the portion of the wing from the engines out to the tips as well as the tail. These are not inherently strong structures; they are in fact built with light material. These materials slicing through the inherently strong steel mesh structure of the outer walls violates laws of physics. Slicing up and pieces bouncing off were to be expected, but didn’t happen.

        The “nose out” disinfo has been debunked years ago.

        No it hasn’t. You can provide links, though. And even if attempts on this facet were made and even validated, it is but one facet.

        [Mr. OneBornFree is known for not presenting the strongest NPT arguments because he has two agendas. Agenda 1 is to so poorly defend NPT that forums like this will write it as not being worthy of further research. Assuming Agenda 1 fails, Agenda 2 is to hook potential believers to the point they disqualify all imagery so that you can’t use it to prove squat about anything.]

        All of the attempted debunking of the September Clues that I’ve seen — even by Anthony Lawson — run out steam pretty quickly and jump to the conclusion: False in one, false in all; I just need to prove this one nugget as fool’s gold and then can dismiss the rest of the body of work.”

        Stronger arguments for NPT would be the already mentioned miracle zoom-in’s that don’t show the plane on reverse-play zoom-out’s and the four different versions from a helicopter: (1) one with nothing, just the explosion; (2) one with an orb; (3) one with the background masked out to be sky and a plane flying some whacked out different trajectory; (4) one with the orb replaced with pixels almost resembling a plane, which in my estimation was a very late entry. In any event, the four different versions proves that some video manipulation happened and is a huge smoking gun to legitimately get us to question 9/11 imagery.

        Craig, I really hope that this place does not become overrun by these NPT disinfo trolls. It would be a shame, as there aren’t very many places left for intelligent discussion on 9/11 issues.

        I am NPT. I suppose you could even call me a troll, but I’ve been on T&S a long time and try to play well with everyone.

        Disinfo? In my case, I’m duped. All it takes is intelligent discussion using properly applied science and analysis to dupe me another way and we can be in agreement. I’d like to be set straight, if I am wrong.

        Alas, this NPT is forbidden in most forums, and curiously so. This is always a red flag. Dr. Wood is also forbidden. Few have the nuggets to mine the aforementioned for nuggets of truth. I believe that all — literally everything — we have on 9/11 is disinformation, so we have to be mining it for nuggets of truth.

        Mr. OneSliceShort references an article that in other places is called 25 Traits of a Disinformationalist. Sorry to say that Mr. OneBornFree and even Mr. Shack himself exhibit this.

        #16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. They don’t off anybody, but their agenda doesn’t stop with distrust all 9/11 imagery. They want it all off of the table, even images of the aftermath and clean-up. Can’t use it to prove squat.

        #20. False evidence. This is my conclusion from having looked at the Clues Forums that tries to make the case the collapse imagery is all faked and the aftermath imagery is all faked.

        #22. Manufacture a new truth. Hollow towers comes to mind. Some level of SimVictims as well.

        #23. Create bigger distractions. SimVictims was probably the Clues Forums attempt in this area. Certainly very emotional and designed to really piss people off. I don’t discount that some degree of this was in play given that it was part of Operation Northwood; but the extent remains in question.

        My point is that NPT is championed (by Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree) in such a manner to shoot holes in nuggets of truth and disinfo alike. Between these and some who engage them, the design is get readers to the point where they would sooner ban them (and their topics) than explore this. Plays by design right into the hand of disinfo to get nuggets of truth swept off of the table.

        So in conclusion, we know that disinformation games are being played right within the very pixels of this thread of Mr. McKee’s blog. All disinformation, to have any traction, must be built on a solid foundation of truth.

        I encourage participants to keep an open mind, to explore things on their own, to come to your own conclusions, to judge nuggets of both truth and disinfo, and to not hastily dismiss nuggets of truth due to the actions of others. Oh, and remain respectful while you’re ripping faulty concepts or poor arguments a new one.

      5. @hybridrogue,

        I’m not suggesting that obf be banned at this point. My suggestion that I made to Craig in another comment was to create a specific thread called “NPT” and then confine NPT discussion to that thread in order to try to stop the NPT trolls from spamming all of the other threads with the same crap that has been debunked over and over again, which seems to be their MO.

        Perhaps that special thread can be called “NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood” since those things all sort of go together and their champions mostly seem to be of the same breed, or the same trolling and spamming MO.

      6. @Señor El Once

        Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Although I do not wish to have an in-depth discussion or debate on NPT at this time, as I’ve become thoroughly exhausted with the subject after having to deal with the same debunked crap for the last 6 years on various online discussion forums, I will respond to some of your points.

        FIrst of all, It is not my preference to ban people because of their views, and I’ve never stated or implied that we should ban people for their views. My preference, as I’ve suggested to Craig, is to create a special thread where NPT discussion can be confined to so that other threads are not hijacked and spammed by the NPT folks, which is their MO too much of the time.

        I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not like most of the NPT folks I”ve encountered over the years and display much better behavior. You do seem like a pretty reasonable and intelligent fellow.

        Now, to address some of your points (I’m assuming that all of these are referring to the WTC crime scene unless otherwise stated):

        “- The speed of the aircraft at sea level in heavy air exceeding its maximum rating at high altitude violates laws of physics both for the integrity of the structure of the aircraft as well as the thrust capabilities of the engines to even obtain that speed in anything other than a steep dive — which the telly pixels don’t show.”

        A plane exceeding its particular maximum design specs and a plane violating the laws of physics are 2 completely different things. You seem to be confusing the 2 concepts. We don’t know what exact plane was used, though it seems that the government’s contention that a normal Boeing 767 passenger plane was used is false. I believe that most likely a modified Boeing, or another military aircraft that had higher maximum speed specs was used. Just because A plane exceeded its supposed or official design specs does not in any way prove that laws of physics were violated.

        “- The aircraft exhibiting no crash physics in terms of deformation and deceleration violates laws of physics.”

        This has not been proven. In order to prove this assertion, clear, high resolution videos need to be available in which the center of gravity of the plane can bee seen through the whole process to be able to make a determination. It is not sufficient to just look at the tail section to determine the rate of deceleration of the entire plane, because the tail section would continue on its forward momentum even as the front of the plane was already crumpling and ceasing its forward momentum. Most NPT advocates are using invalid methods and improper assumptions in their determinations.

        In most cases, the videos are not of high enough resolution or of enough frames to clearly see. In many cases, the center of gravity of the plane was already obscured before enough frames passed to be able to sufficiently measure and calculate the deceleration.

        “- The tail of the aircraft entering the towers and into its own fuselage space at the same speed it traveled through thin air violates laws of physics.”

        Not true. The tail of the aircraft could still be traveling close to its original (thin air) forward momentum even while the front of the aircraft was already crumpling and stopped in its forward momentum. The videos are not of high enough resolution and of sufficient frames per second to detect small decreases in forward momentum as the tail entered the building. There have been some studies done that did detect some deceleration. Look it up.

        “Consider the portion of the wing from the engines out to the tips as well as the tail. These are not inherently strong structures; they are in fact built with light material. These materials slicing through the inherently strong steel mesh structure of the outer walls violates laws of physics. Slicing up and pieces bouncing off were to be expected, but didn’t happen.”

        False. Look up Kinetic Energy. KE = 1/2 m * v^2 KE equals one half the mass times the velocity squared. Speed makes a HUGE difference in the penetrating power of one object into another. Things behave differently when accelerated to extremely high speeds. Why do you think bullets are made out of lead – the softest metal there is, even softer than aluminum? The reason is because when lead bullets are accelerated to thousands of feet per second in guns, the physics change, and suddenly those soft lead bullets are able to go through steel plates. Consider also Karate masters able to bust wood and concrete with their bare hands when accelerated to high speeds. Consider that NASA worries about tiny little space particles punching holes through space vehicles because when the tiny particles are traveling at 20,000 mph in relation to the space vehicle, suddenly the tiny particles act as though they are stronger than several inches of steel. Consider that hurricanes can accelerate sticks and straw to puncture the trunks of trees.

        Besides, the tips of the wings did break off, and the videos are not of high enough resolution to have captured all of the pieces that did break off. Nevertheless, Kinetic Energy perfectly explains

        You should get a physics book and study the effects of Kinetic Energy.

        Anyway, here’s a few nuggets to chew on. I’m really not interested in spending any more time debating NPT, for reasons I’ve already stated. September Clues video is blatant disinfo because it was deceptively edited for the purpose of misleading the viewer. You say that just because there are some parts of it that are faulty doesn’t mean that it is false in its entirety. My response is that it doesn’t matter. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So what? If the makers of the video were caught engaging in any disinformation, it cannot be considered a trustworthy or valid must be rejected, regardless of something(s) might be true in it.

        Anyway, that’s all I’m going to say on the matter at this point. I appreciate your willingness to have an intelligent and civil discussion on the issue. But this has been debated ad infinitum in other places.

      7. keenanroberts seems to think the speed of the aircraft–which was analogous to an empty beer can–impacting with a massive 500,000-ton building–which was like a brick wall–matters, when Newton’s third law dictates that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph hitting a stationary building are the same as a statonary plane being hit by a 500,000-ton building moving at 500 mph. He is ignorant of physics and his arguments show it. Is he unaware of the damage done to a plane by impact with a tiny bird weighing a few ounces? It should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. But none of that happened.

        What this means is that we are not watching a real plane but something that looks like a real plane but performs feats that no real plane can perform. It passes its entire length into this massive building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That is impossible, unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to an aircraft in flight than does air. And Senor El Once seems to discount the fact that the image in the Naudet footage looks NOTHING LIKE a Boeing 767, while many witnesses reported seeing a plane that looked like A BOEING 767 enter the South Tower. Unless we discount all of the witness reports, we have to accept that they saw something that LOOKED LIKE a plane but was not a real plane.

        I think it would be wise of persons like these to actually look at the evidence I have presented in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, because they are committing mistakes that they would not make if only they were more familiar with the evidence. We have to account for the witness reports as well as the laws of physics, where it turns out that both planes appear to have been simulated. It was not a matter of pixels after the event but of creating images that, without close inspection, could pass for planes hitting those buildings. But we know much more now, which I have laid out in detail in those two studies. Absent replicating them here, I strongly recommend that they study them.

      8. Mr. Fetzer,

        You can’t possibly be that be silly enough to actually believe that the whole entire 500,000 tons of the building was involved in resisting the plane when only a very tiny hole was punctured through the structure. If this is the asinine way you are going to begin a supposed “scientific” inquiry, I’m not even going to bother attempting to have a reasonable debate with you. Besides, this is way off topic to the title of the thread and I’d rather not participate in yet another NPT hijacking of a thread.

        1. I have been waiting for keenanroberts to demonstrate that he is at least as ignorant as Brian Good, which he has now done. There are multiple indications here he has no idea what he’s talking about and that he has not been doing his homework, even though I have recommended it to them both:

          (1) “the plane” purported to be Flight 175 was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete and connected to the core columns at one end and the external steel support columns at the other, which would have posed enormous horizontal resistance;

          (2) “the plane” nevertheless passes effortlessly its complete length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its complete length through air; since equal distance in equal times implies equal velocities, there is no diminution in velocity, when it ought to have dropped to zero;

          (3) Roberts adopts the model of stacks of coins, such as a stack of dimes on top of a stack of pennies on top of a stack of nickles on top of a stack of quarters on top of a stack of half-dollars, where, if you hit them right with a sharp object, you might dislodge one of them from the stack.

          But that is faulty analogy, since the floors of the building were interconnected and welded together. A suitable analogy would be a similar stack of coins WELDED TOGETHER. The fact is that these guys have no idea what they are talking about and do not even understand the tower’s structure.

          Those buildings were rooted in bedrock, just as a gigantic tree is rooted to the ground. No matter how fast a car might be traveling, it will not pass through the tree and more than a real plane, no matter how fast it might be traveling, is going to pass through a 500,000-ton building. It is absurd.

          Since I have explained these points in multiple places, including “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, which I have recommended they study lest they make complete fools of themselves, we have yet another indication that they are incompetent at research and should not be posting here.

      9. By your logic, a bullet would never be able to penetrate any human being, being that the mass of a human being is anywhere from 3000 to 15000 times the mass of the bullet. Dip shit. Are you really that stupid, or are you just pretending to be?

        1. Further substantiation that keenanroberts has no understanding of physics and lacks the elementary competence to be addressing these issues. In conflicts between materials, the more dense prevails over the less dense. Steel is more dense than aluminum. Bullets are more dense than flesh. That he does not comprehend that the towers were massive lattice structures with mutually reinforcing components reveals the dimensions of his ignorance. That he attempt to parlay his ignorance into a virtue and makes nasty ad hominems to conceal it suggests to me he has no business being here.

      10. Mr. Fetzer,

        All of your bull shit pseudo-science arguments have been debunked many times over in other forums that you’ve been involved with, and yet you persist in pulling out the same debunked arguments over and over again. I’ve already tried to explain to you Kinetic Energy physics in other forums, and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any of it. You never concede anything. You are not as clever as you think you are. You use a lot of big physics words but spout utter bull shit that people who are somewhat conversant with physics can easily see through. That fact that you NEVER even back up ANY of your claims with calculations should be a red flag to most people. I guess you feel that as long as you fool a lot of laymen with your pseudo-science bs that you’ve succeeded with your agenda. You apparently are very much an expert in intellectual dishonesty, however, I’ll give you that.

        How you’ve made it to PHD level with your complete inability to grasp so many basic science concepts is beyond me. Although your degrees are not science degrees specifically, I would still think that people with PHDs should still have a good understanding of basic physics and chemistry science. At least for someone with a “Philosophy of Science” degree, you should be way more conversant with Physics and Chemistry than you are. Or maybe you are just pretending that you are so completely confused about those concepts.

        Either way, I see no reason for wasting any of my time debating with someone as intellectually dishonest as you. I’m setting you on ‘ignore’ from this point forward. Just realize, though, that you aint fooling very many people on this forum. Shame on you, professor Fetzer, for using your professor credentials for obfuscation rather than truth.

  29. Craig, I already posted my answer. Lies in the official story: the claim that fires were burning on a part of floor 12 of WTC7 at a time when photos show there were no fires there. The claim that steel cooking a long time in the rubble pile could reach melting temperatures. Truths in the official story: airplanes hit WTC 1 and WTC2, which subsequently fell down. WTC7 fell down,

    1. Brian,

      This answer is unsatisfactory and disingenuous. First of all, I’m not aware of your previous answer. If you have a link to that, please provide it. Failing that, I would like a real answer repeated here. I’m sure the current contributors to this thread would find it illuminating as well.

      I want you to tell me what you think happened. I mean based on the evidence; I’m not asking you to speculate on things we can’t know for sure. We already know very well what you ridicule in the opinions of others.

      If someone asked me this question, I wouldn’t hesitate: I believe 9/11 was a false flag operation pulled off and covered up by the U.S. government and very likely other governments. I believe the World Trade Center buildings were brought down with explosives of one kind or another. There were many explosions prior to the buildings coming down, and some before the first alleged 757 impact. I don’t believe that flights 11 and 175 with real passengers hit the buildings.

      I highly doubt there were any real hijackings, and I certainly don’t think genuine terrorists were involved at all. I don’t think that Osama bin Laden ever confessed to anything and that the one video allegedly showing him doing so is fake.

      I think Building 7 was probably intended to come down in the morning but something went wrong. I don’t believe anything hit the Pentagon. Explosives were used to simulate a crash. A large plane flew towards the Pentagon on a path north of the Citgo gas station but it did not hit the building. I think some of the media personalities who claim to have seen a plane impact are lying. Hello, Mike “the wings folded in” Walter.

      Oh, and I don’t believe Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, burying itself underground except for one terrorist’s passport.

      You get the idea. I want to know where you stand because I think you like to jump around keeping the discussion spinning in circles by asking silly questions. I agree with others who have accused you of this.

      The buildings fell down? That’s quite a limb you’ve gone out on. No fires on the 12th floor?

      So, take a short break from insulting our intelligence and tell us what you think happened.

      1. Craig, I told you what I think happened. I think airplanes hit buildings and the buildings fell down. I think the government’s investigation of how that happened was corrupt. You are free to believe what you want. I try to avoid believing things, myself.

        If you examine the structure of an airplane wing you will see that the first part that hits the building is the shoulder where the leading spar joins the wing box. Soon after that the middle spar hits the wall and then the wing loses all fore-and-aft structural stability.

        I don’t ask silly questions. Where did the flyover plane go? is not a silly question. How could the light poles be planted without detection? is not a silly question.

        It seems that you want to have a 9/11 Theories Club instead of a 9/11 Truth discussion board. That’s your prerogative.

        Here is my earlier post:

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4248

        April 17, 2012 at 4:53 pm
        Craig, I don’t see why anybody should care about my opinions, and I suspect that most of those who are interested are just looking for an excuse to disregard my facts. Right off hand the only things that come to mind that I’m certain are false is NIST’s chart showing fires in a place on the 12th floor of WTC7 at a time when photos show there was no fire there, and NIST’s claim in the FAQs that long heating in the rubble pile could have caused steel to melt. I suspect that the tale that Cheney did not arrive in the White House bunker until a few minutes before 10:00 is not true.
        I’m sure there are others, but I can’t think of anything right now. What do I think is true about the official story? I think airplanes hit the twin towers and they fell down, I think building 7 fell down, I think Bush sat on his ass in a Florida schoolroom.
        I try not to have opinions about things unless there’s some very good reason–especially when my data are incomplete and my sources are unrealiable and contradictory.

        1. Brian,

          You say: “Craig, I don’t see why anybody should care about my opinions, and I suspect that most of those who are interested are just looking for an excuse to disregard my facts. …

          But isn’t this what you always do? Take shots at others’ positions without putting one forward yourself? Aren’t you just looking for an excuse to disregard other people’s facts? You ridicule the idea that the light pole evidence was faked. But you never tell us what you think happened. Anybody can do this.

          “What do I think is true about the official story? I think airplanes hit the twin towers and they fell down, I think building 7 fell down, I think Bush sat on his ass in a Florida schoolroom.”

          I’m sorry, but this isn’t saying anything. We know Building 7 fell down. But how and why? Bush sat on his ass? We know that. Why? What does this tell us? When you stick to rehashing the same talking points over and over, and never argue FOR anything, then people are naturally, and understandably, going to question your sincerity and your motives. And your pet subject, the Pentagon, doesn’t get a mention in your cursory overview. Why not?

          “I try not to have opinions about things unless there’s some very good reason –especially when my data are incomplete and my sources are unreliable and contradictory.”

          This leaves me none the wiser about what you think. Are you just misunderstood? Why do so many people think you’re trying to derail genuine discussion?

  30. Spot the Freeper

    Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits:

    1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

    2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

    3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

    4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

    5) Their disdain for “conspiracy theorists” and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

    6) An odd kind of “artificial” emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the “image” and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to “act their role in type” as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.

    1. OSS,

      So I gather you think I should have banned Good by now? Perhaps so. I do agree with your characterization of him. I have asked him to go on the record with a thorough opinion about what happened on 9/11. I suspect he will not do this, at least not to my satisfaction (based on his last offering). If he doesn’t then you won’t be reading any more comments from him.

      1. With all due respect, Craig, and although I am a newbie and therefor unfamiliar with Mr Good’s prior posting history, I think it would be wrong to ban him – it reveals the bias of the moderator and sets a bad tone.

        Surely a good moderator needs to stay away from banning someone just because they disagree with a particular posters point of view ? And yet time and time again, this is exactly what happens in discussion forums. You have clearly stated your own view of what happened/did not happen on 9/11 to Mr Good [and which I pretty much agree with], but it seems wrong to threaten to ban him because he does not agree with it. Or am I missing something here?

        Personally, no matter how much I disagree with him, I see nothing wrong with him expressing his point of view as long as he’s reasonably respectful, [unlike another long time poster here apparently].

        Anybody who disagrees with Mr Good is surely free to ignore him, just as they are free to ignore anyone else here, including myself.

        Regards, onebornfree

        1. Onebornfree,

          It doesn’t necessarily reveal a bias on the part of the moderator. In fact, I take more criticism for allowing certain comments and certain people than I do for being too quick to ban. In fact, I’ve banned just one person in the 20 months this blog has existed, and that was because I came to believe he was purposely trying to derail honest discussion. I would have banned Snowcrash had he not agreed on his own to go away. That was because he was making nasty personal attacks and basically daring me to ban him.

          I’m quite happy to debate subjects with people who don’t agree with me. But I don’t think it’s right if a person tries to lead a debate in circles to cause mischief for their own reasons. I hate censorship, and I wasn’t pleased to be banned from 911blogger because of my views, but every publication – whether on paper or online – reserves the right to publish what they want.

          It’s a very tough call, and it’s possible to make the wrong one, but ultimately this is my home field. As Senor El Once has said several times, everyone is free to have their own blog (including Brian Good) and to control that forum. It’s easy to sit back and take shots at what others say, as Brian does. Taking a stand of your own and opening yourself up to scrutiny is something else again.

        2. Onebornfree,

          It doesn’t necessarily reveal a bias on the part of the moderator. In fact, I take more criticism for allowing certain comments and certain people than I do for being too quick to ban. In fact, I’ve banned just one person in the 20 months this blog has existed, and that was because I came to believe he was purposely trying to derail honest discussion. I would have banned Snowcrash had he not agreed on his own to go away. That was because he was making nasty personal attacks and basically daring me to ban him.

          I’m quite happy to debate subjects with people who don’t agree with me. But I don’t think it’s right if a person tries to lead a debate in circles to cause mischief for their own reasons. I hate censorship, and I wasn’t pleased to be banned from 911blogger because of my views, but every publication – whether on paper or online – reserves the right to publish what they want.

          It’s a very tough call, and it’s possible to make the wrong one, but ultimately this is my home field. As Senor El Once has said several times, everyone is free to have their own blog (including Brian Good) and to control that forum. It’s easy to sit back and take shots at what others say, as Brian does. Taking a stand of your own and opening yourself up to scrutiny is something else again.

      2. Hi Craig,

        No mate, I wasn’t having a pop at you, I was talking about moderation in general on all forums.
        It’s up to you who you ban of course, but I just wish that discussion based on sourced evidence and valid counterargument would be enforced. You’ve had just a taste of the Good roadshow and I can tell you’re peeved!

        Adam Ruff and Mr Once have suggested (and rightly so) that it’s better to ignore trollish posts and pisstaking verbiage that goes nowhere but if it is deemed as garbage, why allow it in the first place? It can in no way, shape or form be regarded as censorship when what started as a good blog where real truthseekers can have a rational, even if heated discussion, turns into a farce.

        In fact, I would actually send the examples of disruptive tactics being used here to Gage. After all Good and Sarns read from the same hymnbook in their tactics. And the latter is referenced in his “withdrawal” from endorsement of CIT!

        1. OSS,

          And I understand that Brian Good is working on AE911Truth videos as a volunteer.

          I’m becoming peeved indeed because I can see that Good’s claims about seeking the truth through weeding out weak arguments are crap. He won’t even state where he stands on 9/11. All we know is what he’s against.

          I really hate the idea of banning people. I don’t want to stoop to the level of other sites (and we know which ones I’m talking about) that ban everyone who disagrees with them. But when I come to believe that someone is not being sincere, then I move in that direction.

          Having said that, it’s not always easy to determine what’s garbage and what isn’t. What criteria should be used? It’s going to be subjective. That ignoring thing sounds pretty good to me as well. I know we don’t want false statements not being refuted, but there are times when I think we give the Goods of this world more attention than their limited insights deserve.

          Anyway, thanks for your input. You’re one of the people who keep the discussion constructive.

    2. OSS, I attack the issues head on.

      I point out that your claim that the light poles were “hidden” is not true–they were right out in the short grass visible from the off ramp, the on ramp, and the pike.

      I point out that your claim that the cab was on the bridge is not true–photos clearly show it south of the bridge.

      I point out that your claim that the NoC plane can not hit the Pentagon is based on your imposition of exaggerated ground-clearance requirements.

      I point out that a flyover plot would be like planning to escape from a bank robbery on a pogo stick. There was no way to control who might see or video the departing plane.

      I point out that you have not one flyaway witness.

      I point out that runway 15 is not used by 757s and so any 757 landing there would be very noteworthy. I point out that once the plane lands on runway 15 there’s no way to dispose of it.

  31. Craig, I have a suggestion. Is there a way to confine all of the NPT stuff into a separate thread, so that that NPT trolls don’t clog up the discussions and hijack unrelated threads?

    1. Craig,

      Once again, I agree with Keenan. For the record, even though I think the DEW and WTC NPT theories are rubbish, I think 911blogger started their slippery slope into fascism by declaring that certain topics would be forbidden to be discussed since they are ridiculous on their face. At the time in 2008 when Reprehensor did this, I actually agreed with the move, since I cared about credibility. However, when they extended this censorship to include Kevin Barrett, vocal Pilots and CIT supporters, and the entire WTCDemo crew, I had a different opinion with 20/20 hindsight.

      So I don’t think you should ban discussion of WTC NPT theories, but perhaps get conversation diversions more compartmentalized, as Rob Balsamo does when the conversation goes off-topic at Pilots.

      With your current blog settings, there is no feature that takes the viewer to the latest comment in a thread, so this means having to wade through many off topic posts in order to find the new one you’re actually looking for. When the thread goes into the hundreds of comments, this gets very wearisome.

      But then again, the fact that you’re getting hundreds of comments is, for the most part, a “good” problem! I actually prefer to see more discussion and participation even if there are a few trolls, than to see places like 911blogger, wtcdemo and 911oz that are veritable ghost towns. In fact they’re SUCH ghost towns that any newcomers to 9/11 truth now would peruse them and get the impression the truth movement is dead. Your blog fills in a HUGE void, I’m just saying, like most human experiments, it’s not perfect (yet) so of course any critiques from me to you should be taken in that light. 🙂

    2. …”trolls don’t clog up the discussions and hijack unrelated threads?”

      You say Mr. Roberts. This is quite interesting after “clog{ing}” up the previous thread with an insistence that you and I debate the totally unrelated topic of whether the Mossad/Israel is the sole party for the instigation of 9/11.

      But the designation of “troll” applied to yourself would be met with sputtering incredulous blasts of thermate breath. Perhaps you should attend to your epistemic sense for the topic of “hypcrisy”.

      ww

    3. Keenan,

      That’s tricky, because the threads on this blog are not exactly like the threads on a regular forum. The topic is defined by the subject of the article. But since most of the debate shifts to the most recent thread, it’s not that practical to have certain subjects relegated to other article threads. If I could figure out a way to do this then I would consider it for certain subjects.

    4. Keenan, I left a message for you on the last thread – now that most eyes have come over here, I left some info on the Saud-Jewish genealogical story.~ww

      1. Hydridrogue,

        I will check out the genealogical story when I have some spare time. My time is limited in how much of it can be spent in online disussions at this point because of other prioritites I need to be attending to, so I can’t promise you that I will read and respond to it in a timely manner.

  32. keenanroberts says: “Craig, I have a suggestion. Is there a way to confine all of the NPT stuff into a separate thread, so that that NPT trolls don’t clog up the discussions and hijack unrelated threads?”

    Yet another person with an infallible point of view who wishes to have it enforced on every one else [because it is soooooo infallible, and so everyone else with a different POV is obviously a “troll” who “clog[s] up” the forum].

    How about the opposite occurs, Mr Roberts, i.e. Mr McKee confines all of the none- NPT stuff into a separate thread, so that that the none- NPT “trolls” [your term] like yourself don’t “clog up” [your term] the discussions and “hijack” [your term] “unrelated” [your term] threads?

    Unsatisfactory somehow? Why am I not surprised?

    Nice try, but no cigar🙂 regards onebornfree.

    1. OBF, the content of McKee’s essay has nothing whatsoever to do with WTC no plane theories. Therefore, the “none-NPT stuff” is on topic, the NPT stuff, off-topic. When the discussion (which is supposed to be about the saga of Richard Gage offering support for CIT, then withdrawing that support, and now somewhat backpedaling to a middle “I don’t know what happened” ground) turns toward “nose-in, nose out” at the WTC, the conversation has been hijacked. Can you seriously not see that?

      Regarding the Pentagon though: You spouted some nonsense earlier on which I must challenge you:

      “Was there an aircraft at the Pentagon that day? Nobody who was not there can know for certain, which makes all alleged “eyewitness testimony” unverifiable, and pretty much useless.”

      Ridiculous. If that’s the case, it could be said about any event of any kind anywhere in the world. If you yourself weren’t there, how do you even know it happened?

      Yes, even if there are no other humans around to hear it, that falling tree in the forest DOES make a sound because of the laws of the physics of sound, not to mention that there would be non-human life forms in the forest who WOULD hear it.

      1. Adam Syed said: “OBF, the content of McKee’s essay has nothing whatsoever to do with WTC no plane theories. ” .

        Sir, if you cannot see any direct connection between the alleged physics of the Pentagon “attack” and the various claims of the alleged “eyewitnesses” discussed in the article, to the alleged physics of the WTC attacks, then that is your problem, not mine. I think it is relevant ,therefor I posted what I did. Deal with it.

        Regarding alleged “eye witness” testimony you say: “Ridiculous. If that’s the case, it could be said about any event of any kind anywhere in the world. ”

        Exactly. What are you suggesting, that there is nothing procedurally wrong with yourself [or anyone else] cherry-picking any alleged “eye-witness testimony” you fancy that backs up your own particular iron clad version of what happened? How old are you, 14?

        Personally I have no idea as to whether _any_ of the alleged witnesses are telling the truth, and the fact of the matter is that neither do you [or anyone else].

        Some may be, but still I have absolutely no idea at this time failing a rigorous cross-examination of those concerned by a skillful, knowledgeable defense attorney or similar.

        As to this quote from you :” ….. You spouted some nonsense earlier ” .

        This already indicates the level of discourse you wish to assume with me, in your very first response, no less, so I will hereby refrain from further interactions with you. So, just as I previously told Mr Roberts, goodbye [for good], and no regards, onebornfree.

    2. Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

      What Schadenfreude I get when participants like Mr. Syed thump you for your stupid actions here.

      One day, Mr. McKee will undoubtedly write an article on no-planes and another on Dr. Wood. I expect both articles will be unsatisfactory to both their champions and their die-hard opponents, because the nuanced truth will shoot holes in the dug-in-encampments and myth-making of both.

      I agree with you that NPT has a place in this thread. After all, NOC flight path and fly-over ultimately means “no plane hit the Pentagon”, although an actual plane was deployed as part of the ruse. In terms of full-spectrum domination and military objectives to control the media in all operations, parallels between WTC NPT and NOC fly-over run deep.

      But this hasn’t really been your argument.

      In fact, I’ve been in agreement with more of your opponent’s points than yours. I view you as purposely trying to create a bad reputation for NPT, September Clues, Clues Forums, etc. precisely so that the tenor of responses of participants will swing negatively against NPT and no rational discussions can happen.

      Therefore, I ask that you clean up your act. Don’t start flame wars. Don’t argue unreasonable and irrational points. Be objective in all things including criticism against that which you champion, because the modus operandus of the powers-against-us will clearly sow seeds of disinfo into all things. If you aren’t cherry-picking nuggets of truth, you are (for lack of better terms) either an ignorant brain-dead wannabe or an agent with an agenda.

      Because I’m the resident champion of no-planes (although I’d gladly give up these duties to some other rational thinker so I could be a “me, too” echo chamber), the fact is that the important nuggets of truth from that genre are probably already well represented. What does that make your participation? Needed or not? Valued or not? It says a lot when even I, as a duped useful idiot of a no-plane trick pony rider, must dress you down.

      Here’s a test of your objectivity. What elements of the Clues Forums and September Clues do you NOT believe? What elements of the same do you consider to be disinformation? Do you believe the whole kit-and-caboodle?

      1. Mr Señor El Once , let me make myself perfectly clear , as I obviously failed to do so in a previous post in a different thread. I have NO intention of conversing with yourself , or hybridrogue1, [or anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude], about anything relating to what I believe did or [more importantly ,could not have happened at NYC, the Pentagon, or in PA on 9/11.

        After this post ,your posts will be studiously ignored by me, except if I’m bored and looking for light entertainment perhaps. I suggest you do the same regarding my posts.

        I’m pleased my posts disturb here you in some way. Go “fly a kite”, or “get a life” as they say. Zero regards, onebornfree

      2. No-plane-at-WTC2 is impossible for the very simple reason that the perps had no control over who might focus a video camera on the WTC and if the building were to blow up without the benefit of an airplane, dozens of video cameras might record that.

        The flyover hypothesis is impossible for the very same reason. There were hundreds of high-rise rooms looking out over the Pentagon and the perps had no control over who might set up a camera the morning of 9/11 and leave it running just on the chance that something interesting might happen.

      3. Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

        Clap! Clap! Clap! Bravo! Brav-oh!

        Loved your witty response! Would have been even more effective, however, if you would have taken your own advice and ignored me.

        It was so precious, I just couldn’t help but extract and repeat the highlights (with some minor corrections):

        Let me make myself perfectly clear… I have NO intention of conversing with yourself, or hybridrogue1, [or anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude], about anything relating to what I believe did or [more importantly, could not have] happened at NYC, the Pentagon, or in PA on 9/11. After this post, your posts will be studiously ignored by me.

        By the expression “anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude”, is that a reference to anybody else who “knows their shit & science better, defends their shit & case better, pokes legitimate holes in my own shit & weak knowledge, exposes my agenda for what it is, and pegs me correctly for what I am.” Got a problem with cherry-picking nuggets of truth?

        You ignore me and more importantly, my advice, at your own peril in Mr. McKee’s forums. The natives appear restless for the banishment of an agent. You’re building yourself up to be a likely candidate and are pushing the limits, because maybe you know it could be your swan song. [Doesn’t have to be that way.]

        Maybe we should escalate the test of your objectivity as a condition of continued participation here?

        Here’s a test of your objectivity.

        – What elements of the Clues Forums and September Clues do you NOT believe?

        – What elements of the same do you consider to be disinformation?

        – Do you believe the whole kit-and-caboodle of the Clues Forums and September Clues?

      4. Dear Mr. Good,

        You’ve made these arguments before and again overstepped your case just to be contrary.

        No-plane-at-WTC2 is impossible for the very simple reason that the perps had no control over who might focus a video camera on the WTC and if the building were to blow up without the benefit of an airplane, dozens of video cameras might record that.

        Other than rumors of electronic jamming and blocking and other than pushing observers back a block or more, you are right that “the perps had no control over who might focus a video camera on the WTC.”

        But what they did have control over was what amateur videos would make it out to a wider audience through the military-corporate media and what vidio manipulation such footage might undergo before such wider publication. Evan Fairbanks said himself that he was surprised at what his footage contained after he gave it to “authorities” or his “employers” and saw it broadcast live.

        Face it: if you or I or just about anyone would have been lucky enough to capture a recording of the buildings blowing up without the benefit of an airplane, we wouldn’t be thinking how curious this was. No! Due to the repeat-repeat-repeat of the pixel planes, we would be thinking: “Damn! There were real planes and I was unlucky enough to have missed the money shot. No sense giving this footage out; it is boring and inconclusive compared to those other 44 shots of an airplane. No money for me. No five minutes of fame. No nada. Damn.”

        The flyover hypothesis is impossible for the very same reason. There were hundreds of high-rise rooms looking out over the Pentagon and the perps had no control over who might set up a camera the morning of 9/11 and leave it running just on the chance that something interesting might happen

        Who cares how many hundreds of hotel rooms and offices looked out over the Pentagon? Not a single one of them had any reason at all to be studying the Pentagon intently at the moment of impact (or even seconds before) with eye balls, let alone with a camera.

        And oh! The couple of dozen or so legitimate security cameras that did have reason to have some or all of the Pentagon in their view finders? Their footage was snapped up rather quickly by the FBI and never… no, never… ever released to the public in 10 years, except for 5 fateful and inconclusive frames.

        Going around in circles, I see, Mr. Good. You and Mr. OneBornFree might have a lot to talk about in your free time away from Truth & Shadows.

      5. “I have NO intention of conversing with yourself , or hybridrogue1, [or anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude]..”~onebornfree

        At which point the question arises, who are you conversing with on this blog? Obviously you are having a conversation with yourself. Which is rather just a fart in the wind.

        Stages in moods are a common human experience. Such stages in lucidity are however another matter. An “indicator” as is said in medicine.

        Obviously your manner and attitude is mysterious to many of us here. Depending on my mood, I find it entertaining, at other times quite troubling. Whatever it is going on with you, I wish you the best of luck with it.

        ww

  33. Craig, I knock down faulty arguments. Most people not only can’t do that, most people don’t even recognize the value in it.

    Here’s an example: Somebody comes in here and says “I know there are MIA POW’s in Vietnam. I saw a movie all about it. Sylvester Stallone was in it.” I say, “That movie was fiction. Don’t you know that?” Then Adam and Adam will be all over me “Don’t you care about the POW’s? How do you know there are no POW’s?” And I say “I don’t know if there are POW’s or not. I don’t have an opinion. I did see some evidence once that the Vietnamese were less than forthcoming.” Then oneslice is all over me: “First you say there are no POW’s and then you say there are! You contradict yourself constantly!” And you say “How can you take potshots at Rambo if you won’t share your opinions?”

    I do argue for something. I argue for discarding weak arguments and sticking to strong ones. I argue that bullying and obfuscation are inherently self-discrediting rhetorical techniques. I argue that the official reports are inadequate, clearly corrupt, and scientifically untenable. We need new investigations. I argue that a bunch of hobbyists sitting around debating theories is a waste of time. I argue that CIT should do what you do with a hypothesis–go out and test it. Go out and look for flyover witnesses. Their reluctance to do so should be puzzling to everyone here, but it’s understandable to me.

    The Pentagon doesn’t get a mention in my overview because I don’t believe the official story but I can’t prove it’s a lie.

    People claim I’m trying to derail genuine discussion because they are unable to respond in any substantive way when I point out the flaws in their arguments and ask them questions they can’t answer. Look at oneslice! Still hasn’t seen that picture that shows the cab south of the bridge?
    After all these years?

    1. I am going to give you some points for this comment Brian Good. I think it does address the questions asked of you.

      I think you may often have problems articulating this point of view, as well as misinterpreting answers by others that should satisfy you as a point countered. I will offer no examples but I have seen you answered with counter arguments that should cause reevaluation on your part, yet you stubbornly reject them. You often demand a negative be disproved.

      I see this with Legge as well, in such attitudes as “it would be difficult to stage all the evidence of aircraft wreckage inside the Pentagon”. Well many things that are ‘difficult’ have nevertheless been accomplished. Very few things are impossible under the rules of the chain of command and need to know in military affairs – at least in the realm of appearances.

      And it is in an attendant aspect of this that I found your arguments against staged light poles inadequate. You may be pretty reasonable, but you have proven a certain lack of imagination in your arguments. I do not mean imagination in is the sense of ‘fantasy’ but in picturing within your mind a speculative scenario.

      ww

    2. Brian, your arguments are pointless because they used simulations of aircraft, not real planes. It would not have mattered how many cameras were recording, because NPT does not require that NO SIMULATIONS OF PLANES WERE USED but only that, in New York, Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower and Flight 175 did not hit the South. I have offered many arguments that support that conclusion and the dual tenets of NPT that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. So you need to get a better grasp on NPT, because you arguments are, by and large, irrelevant to these questions. And if you think the flying thing in the Naudet video LOOKS LIKE a Boeing 767, you haven’t studied it. And the image of a plane shown in the footage of Flight 175 flies faster than possible for a standard Boeing 767, enters the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws, and all that. Plus it has no strobe lights, casts no shadows, and has a left wing that disappears EVEN BEFORE IT ENTERS THE BUILDING. I’ve explained all of this in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video faker'” and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. So do yourself a favor and study these articles.

      1. ~ Jim Fetzer,

        You say this about the Naudet video :

        “Plus it has no strobe lights, casts no shadows, and has a left wing that disappears EVEN BEFORE IT ENTERS THE BUILDING. I’ve explained all of this in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video faker’” and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate…”~Fetzer

        Which is a confession that you don’t know ANYTHING about photography – digital or analog, and know zip about photo analysis. The claim that this object casts no shadows is balderdash on the face of it.

        The main problem with this video is the lack of quality, not the lack of a real plane.

        ww

      2. I find it amusing that you hand wave – or fail to acknowledge any of my feedback to you Jim.

        If I were to say “Dear sir” and refer to you as “Dr, Fetzer” and stroke your ego, would that make some difference in this?

        I have more than a little professional experience in special effects cinema. I have looked deeply into this issue of ‘fake planes’ and phony video and still images, and it is my determination that the whole issue is hogwash.

        ~Willy Whitten Special FX Artist [Retired]

  34. Interesting article, There will always be 2 sides to the ‘story’ some people will say it was all a setup others will go with the information released by the media. It is up to you what you be leave, fact is people will debate 9/11 for a long long long time to come!

  35. Just as a general observation, I find people who get overly nervous over the presence of dissension to their particular views, are showing ‘bravado’ to blanket the case of their own subconscious insecurity for their own “certainty” in their own arguments.

    In other words, they are afraid to face the possiblilty that some strong argument may arise to shake the foundations to their firmly held beliefs.

    Those in favor of banishment’s do so from fear and insecurity. My opinion is such advice as theirs should go unheeded.

    ww

    1. “In other words, they are afraid to face the possiblilty that some strong argument may arise to shake the foundations to their firmly held beliefs.”

      Yeah, “may” being the operative word. Any time you wish to discuss actual evidence, I’ll be here Hybridrogue.

  36. A. Wright,

    You assert:

    “The only explanation that makes any sense at all is flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, flown by a group of Islam fundamentalists with a hatred of the US.”

    Such a statement is only possible from someone who is totally indoctrinated in a myth of false history.

    And as you and I have discussed this before, the historical evidence is clear, even from official sources that both the Taliban and al Qaeda are products of western intelligence in the creation of a “controlled enemy”.

    It should be no great challenge to grasp that if this enemy is controlled by western intel then any act they purportedly commit is actually done under the control of western intel.

    Any mind not under the influence of the propaganda of those in control of western intel can see in an instant the absurdity of your propositions. Your pretense at lucidity is belied by the dullness of your lumination.

    ww

  37. To those who would disparage Gage’s use of the word “quagmire” to characterize the Pentagon issue, have but to go through this very thread to see that the word is quite applicable.

    It is self evident, regardless of ones personal take on this issue:

    The Issue of the Pentagon is indeed a quagmire for the movement. But this is not to discourage debate on my part. I am only pointing out that it is such a contentious issue that anyone standing in wonder over how anyone cannot take for granted that a certain scenario is the ‘truth’ is not in living in the present moment.

    ww

    1. WW,

      Don’t you think this thread is a “quagmire” because of the people who’ve hijacked the discussion into the direction of “no planes at the WTC”?

      1. Hi Adam,

        Actually I see it as a quagmire because of the breadth of opinions on the topic generally. But I would be easy to agree with you on the topic of “no planes at the WTC” as a primary example here, as I have great issues with that view personally.

        But I do see the issue as so complex that it leads to battling beyond the issues raised in this particular thread. Who it is that has hijacked the thread is again, going to be a matter of opinion.

        ww

      2. Adam,

        Just a short slice of addendum to my last comment: Of all the posters on this current thread the one I find most offensive is OSS, with his spamfest of copy and paste new age numerology technique of shill spotting.

        This information should be standard fair for any in this business for any length of time. As far as clogging up the blog with BS, OSS takes the prize on this particular thread.

        ww

      3. As I said Hybridrogue, any time you wish to discuss evidence I’m right here.

        And let’s set the record straight here. In the “Hollywood” blog, I was very patient with you and answered all of your questions with sourced evidence in the face of your dodging and arrogant posturing.

        I even posted a detailed response to the actual flyover evidence which you demanded while ignoring the majority of the flawed arguments and sidestepping issues where you were proven wrong. What was your answer? “Banjo music”?

        You went from endorsing the validity of the NOC evidence to demanding the impossible in one day. You were the one who labelled research by me as “spitoon juice” without actually addressing the issue.

        Now, throughout this blog, continuing on from the other one, you’ve added nothing nor taken anything away. You talk a lot but don’t actually say anything. So, if you want to discuss anything that you’ve labelled “spitoon juice” or “banjo music”, I’m all ears.

        OSS

      4. OSS,

        As you point out:

        “I even posted a detailed response to the actual flyover evidence which you demanded while ignoring the majority of the flawed arguments and sidestepping issues where you were proven wrong. What was your answer? “Banjo music”?”

        And you know why OSS…I already told you that I followed your arguments carefully and have been swayed by them. What pissed me off, and I have stated this clearly before, is that you stalled on naming your ‘flyover witnesses’ purposely for the entire thread until the very end. And we both know why – it is weak – unless buttressed by your ‘banjo music’… BTW, I actually appreciate banjo since seeing Deliverance. Yes, I pissed you off on purpose.

        Like I have previously said…in fact time and again, I think the fly-over hypothesis is a very strong circumstantial case. I will not hand you ‘certainty’ on a silver plate, that is what has your panties in a knot.

        Now you yourself finally admitted that this spamathon of the numerology of shill spotting was too much.

        So why don’t you get off my case? What more do you want than 90 percent agreement, an oath of allegiance to the ‘Church of the Immaculate North Path’?

        Get off your dogma and don’t put it away wet.

        ww

  38. Craig, if it’s easy to poke holes in what others say, then one should poke holes in what they say. Weak arguments don’t help the movement. There’s no need for any theories at all. The corrupt and unbelievable nature of the official investigations discredits them on their faces.

    1. Brian

      That’s not what I meant by “easy to poke holes.” I meant that all you do is pick at what others say, endlessly challenging for the sake of challenging, but never offering something yourself. By the way, you have not answered the question I put to you to my satisfaction. If you can poke at what everyone else believes then they should have the right to know what you believe.

      1. Craig, if you don’t recognize the value of knocking down faulty arguments, then you don’t understand how ideas improve. I don’t “believe” anything except that the official investigations are obviously corrupt and that this country can not begin to set itself right until it faces the truth about 9/11.

        1. Brian,

          If you truly believed a new investigation was where the focus should be then you wouldn’t spend so much time picking at perfectly reasonable positions. You should spend more time attacking the official story instead of attacking other truthers.

    2. “I believe in nothing everything is sacred”

      “I believe in everything nothing is sacred”

      The Chink, in the novel EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES

      “I don’t “believe” anything”~Brian Good

      The novel I quote above deals with existential issues of theology and philosophy.

      Now as a grounding in the core epistemology of someone’s structure of thinking, this assertion as of, “I don’t believe anything” is certainly a valid base. However as one travels down the levels of paradigms one is faced with decisions. Those decisions are commonly referred to as beliefs, and systems of belief are manifest in practical terms as per mortal existence as material beings in the time/space continuum.

      Denying that one has beliefs then can only be a matter of etymology, picking the term, “believe” and applying the central core paradigm as if it adequately addresses the realities of this practical situation of survival.

      “Belief” and all its attendant variations is derived from the Sanskrit, a combination of “Bel” and “Eva”.

      Bel is in essence to do with anger, tensions, the juvenile, war, rebellion…etc.

      Eva is in essence to do with nurturing, motherhood, tranquility, calm, nature, earth…etc

      Together they form a dialectic: Beleva. As one may notice the word itself is in tension, as it presents a dialectical in its very structure. It is inherent within the term itself that a rigid holding on to beliefs is error. That is dams the flow of the river of time and experience. In essence the term would be translated today as “True Believer”, as in the realm of “faith”, wherein logic is overcome to reach a desire not based on experience or reason, but a leap based on hopes and wishful thinking.

      Now, as I said, using the phrase ‘I believe nothing’ is valid as an existential position – but it fails in the affairs of material existence, so many bardos below the primary existent point of ‘I am’.

      What you are saying then, appears to me as, a quasi intellectual dodge. You apparently have opinions that are deeply held, that most would term belief {in a valid sense} – and you wish to hold those opinions from the eyes of this forum, as they seem to show you as less than a Truther, as most of us would define that term.

      ww

  39. I don’t need to attack the official story. It’s obviously a coverup and we obviously need new investigations. But going around spreading easily-debunked conspiracy theories is no way to bring credibility to the movement that is seeking new investigations.

    1. Brian,

      Your logic is starting to make me dizzy. You think we need new investigations, but instead of showing why we need this, you endlessly “debunk” the same ideas over and over again. You seriously think attacking flyover is the best way to get a new investigation? By the way, name one idea that has “improved” due to your intervention.

      1. Craig, do I really need to show you why we need new investigations? Isn’t that assumed around these here parts? It’s true, I debunk the same ideas again and again. OSS is repeating the same erroneous claims I showed were wrong years ago. Flyover has had the effect of discrediting the testimony of the NoC witnesses–which might have been very serious had it been shown to be serious.

        1. Brian,

          Yes, I believe YOU do have to explain why we need a new investigation. Because you only seem to tell us whose theories you think need to be eliminated from the debate. You still haven’t adequately answered my question. Why do you believe 9/11 was an inside job? What exactly DID happen at the Pentagon (I know that may involve some speculation, but that’s okay)?

          It’s only fair that you answer this because it will help the rest of us understand where you’re coming from. Give us the chance to check for “weaknesses” in your arguments.

      2. “Flyover has had the effect of discrediting the testimony of the NoC witnesses–which might have been very serious had it been shown to be serious.”~Good

        Not so Brian, the only “discrediting” of such testimony is that it did not necessarily make these witnesses, “NoC witnesses”, in most instances. That it has been ASSUMED that their testimonies are SoC, does not stand to further research in some instances – but this does not refute their entire testimony. It just proves that ASSUMPTIONS as to the official flight path have been cast in concrete by the msm.

        ww

    1. Thank you Michael Cook

      As per light poles – manholes in the sewer system under streets may be a key to that ‘magic act’.

      ww

      1. And then Brian…if there should be manhole covers there?

        Then it’s, ‘go down in one and show me the angles that would allow for the poles to be placed in and out’, right?

        No, of course there is NO POSSIBILITY for anything until it happens or is proven.

        THEN suddenly your attitude is “of course…it figures”

        You’re an accountant, right? A beancounter.

        ww

  40. To Jim Fetzer,

    You source Dennis Cimino within your articles as having the following credentials –

    “Dennis Cimino, A.A., EE; 35-years EMI/EMC testing, field engineering; FDR testing and certifications specialist; Navy Combat Systems Specialist; 2,000 hours, Pilot in Command, Commercial Instrument Single and Multi-Engine Land Pilot, Eastern Airlines 727-200, Second Officer”

    Can you please explain to us how Dennis Cimino can be a Second Officer on a 727-200 when the FAA Airman Database shows that he does not hold a Flight Engineer Certificate for such a position?

    Thanks.

      1. May I suggest Mr. Fetzer, that you arrange with Mr. Cimino to put all of this to rest by publishing his entire resume of his career with verifiable sources.

        At this point he is rather a ‘masked man’, like the lone ranger, or zorro, which is fine for pulp novels, but is a point of intrigue in the practical world.

        ww

      2. I want to reiterate here Mr. Fetzer, I for one will not take Cimino’s credentials at face value. I want to see verifiable proof that he is what he claims to be. Otherwise it is just more hot gas billowing through the Internet.

        This plan you have to pass this info around in personal emails is inadequate. There is more public information available on the web for myself than there is for Cimino, all roads lead to your joint paper in web searches.

        ~Willy Whitten

  41. Senor Once, you are clutching at straws, including the “dumb witness” theory.

    Pray tell, how does electronic jamming work on battery-powered video cameras miles away from Ground Zero?

    Why do you restrict the publishing options for home videos to corporate media? There are many options today.

    You think somebody could shoot the view of the west side from Brooklyn, note that there was no airplane when WTC2 blew up, and then see the same view on the news with an airplane flying in and tell themselves “Aw shucks, I missed it!”? New Yorkers are not dumb.

    Your belief that nobody had a reason to run a video camera on the Pentagon is silly. Tourists stay in hotels. Tourists have cameras. Tourists staying in their room to watch TV could be expected to set up a camera to record whatever happens at the Pentagon–whether it be armored vehicles getting stationed at the perimeter, an evacuation, the arrival of a motorcade, helicopters flying in and out. You put the camera on a tripod, you set it running, it shoots two hours of tape.

    You are inventing reasons to ignore the obvious challenges to your beliefs just as the debunkers invent reasons to ignore the issues raised by 9/11 Truthers.

    1. Among the many postings of dear Mr. Good were these three that I’ll make brief commentary on in one go:
      April 19, 2012 at 1:20 am
      April 19, 2012 at 1:28 am
      April 19, 2012 at 1:56 am

      Mr. Good writes:

      Senor, Your claim that that a NOC flight path into the Pentagon would not have been possible without downed light poles and signage along its route is not true.

      My claim was based on the validity of the following image that shows light pole and signage placement with respect to a NOC flight path into the Pentagon. Prove it in error, and I will amend my claim.


      from
      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51

      Assuming the validity of the obstacles, the plane can either go around or over them.

      One simulation shows the plane making steep almost-wing-dragging banking one way and then another to get from NOC to the SOC downed pole path. The simulation shows that it possible, but that the wildness of this manuever did not match eye-witness accounts.

      An alternative is that the plane fly high enough to clear the poles and then swoop down to enter at ground level (yet leaving no crater in the foundation) in the extraordinary span of less than 400 feet, if memory serves me well on the width of the Pentagon lawn. Traveling at 500 mph (777 feet per second), this span is covered in 0.5 seconds. That pesky lack of a crater in the foundation kind of pours water of the inertia of an aircraft flying a downward trajectory from the height of the last NOC pole to the ground floor “entrance hole.”

      You write:

      Yes, your observation of the possibility that staging the light poles was a necessary part achieving plane impact is important. It suggests then that a NoC flight path was a mistake. If that is true, the implication of an inside job is inescapable…

      9/11 had lots of mistakes. The NOC flight path was probably one of them, as was WTC-7 not going down with the WTC-2 or WTC-1, telly news people talking about WTC-7 going down 20 minutes before it did, videos of emergency responders pushing people back from WTC-7 and saying it was going to come down, WTC-7 having 100 feet of measurable free-fall, the overkill pulverizing aspects of WTC-1 and 2, …

      The implication of an inside job is inescapable.

      The continuation from you, however, is irresponsible, has no bearing, and is a very representative example of your truthy spin:

      … Thus CIT’s unsupported flyover speculations are extremely irresponsible, because they have the effect of discrediting the NoC testimony that would be extremely important if it were believed.

      I’m not going to go too deep into your other postings.

      Pray tell, how does electronic jamming work on battery-powered video cameras miles away from Ground Zero?

      Don’t ask for research that you have no intention of validating. Here’s a thread to give you a start.

      Wild-ass speculation. Most electrical devices have at least one energy source (mains or battery) that undergoes conversion to different voltage levels as dictated by the requirements of various integrated circuits. Among the components used to convert energy are inductors and capacitors. These components can serve as antennas to receive incoming jamming electromagnetic signals at sufficient magnitude and appropriate frequency. In the parlay of the power management industry, these signals could trip built in protection circuitry (e.g., over-voltage protection).

      Why do you restrict the publishing options for home videos to corporate media? There are many options today.

      The operative phrase is many options today. Options 10 years ago? They existed, but they were the vanguard. Common cellphones (and electronics) of 2012 are worlds apart from those of 2001.

      Jumping to your conclusion of that posting:

      You are inventing reasons to ignore the obvious challenges to your beliefs just as the debunkers invent reasons to ignore the issues raised by 9/11 Truthers.

      The so-called obvious challenges to my beliefs have not stepped up to the plate with obvious actual videos from tourists gawking out of hotel windows with video cameras or any additions to the 44 or so clips of the (alleged) 2nd plane strike. Other than what videos we know the govt suppressed from locations around the Pentagon, the public pool of 9/11 imagery isn’t expanding by leaps and bounds any more.

      I point out [to OSS] that [OSS’s] claim that the NoC plane can not hit the Pentagon is based on your imposition of exaggerated ground-clearance requirements.

      I point out to you that even removing the ground-clearance requirement, the direct NoC path cannot do all of these: miss poles, enter the near ground-level Pentagon hole, and avoid putting a crater into the foundation. Any last-split-second change from the NoC path to the SoC path that would benefit from staged down poles to enter the ground-floor hole would result in serious wing tilting that no witness observed.

      I point out that a flyover plot would be like planning to escape from a bank robbery on a pogo stick. There was no way to control who might see or video the departing plane.

      Bad analogy. A better one is that a flyover plot would be like planning to escape from a bank robbery in a guard uniform and armored truck. They don’t need to control who might be able to see or video the departing plane; they just need to control (a) what subordinates under their control say and (b) what gets edited for publication to the masses. [Paraphrased from Stalin: I care not what people vote for, but who counts the votes.]

      I point out that you have not one flyaway witness.

      Not true. I don’t remember his name. (Roberts?) He was on some South dock area [which is a bit misnamed from its actual location.] Because he heard the explosion and saw smoke eventually over the building (and all the later talk of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon) and because he saw an aircraft flying away right after the explosion, his belief was that there were two planes.

      I point out that runway 15 is not used by 757s and so any 757 landing there would be very noteworthy. I point out that once the plane lands on runway 15 there’s no way to dispose of it.

      Runway 15 has been discussed before: ho-hum. While not recommended for fully-loaded 757’s, a proven exceptional (auto-)pilot already at 100 feet could accomplish this. Noteworthy? Please cough up the names of the regular plane spotters and all of the anomalous things they noticed at Dulles on 9/11? We ought to have detailed records of all the unscheduled and unprecedented landing of aircraft due to the FAA edict sent out nation-wide at or close to the very minute the flyover plane would have been landing. At which point, the anomalous plane is one of many scattered throughout the airport, and all it needs is a tail number tweak. Disposed of in plane sight.

      Meanwhile, I point out to you that you are playing games.

      1. There’s a very important fact that needs to be taken into consideration when listening to Roosevelt Roberts’ testimony (on two fronts).

        http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=roosevelt_roberts_jr__1

        One is that he was totally aware of the trail of alleged damage through the lightpoles. Why? Because he was on duty at the heliport for 13 hours. This could very well have caused some of the confusion in his description of the finer details of “another aircraft”. He may very well have been moulding what he actually saw with the “directional damage”.

        The other factor is his and another Pentagon police officer’s testimony that “military personnel” were “stealing evidence” during the evacuations. That is, military personnel were seen with alleged plane parts in their hands in the confusion. “Stealing” or placing? Depends on how you interpret the sight of it in that situation.

        Two Pentagon police officers see people—some of them members of the military—stealing crash debris from in front of the Pentagon. After the Pentagon was hit, Lt. Robbie Turner had been helping the injured at a triage area. When, at around 10:15 a.m., reports are received of a possible second plane heading for the Pentagon (see (10:15 a.m.-10:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001), he sets about evacuating people away from there. As this is going on, he later recalls: “[W]e had to try to collect up evidence, as much of the evidence as we possibly could. Take pictures of it or whatever.” However, some people are apparently trying to steal plane debris from the road in front of the Pentagon. According to Turner, “[W]e had to try to stop other people from pilfering the wreckage because, believe it or not, there were people—military personnel involved—you know, included, rather, that was picking up the wreckage of the plane from off the highway as we were running away.” [LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 12/3/2001] Later on in the day, around 3:00 p.m., another Pentagon police officer, Roosevelt Roberts Jr., is called to the heliport near where the Pentagon was hit, and remains there for the next 13 hours. He will recall that, during this time, “we had a lot of people vandalizing, stealing evidence.” He does not specify who these people are, or what this “evidence” is that is being stolen and vandalized. [LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 11/30/2001]
        Entity Tags: Robbie Turner, Roosevelt Roberts Jr.
        Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

        Slightly OT but in the same vein (in that the DPS – Pentagon police – arrested 3 fake firefighters on the 12th while a firefighter described fake firefighters on the 11th. Never been fully explained.

        “Fake Firefighters and Military Imposters at the Pentagon After 9/11”

        http://shoestring911.blogspot.com.es/2008/10/fake-firefighters-and-military.html

      2. http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php f=17&t=457&sid=752ea17c6b7f3ad267209f934baf68b5

        This whole page is based on vague supposition and speculation- a stack of ‘maybes’ remains maybe. I am surprised your would direct us to such nonsense Señor.

        Of course you did say this is “wild ass speculation” didn’t you? Well indeed it is, and nothing else. So what is the point in taking this flatulence into account?

        That this is part is merely speculation is one thing, but that it is used in a long string of other propositions that are nothing but speculation as well, it comes to the point that the whole general proposition is a black hole of vacuous nothing.

        ww

  42. Craig,

    If person A says there were no visible squibbs from the WTC towers as they went down and person B counters with multiple videos, photographs, and testimony of sqibbs. It is then person A who must either refute those arguments or conceed the point. Any point conceeded in this way will NEVER be used again by an honest person. An honest man who debates in good faith will never say there were no visible squibbs again. Therefore ANY time you see an individual repeating points that have been addressed and refuted previously you can safely conclude that the person is not debating in good faith. Erlier in this thread I layed out 3 logical reasons why Brian Goods argument “zero chance a flyover wouldn’t be seen” is a completely bogus argument. I also debunked the same argument from Brian over a year ago on youtube. Brian did not counter my 3 points then or now nor did he withdraw his bogus assertion. In point of fact Brian has continued to use that same bogus argument (argument from incredulity logical fallacy BTW) here and elsewhere regardless of how many times it is refuted. He is therefore proven to be dishonest and proven to be promoting disinformation. I can document multiple instances where Brian has been thoroughly and effectively debunked on a variety of points, was unable to counter those debunks and yet continues long afterwards to promote those same debunked ideas all over the internet.

    If you have documentation that a person is dishonest and is promoting disinformation and if you give that person ample opportunity to address the issue and they can’t or won’t then it is NOT censorship to ban them. If you catch a person stealing money from your cash register you cannot allow that person to work in your store again. It is NOT wrongful termination to fire such a person it is appropriate.

    I consider it my responsibility to debate in good faith, be honest, admit when I am wrong, and only promote information I can personally back up. When a person wants to post here they should live up to that standard at least. If they don’t then they are actually infringing upon the free speech rights of the other bloggers and doing damage to your blog no less than the person who steals from the cash register. How?

    1. By hijacking or derailing threads they render them virtually unreadable.
    2. By flooding threads other member posts become lost or diluted by sheer volume alone. (33 of 180 total posts were made by Brian Good at the time I posted this comment. Next closest was hybridrouge1 with 28 posts.)
    3. By promoting disinformation other members feel obliged to spend their time countering it instead of adding to the ON TOPIC discussion.

    Keeping people on topic is not censorship, it is necessary to prevent hijacking of discussions. If you see a post such as this one I am making now, which up to this point, has nothing to do with the topic at hand you would not be censoring me if you choose not to post it Craig. It is my responsibility to stay on topic which is why I am going to conclude this post with the following points ON TOPIC that tie all this together:

    Brian Good was working very closely with Mr. Gage when I drove up to the bay area to interview Richard. In fact Brian’s desk was in the same small room as Richard’s. Brian was therefore in an ideal position to employ these same disinformation tactics, described above, on Richard on a daily basis. He was also in an ideal position to spy on everything A+E did and planned. He also had access to WTC dust samples Richard had. I know from meeting Richard, years ago now, that he was at the time VERY naive about infiltration of the truth movement. He was also naive about the importance of A+E in those early days and naive about what an important target for infiltration he would have been right off the bat. Those of us who went to interview Richard discussed that very issue with him at the time. All of us experienced truthers sensed he was in danger and sensed his naivete as well.

    I don’t have a pay stub proving Brian is a professional disinformationist (an impossible standard of proof to meet BTW) however I do have proof he is a liar and that he is promoting disinformation repeatedly and relentlessly all over the net. He uses alias identities and has denied some of them are him while confirming to others that those same identities are him. One cannot be a liar AND a truther. The question for you Craig is how much money does Brian have to steal out of your cash register before you fire him and press theft charges?

    I like to come here and read your excellent articles Craig but I hate having to sift through all the BS.

    PS. No plane theories and DEW theories have been thoroughly debunked already and all any of us should have to do at this point is refer people who hold such theories to those debunks and see if they can counter those debunks. We should not have to address the same old debunked crap again and again and again. I don’t have the time or the patience to do that.

    1. ruffadam says: “When a person wants to post here they should live up to that standard at least. If they don’t then they are actually infringing upon the free speech rights of the other bloggers ”

      Get real. You [nor anyone else] has a free speech “right” here. It’s a private forum [as far as I am aware] , run by an individual who can make his own rules as he sees fit. If you don’t like his rules you are “free” to speak elsewhere. [hint-hint].

      Your appeal to the moderator here seems “transparent”, to say the least.:-)

      As to your claim that: “No plane theories … have been thoroughly debunked already” . Weeeell, maybe in your own mind. 🙂

      And: “We should not have to address the same old debunked crap again and again and again. I don’t have the time or the patience to do that.”

      Easy! So don’t engage in your fabulous, self-fulfilling NPT “debunks”, instead of whining to the moderator in hopes of , what exactly?

      { Although frankly, I’ll miss the sheer entertainment value of yet another person convinced that ordinary lead bullets will pierce even 1″ thick steel plating, that armor-piercing bullets could in fact be successfully made of aluminum instead of lead, that space capsules are made up of steel plates , or that the kinetic energy of a karate master punching through wood or bricks in a set -up demo [been there-done that myself!] has anything remotely to do with a 2mm thick skin of aluminum cutting right through 20 ton steel columns [question: why don’t they make saw blades to cut steel out of aluminum?] , and so on and so forth, “pie in the sky” fantasizing with a complete disregard for the actual real world physical principals that dictate exactly what _must_ happen absolutely every time 2mm of aluminum skin on a 140 ton plane collides with a stationary 500,000 ton immovable object made of 10-20 ton steel uprights and floor trusses with a layer of concrete over all of them}.

      But, I digress. Regards, [for the time being] onebornfree

      1. OBF,

        I don’t need to debunk NPT or DEW theories because it has already been done many many times so I would simply refer you to those debunks and if you could not counter them I would expect you to conceed the point. If you are honest you will conceed. If not you won’t. It is simple and I don’t have to waste my time reinventing the wheel. Let me know if you would like to be refered to some NPT debunks. Keep in mind that plane swaps are a different issue from NPT though and plane swaps are still a strong possibility on 9/11.

        P.S. Did you know that they can use high pressure water jets to cut metal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9hAM68K9OU

        So please don’t tell me a fast moving airliner could not penetrate the WTC.

    2. Adam, if you want to claim that I have lied you must prove it.

      The argument against flyover is not an argument from incredulity. It is that there is no evidence–zero evidence–that it happened.

      Your alleged “3 logical reasons why Brian Good’s argument ‘zero chance a flyover wouldn’t be seen’ is a completely bogus argument” are very weak.

      1. Against the fact that not one credible flyover witness has been produced, you claim that nevertheless someone may have seen the plane and this person may have remained silent. Yes, and monkeys may have flown out of my butt, and one of them may have been wearing your wristwatch when they did it. CIT’s refusal to go out and test their hypothesis by looking for flyover witnesses is damning. Their inability to recruit anyone in the DC area to do this is damning,

      2. Against the fact that not one credible flyover witness has been produced, you then argue that the view of the plane may have been obstructed. The thing about airplanes is that they are in the sky, and they move, and you can hear them. The thing about marinas and freeways is that they don’t have roofs over them. Anyone who spends any time at all on Google street view east of the Pentagon will see that the view is only very rarely obstructed. Your claim is based on need and ignorance.

      3. Your idea that an explosion on the other side of the Pentagon should distract people from the sight of an airplane a few hundred feet high making a high-g 110-degree turn at a bank angle (I used to know exactly) of maybe 80 degrees is absurd.

      So much for your “logical reasons”. So much for the flyover theory. All you have is stubborn denial of reality, and snitchjacketing.

    3. Adam,

      I wrote a long response to this post and then lost it. Not pleased. So I’ll abbreviate. I agree with you about the value of keeping threads on topic. I’m toying with the idea of creating other threads where other topics can be debated so that this thread, and subsequent ones, might not be pulled in so many directions. Not sure how I would do this just yet, but I’ll work on it.

      Brian’s last post was a final straw for me. I’ve had enough of him. Perhaps this will help.

      1. Craig,

        Thank you for all that you do my friend. I share your concerns about censorship and agree with you that banning should rarely if ever be done and only as a last resort. When a person refuses to debate in good faith (no pun intended) and instead uses disinformation tactics and disruption tactics with the sole purpose of shutting down legitimate discussion you are justified in banning them. That is nothing like what 911Blogger did bgy purging masses of people who held positive views about CIT. You have given Brian more than enough opportunity to adhere to basic rules of debate and he won’t do it. I could write a lengthy article about Brians response to my 3 points and expose the layers of deception and obfuscation in just that single post. I would rather not do that though and instead read your next article. Anyway Craig you have again produced a great article well worth reading and discussing.

    4. Craig,

      I wholeheartedly agree with all of Adam Ruff’s major points above. Banning should be reserved for extreme cases as a last resort. However, there are certain criteria that make banning entirely appropriate when specifically applied to truth movements and truth forums. I would like to re-iterate one of Adam Ruff’s statements:

      One cannot be a liar AND a truther.

      The main criteria that should lead to automatic banning in a truth forum such as this is when one has established themselves through a clear pattern of behavior over a period of time as a liar and a remorseless disinformationist.

      In the past I have personally been subjected to unjust bannings from certain online forums by overly controlling and biased moderators who seemed to want to force a certain limited range of consensus among the members or to pressure the members conform to a certain restricted range of views. In other words, most of the times it seemed to have more to do with reasons of censorship than anything else, despite claims to the contrary. So I am quite sensitive to the over-use of the banning hammer.

      If I were a moderator of a discussion forum in charge of deciding who should be granted membership and who should lose such privilege, my criteria would be entirely based upon issues of the person’s integrity and honesty and disruptive behavior, and not at all based upon their views (the only exception being the restricting of certain kinds of hate speech, advocating of violence, or things of an illegal nature that could jeapardize the legal status of the site). But my tolerance for repeated and unrelenting dishonest behavior is extremely low and I do feel that there should be some clear rules for restricting such behavior.

      Again, one cannot be a liar AND a truther.

    5. “I know from meeting Richard, years ago now, that he was at the time VERY naive about infiltration of the truth movement. He was also naive about the importance of A+E in those early days and naive about what an important target for infiltration he would have been right off the bat. Those of us who went to interview Richard discussed that very issue with him at the time. All of us experienced truthers sensed he was in danger and sensed his naivete as well.”

      I also agree with you on Mr. Gage’s lack of street smarts when it comes to 9/11 truth. Unfortunately, for all his smarts in mathematics and physics and design, Richard shows a stunning naivete in the social realm.

      I remember on the very first day, in early 2007, when AE911Truth launched its website. Gage was actually so naive as to make the petition completely open, so that any charlatan could sign it and claim to be a structural engineer. And indeed, infamous JREFer Mark Roberts signed as “George W. Bush, structural engineer” and similar JREFers followed suit, then went back to their home forum and openly boasted about it, about how this proved Richard was a naive fool and hence a perfect addition to the “twoof” movement.

      Even for someone who, at that time, was a complete novice at political activism, I felt Richard showed a breathtakingly stunning level of naivete to have not even considered the possibility that the enemies of the movement would sabotage an open petition right from the get go. I emailed him to inform him of the existence of the JREF forum and how nasty they are, and he replied with a message basically saying Thanks — guess we had to learn the hard way.

      That was all the proof I needed to know that Richard was clueless with regard to movement infiltration. If he hadn’t even considered the possibility that open enemies of the movement, like the JREFers, would try and sabotage his project, then it certainly wouldn’t have occurred to him that the movement would be infiltrated by “fake truthers” as well.

      His weakness is that he’s a good man who believes everyone is well intentioned and who wants to please everyone, yet he’s also the spire on top, and when you’re on top you can’t please everyone. That’s true in any large organization. Increase the order of magnitude by 100 when you’re dealing with the revolutionary nature of the 9/11 truth movement and the infiltration it would attract.

      1. Thanks for this post about Gage. I see him the same way as you outlined. I think he is an honest broker that ended up in a pit of vipers. His work on the architectural and structural analysis of the WTC has been a boon for the movement, regardless of his mind boggling naivete.

        ww

  43. Dear Mr. KeenanRoberts and the honorable participants of Truth & Shadows,

    I apologize for not responding under your posting of April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm. I felt an off-shoot of the topic deserved to be promoted to the top level.

    You make excellent points on No-Planes (NP) and its physics that certainly have me thinking and reconsidering perspectives. In fact, many nuggets of truth on related but tangential topics have been jarred free for me to see.

    For the sake of discussion at this point (because you tire of it), let’s assume your points on physics and poor quality video to be more or less correct.

    When the dust settles, two themes come into view. This passage from you is a lead-in for the first theme:

    Anyway, here’s a few nuggets to chew on. I’m really not interested in spending any more time debating NPT, for reasons I’ve already stated. September Clues video is blatant disinfo because it was deceptively edited for the purpose of misleading the viewer. You say that just because there are some parts of it that are faulty doesn’t mean that it is false in its entirety. My response is that it doesn’t matter. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So what? If the makers of the video were caught engaging in any disinformation, it cannot be considered a trustworthy or valid must be rejected, regardless of something(s) might be true in it. … [T]his has been debated ad infinitum in other places.

    I haven’t seen it debated ad infinitum in other places. I haven’t been everywhere or to JREF. I’ve been to 9/11 Blogger which is supposedly more mainstream 9/11 Truth; they banned me while in the registration process saying that certain topics (coincidentally the trick ponies I ride: NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood) were too contentuous. I don’t don’t this, given what online provacateurs can do.

    I am personally experiencing a revelation in thought that is akin to a rabbit-hole tunnel collapse throwing formerly buried nuggets of truth down upon my head.

    Nuggets of truth.

    Nuggets of truth have to be mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from the disinformation sources before anyone should dismiss them. Why?

    There is not a single facet of 9/11 that hasn’t been run through the disinformation process. This includes even super duper nano-thermite [nugget of truth] that we are led to believe is the end-all-cure-all for explaining the destruction and its after math [nugget of disinformation].

    Here is the incorrect framing:

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So what? If the makers of the video were caught engaging in any disinformation, it cannot be considered a trustworthy or valid must be rejected.

    The proper extension to this analogy is:

    We need to adopt a 9/11 survivalist mentality. The clock is broken. If we can’t fix it, let’s tear it apart and salvage useful gears, springs, and batteries for use later and in maybe fixing another broken clock. To get at truth, we can’t afford to be a throw-away society.

    A shiny nugget of truth is indeed September Clues and Dr. Wood’s textbook as being “deceptively crafted for the purpose of misleading.” But the bruise on my noggin came from a particularly hefty nugget regarding the lack of rational discussion on the topic. Where is the movie review or book report that goes chapter-by-chapter and gives us all three: the good, the bad, and the ugly? Who has the courage to see the good therein?

    You lament the brain-dead trolling [on T&S of Mr. OneBornFree for Clues Forum and Mr. Goldberg for Dr. Wood’s textbook]. It is suspect for sure, and I took no pleasure in clobbering them for their clumsy efforts. By my analysis, their worst fault is that they overlook the truly good in what they supposedly champion and in a display of ugly misframe the bad as good. Easy pickings to be debunked.

    On the flip side, we have things like this statement from you:

    Perhaps that special thread can be called “NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood” since those things all sort of go together and their champions mostly seem to be of the same breed, or the same trolling and spamming MO.

    I’ll ignore “same breed… trolling and spamming MO” comment. To a balanced degree that it applies to me, it also does not.

    More importantly…

    Sweep it out of sight, eh? Proving that the methods are numerous by which the derailment of objective review is attempted.

    The reason that these topics — NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood — keep re-appearing is that they have unaddressed truths [e.g., massive energy requirements, anomalous after effects, full-sprectrum dominance in the military-corporate media]. Normal duped useful idiots like myself see this, but we are few who can articulate a stink. Any 9/11 theory-du-jour to be valid is required to address these nuggets of truth.

    We should be fearless when we reach into disinformation pits to snag and rescue nuggets of truth.

    Part one of such a thread already exists. Until Mr. McKee can write on these themes, this is as good a place for any for Part Two. It is rather appropo that the article is about Mr. Gage.

  44. Good point, hybridrogue. Conventional sewers would make the transport of 20 foot lengths of lightpole difficult. Thanks for acknowledgeing that it’s not even worth looking for manhole covers.

    1. Brian Good…good gawd, what absolute bullshit thinking…

      You say:

      “Conventional sewers would make the transport of 20 foot lengths of lightpole difficult. Thanks for acknowledgeing that it’s not even worth looking for manhole covers.”

      “Difficult”? How the fick would you know? Have you ever been in the sewer system yourself to estimate how much headroom there is? What is ‘conventional”? There are reasons for a variety of sizes of pipes used underground – there is no standard ‘conventional’ size, it all depends on the amount of flow in particular places.

      As a teenager I actually did exploring in the LA River system, you have no idea how large some of these pipes are…obviously.

      Of course you are loath to factor in the unknowns – even for speculative purposes. I would posit that it is more than a bit likely that there are underground facilities under and around the Pentagon. I KNOW that there is an underground Disneyland in So Cal almost the size of the above-ground complex. We all should know by now that the military is big on underground networks, and hypothesizing that the Pentagon isn’t in this network is very weak supposition.

      You speak to others for ‘grasping at straws’, while this last post to me is a prime example of a handwaving dismissal riding a straw.

      As others here, I am getting way tired of your truncated manner of thinking and instant leaping before looking where you are going to land. This time you land in another pile – and I know you still won’t cop to it.

      ww

  45. Very interesting detail about Brian Good, Adam.

    1. On the one hand, we have Richard Gage allegedly retracting his endorsement (quoting Chris Sarns’ ridiculous paper – Brian Good and Chris Sarns are on the same “page”)

    2. We have just been told that Brian Good shared the same office space as Richard Gage (which needs to be confirmed by Richard Gage himself)

    3. Brian Good is a full time disinformationist/sock/disruptor on anything Pentagon related (plus his attacks on Willie Rodriguez and sexual harrassment of Carol Brouillet). This is beyond doubt to honest researchers and activists.

    Craig, is there any way that you could contact Richard Gage and ask him if he indeed shared an office with Brian Good? And if he’s aware that this same person is guilty of disruptory tactics/disinfo? That his style of debate is partially the reason for the manufactured “Pentagon quagmire”?

    Cheers

    1. Yes I personally went inside Richard’s office along with Jeremy Roth Kushel of WACLA, Drew Piper also of WACLA at that time now webmaster of Oathkeepers, and Cheri Roberts. We all met Brian there sitting at his desk on the other side of the room from Richard’s. Contact Richard, he won’t deny it. Contact Jeremy or Cheri or Drew as well.

  46. Brian Good says: “I don’t need to attack the official story. It’s obviously a coverup and we obviously need new investigations. ”

    Brian, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are living in fantasy land if you believe that a new errmmmm “investigation” by an ermmm, “independant commission” [or whatever :-)] , in otherwords an “investigaton” run by the exact same corrupt government bought and paid for individiuals and institutions as the first time around, would somehow come to any significantly different conclusions, next time out.

    To roughly paraphrase, isn’t the definition of stupidity [ or at the very least , naivete] something like: doing exactly the same thing over and over and expecting a different result the next time?

    Elsewhere in this thread you have said that you do not trust the governments story- why on earth would you be looking for it to investigate itself yet again, using [presumably] your very own money to reach a conclusion you surely must know it would inevitably reach?

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. That onebornefree, is the most lucid post I have seen you make in my whole experience with you here.

      A new investigation, to be deemed valid, can only take place after the illegitimate regime ruling this nation is put in the dustbin of history. And the chances for the “nation” surviving such an upheaval are slim indeed.

      ww

  47. Craig, I never said 9/11 was an inside job. Why would I say such a stupid thing? It’s a 9/11 Truth movement, not a 9/11 Inside Job movement. What happened at the Pentagon? How would I know? I wasn’t there, the government lies, eyewitnesses tend to be confused–and some people have been so busily heaping the issues with nonsense like invisible flyaway airliners and secret agent cabdrivers that the whole area is just a toxic swamp. Even the claims to which Dr. Griffin gives credence of damage in A-ring and B-ring are based on very weak evidence.

    1. Brian,

      Yes, it’s all weak evidence, isn’t it? You have no beliefs to challenge but everyone else’s research is weak. I don’t believe that and I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you are discussing in good faith. This LAST post shows that clearly. Believing 9/11 was an inside job is stupid? No, I’m the stupid one for letting you lead the Pentagon discussion on this blog in circles for this long. It’s enough.

      1. Bravo Craig.

        His intention has always been to disrupt and poison rational debate. His flawed tactic is the insistence that others run in circles to prove his point. When his illogical and impossible demands were whittled down to the bare bones he’d do a complete flip and totally contradict his original stance.

        Good, Chris Sarns, Adam Larson, Jeff Hill (and his muppets) and Snowcrash used the same tactics. Others like Victoria Ashley, Erik Larson and the other snipers used their gatekeeper positions to censor and spread disinfo.

        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42641&postcount=50

        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42642&postcount=51

        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42645&postcount=52

        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42646&postcount=53

        Brian Good is even on record as admitting that his sole intention was to disrupt and antagonize

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/ar/t1094.htm

        We both (he and Chris Sarns) recognized that debating the north path was a poor tactic; we would do much better to jiu jitsu you by granting the north path while pointing out the obvious logical disconnect between that and your ridiculous flyover theory

        Brian Good in a debate with Craig Ranke

        My head is completely flipped on reading what Adam Ruff just disclosed. Imagine having that character in your ear all day?

  48. “I never said 9/11 was an inside job. Why would I say such a stupid thing? It’s a 9/11 Truth movement…”

    Well, there we have it Good, you finally packaged your bullshit and labeled it.

    You could have saved a lot of web space playing this Joker card from the get-go.

    If you actually think that the Truth Movement as a grand majority isn’t of the opinion that it was an inside job, you have been sedated for ten years. You are a thud on a lead bell.

    ww

  49. As per Jim Fetzer’s commentary on the airplane strikes on the towers, I would like to point out what the structural engineers who built the buildings thought as per aircraft crashed into them:

    “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.”~Frank A. Demartini

    Isn’t it interesting then that when we do have airplanes crashing into them it looks remarkably like Demartini’s description of a pencil puncturing the screen netting?

    He had no idea that the building should have batted the plane to the street without damage to the building as the ‘new physics daydreamers’ are now claiming must be the case.

    It is obviously not the ‘physics’ that is wrong here, it is the application. Everyone here is aware of the basic Newtonian laws – those are not in dispute, it is the allegorical rhetoric that is disputable.
    Clearly there are qualified scientists that have diametrically opposing view to this matter.

    For Fetzer to pick his favorites and ignore the visual evidence as well, is clearly a form of ‘appeal to authority’, as he is only ‘advised’ and is no more a physicist than I am.

    And as far as Senor, he may know some, but he is not a physicist either. Yea yea, “woojie woojie” yourself pal.

    ww

    1. Some of those commenting here are obviously unqualified, which includes hubridrogue1. He not only does not understand the structure of the Twin Towers or the laws of aerodynamics, but appears to be massively ignorant of elementary physics. I earned my Ph.D. at Indiana in the history and the philosophy of science, where the history of science is dominated by the history of physics. As an undergraduate at Princeton, while I majored in philosophy, I also took a year-long course in physics, when Princeton was ranked #1 in the world in physics, philosophy, and mathematics. Not all of us are as ignorant as he appears to be.

      Moreover, if he had read any of my studies, he would see that I offer photographic and documentary support for every claim I make. That he cannot do simple research on me before he attacks me is overshadowed by his indifference to the arguments I have made and the evidence I have amassed to which I have provided links. He needs to get a grip, because this pretense of knowing what he is talking about has grown thin. Review “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, to appreciate the full dimensions of the problem, including relevant videos.

      1. Ho ho ho, Now an appeal to your OWN authority…that’s rich Fetzer. How can you assume I haven’t read any of your bullshit? How can you even begin to assume I haven’t read various critiques of that very same bullshit as well?

        Thanks for the load of hot air.

        So Mr. Fetzer, where can we find your champion’s precise calculations for the impact on the towers? I would like an explanation of how he chose certain values and left others out. If he claims he has left nothing out, let me confirm this myself, and through second opinions. Has this work been confirmed through a peer review of capable physicists?

        Is there an abstract containing his initial assumptions?

        Please confine your response to the specific issue of the impact, and skip any dramatic yada to ‘set the stage’. We all know the stage. At the moment the plane strikes building…what? This must be addressed as part of the overall analysis – even if there is an assumption that the plane could not have hit the building, for both purposes of falsification and continuity – all aspects must be addressed.

        ww

  50. I will address just one more aspect of Fetzer’s contentions as per video fakery at WTC. If there is no response, I will leave it here. This concerns the video analysis aspect:

    Ace Baker is in my view a voodo hoochie dancing showman. He is good at building models in CAD programs, and adequate with limited digital animation, but as far as visual forensic analysis he crashes and burns.

    His, and others claims that the plane flying into the second tower, ‘ just glides in as if it is flying through thin air’, is proven wrong for years now, by other video experts as well as scientific calculations.

    It is proven that the video evidence shows this substantial slowing as the plane’s center of gravity reaches the impact point, and in fact this matches the same percentage as the famous Jet on a skid-rail smashing into the concrete barrier.

    And before mixing apples and oranges about the utter disintegration of the jet in that test, and no penetration of the barrier, this aspect has no bearing, as the concrete structure was built specifically for this test to have that strength.

    The point to the comparison is simply the momentum calculations at impact. They are almost exact for both impacts as far as percentage of momentum lost from center of gravity to tail impact.

    ww

    1. As another example of this man’s complete incompetence, the Sandia fighter blew into millions of tiny pieces and its velocity dropped to zero. It did not penetrate that concrete barrier, any more than a Boeing 767 could have penetrated the South Tower, when it was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete. In this case, however, it effortlessly enters the building with no deceleration at all. I recommend him for “Dunce of the Year” award.

      1. You know Fetzer, comparing the concrete barrier to the structure of the tower is an idiots game that anyone with two brain cells to click together can figure out.

        The point of the Sandia comparison was the momentum measurements. That jet didn’t merely smash to pieces all going at the same speed, there was measurable slowing from the center of gravity impact point — JUST LIKE the plane impacting the tower. This has been shown numerous times, and no matter how many times you deny it the fact remains.

        I recommend that people recognize you for the charlatan you are.

        ww

      2. The Sandia plane was an F-14 that was filled with water, strapped to a railroad frame, and run at around 500 mph into a concrete barrier. It’s momentum fell to zero. It blew into millions of tiny parts. None of it passed through the barrier.

        The South Tower plane was supposed to be a Boeing 767 which was mostly filled with air, was not strapped to a railroad frame but was shown to be flying at around 500 mph, which is not even aerodynamically possible for a 767 at that altitude.

        The South Tower plane displayed no loss of momentum, as frame-by-frame analysis shows, where its momentum should have fallen to zero while the plane crumpled, its wings and tail fallen off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground.

        None of that happened. The Salter argument, which this guy endorses, would be ridiculous if it were true, since a modest deceleration doesn’t cut it. In fact, he blundered by using two frames of reference. But the equal distance/equal times argument destroys that illusion.

        That a buffoon like this guy continues to post more and more drivel in an endless stream would indicate that he has no brains at all, until you realize that he is simply trying to blow smoke in the hope that some here are going to be misled. I think most of the forum has caught on.

  51. Where does he come up with this stuff? I have explained over and over again that, when we do a frame-by-frame advance, the plane purporting to be Flight 175 passes through its own length and enters the South Tower in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That means there is no deceleration at all, when the velocity of the plane should have dropped to zero.

    I cannot understand by persons who are so blatantly incompetent insist on posting on issues where they have no grasp of the issues. This point, by the way, was first made by Joe Keith, who was the software engineer who designed the on-ground “shaker system” for Boeing to determine the stress levels at which aircraft fall apart. His article, “Joe’s Law”, may be found at http://nomoregames.net.

    1. “Joe Keith, who was the software engineer who designed the on-ground “shaker system” for Boeing”

      C”mon Jim, Joe Keith? This person is not an aeronautical engineer – he is a software code expert. All he did was translate actual engineers information into code. He has no more comprehension of the physics than a layman.

      I imagine you will jump to Lear soon enough…when you have nothing, you don’t recognize when others have nothing either.

      ww

      1. This is idiotic. Anyone can do a frame-by-frame advance on those videos. Everyone knows that d = r x t, which means that equal distances in equal times entails equal speeds. I cited Joe because he was the first to advance the argument, not the source of its validity. Someone like you must enjoy making a fool of himself, because you do it again and again and again. You are a total absurdity.

      2. “Everyone knows that d = r x t, which means that equal distances in equal times entails equal speeds”~uncle fester

        yea yea yea – anyone can read the analysis in the papers I cite and see that the times are NOT equal on close examination…except for you and your woowoo cult.

        You cited Joe, because why? I thought he was mr shaker rattle and roll…now he’s also the origin of this cutting into the towers like butter spazdrivel?

        Say hi to your CIA, Air America pilot friend – Mr. Lear for me the next time you chat.

        He really blew it for your ‘too fast’ woowoo didn’t he? Too bad, that really knocks the legs out from under this whole load of loony baloney.

        ww

        1. How many truly stupid posts are we supposed to tolerate from this man before we conclude that he is either incompetent or corrupt? The decleration would not be more subtle than at Sandia, in case you didn’t notice. The F-14 came to a complete halt. None of it penetrated the barried. It’s velocity dropped to zero.

          I have observed that the South Tower was somewhat more porous than that barrier because of its small, narrow windows, which were designed to keep light and heat out to reduce the problems that more air conditioning would pose. Some of its parts would have entered the building, but most of it would not have.

          To keep pushing some sublte form of deceleration when the frame-by-frame analysis shows that it did not occur–that there was NO deceleration–is truly stunning. Here we see a high-wire act by a seemingly intelligent man in promoting an hypothesis that has already been refuted. It is fascinating to watch him squirm.

          Why is this too difficult for hybridrogue1 to follow? IT ISN’T. He just can’t bring himself to admit that he has been wrong in believing that remote controlled planes were involved and therefore he wants to deny the evidence that shows these cannot have been real planes, remotely controlled or not. He blundered and won’t admit it.

          So anyone who disagrees with his false claims about deceleration, which are absurd on their face, has to be the one who is not only wrong but actively trying to thwart the discovery of truth, when it is he who is promoting falsehoods. So who’s pushing disinfo here: hybridrogue1 or Jim Fetzer? Not a difficult choice, but embarrassing for him.

  52. Jim Fetzer says: “when we do a frame-by-frame advance, the plane purporting to be Flight 175 passes through its own length and enters the South Tower in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That means there is no deceleration at all, when the velocity of the plane should have dropped to zero.”

    Exactly. But then, you and I are in the presence of many people who would claim [with a straight face, mind you🙂 ], that the video in question [ for example: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html ], is “too low resolution” and lacking in detail to make that “outrageous” claim.

    As if resolution/clarity effects the number of frames in which the purported event occurs. You have to laugh🙂 . Har, har, errrr… har.😦

    My advice Mr Fetzer? Give it up. You cannot sway the minds of persons who already 100% fully committed to the governments story, at least in this regard [i.e.that there were real planes flying into buildings , all captured on film by fine, upstanding citizens, to prove the governments case beyond a reasonable doubt -hooray for those fine upstanding citizens and their amazing skills with instantaneously tracking objects moving at 500mph !] .

    Even if you point out that what they are actually are defending/upholding is a crucial part of the governments very own pack of “evidence” lies, it makes no difference; it is psychologically impossible for them to ever conclude the “amateur” videos [let alone the Fox5 sequence] are all low quality fakes, so don’t even try.

    In my own experience, such persons will steadfastly review any/ all evidence that contradicts the idea that planes were captured on video entering either the WTC1 or 2, with a sharp pre- bias towards their own fiercely held, pro-government [with regard to plane crashes] convictions.

    Psychologically speaking, because of their own pre-bias towards a part of the governments story [ a bias of which they are not even aware], they are incapable of impartially reviewing any/all evidence examining the physics of the events depicted , simply because it threatens what they believe they already “know”, and , [subconsciously perhaps ,sense], that reaching the common-sense conclusion that the video and others like it are all fakes is simply way too much for their fragile psyches to handle.

    Which to a degree, I understand. After all, it is no easy thing to come to the conclusion that the government was also lying about the 9/11 plane videos, when historically speaking [and forgetting 9/11 for the moment, even though every part of that official story is also a lie], in its entire existence, they’ve already lied about just about everything else for 200+ years!🙂 . I mean, whodathunkit? JFK, Pearl Harbor, MLK, Tonkin, Apollo 11 – Fake plane videos as well ? Good heavens- whatever next , a fake currency ?

    Hybridrogue, ruffaddam and others here are all stuck in their own little ‘the government is telling the truth about the planes” world. Let them stay there. Lord have mercy on their naive little souls.

    Fortunately, common sense [and the truth] _will_ win out.

    Any unbiased, physics uneducated layman will eventually conclude , just by employing their own common sense, that there’s a very good reason why steel-cutting saw blades are not made out of aluminum, nor armor-piercing bullets, and likewise, that 2mm thick aluminum plane “skins” on aluminum frames, even if traveling at the impossible,[government claimed- therefor a lie] close to ground speed of 500mph, cannot instantaneously cut through multiple 20 ton steel girders and cause planes to disappear whole, inside 500,000 ton steel framed buildings without slowing down by even one frame, even on a low res. video.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. “As if resolution/clarity effects the number of frames in which the purported event occurs. You have to laugh . Har, har, errrr… har.” ~ reports our darling soup brain oneboringfree

      The argument as per clarity and pixels has nothing to do with with the number of frames, it has to do with the illusions extreme pixelation/resolution can cause when not enough information is contained in an image – ei, the appearance that a wing seen edge on at a distance seeming ‘disappearing’.

      We have gone over your lack of visual acuity and ignorance of the technologies sufficiently on this forum at length back and forth on several different threads.

      ww

      1. Another dumb feint intended to induce the false belief that a subtle deceleration would have proven an impact with the building. How many times do I have to explain that that is wrong?

        As at Sandia, a real plane would have come to a complete stop, its velocity dropping to zero. But that didn’t happen. There is no way to salvage his argument, no matter how long he tried.

  53. Brian Good says:
    “What happened at the Pentagon? How would I know? I wasn’t there, the government lies,”

    Brian, if you truly believe that ” the government lies”, as you say it does, why would you then choose to believe selective parts of its very own story in order to “refute” other theories which contradict the governments claims? This does not make logical sense .

    Regards, onebornfree

  54. “Where does he come up with this stuff? I have explained over and over again that, when we do a frame-by-frame advance, the plane purporting to be Flight 175 passes through its own length and enters the South Tower in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air…”

    Says Mr. Fetzer…

    Then you have “explained over and over again” a load of twattleplat – who’s your “we” in this instance, you and your monkey?

    Here are a few instances of actual lucidity on this subject {which you should be well aware of by now}:

    Rebuttal of Ace Baker’s “Chopper 5 Composite” Analysis (August 1, 2007)~Eric Salter

    Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity (April 11, 2007)~Gregory S. Jenkins, PhD

    Letter added to A Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories (March 21, 2007) ~Eric Salter

  55. Your sources are not trustworthy and have committed blunders that have been exposed in the past. Eric Salter, for example, used two frames of reference to produce a modest deceleration. But in fact there was none and the velocity of the plane should have gone to zero. You are truly incompetent.

    1. Brian Salter is backed up by Gregory S. Jenkins, PhD, as well as a personal analysis by Professor Jones – all of these analysis showed the same thing, that there was indeed a slowdown as impact occurred. of course it is imperceptible with the naked eye – many things happening at high speed are.

      The plane DID go to zero while inside the building, but for the jet fuel and some parts making it through the other side. You are truly incompetent…and you claim to be a PhD.

      As far as I can tell you are either a charlatan or you are really as flat out stupid as you are making yourself out to be here. If you took the time to read Jenkin’s paper and STILL won’t admit you are wrong…well, let the miller tell his tale.

      ww

      1. You are either incredibly stupid or are here to stir up rubbish. There is nothing subtle about this. The plane’s velocity should have dropped to zero. That is what happened at Sandia. The F-14 did not pass through the barrier, and Flight 175 should not have passed through this massive concrete and steel structure. Citing unworthy sources, with whom I am completely familiar, doesn’t cut it. I have already explained how we know what you are peddling is false and all the phony arguments from all the Salters, Jenkins, and Joneses of the world cannot change true into false. People like them can have a powerful affect on the weakminded, however, of which you are a sterling instance.

      2. So now we cut to the chase aye Fetzer, your dispute with Jones et al….so now they are the villains in this movie. You can’t keep up with real science is your problem.

        Those who buy into your rubbish, and the Shack’n’jive BS, are the same loosers off on a wild goose chase with their favorite woowoo guru.

        As I said before, I have a long resume as a special effects artist, and I know special effects when I see it, and I know real world photography when I see it. The whole trip of ‘digital fakery’ is a red herring to lead away from valid research.

        Why would you want to invalidate all of the visual evidence in the 9/11 case?

        This is the real question.

        ww

  56. *cough*quagmire*cough*..

    Any chance Hybridrogue?

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4450

    As for the off topic NPT. Jim, I asked you this question at Pilotsfor911Truth (maybe you didn’t see it).

    You’re basing your claims on the visual evidence of the impacts caught in the very same footage that you claim has been doctored. In one of the videos you linked to, “Ghostplane”, it was shown that the impact could also be inserted.

    If as you say, all videos of the tower impacts have been manipulated, and that aircrafts were inserted into those videos, shouldn’t all of the footage be rejected as a basis for anything?

    1. Well as far as cough cough, etc…???

      But I cannot agree more that Fetzer’s tale is a circular argument.

      I have to agree with Keenan, arguing with Fetzer is like arguing with a carny hawker over whether his solid gold watch is worth the twenty bucks he’s asking for it.

      He has obviously blazed a trail out into the weeds like a pied piper – and the children have followed.

      ww

      1. There is nothing remotely circular to infer from the occurrence of impossible events in a video to the conclusion that something is wrong, since impossible events cannot possibly occur. Hence, either the video has been altered (by CGI or video compositing) or the planes have been faked (in different ways regarding Flight 11 and Flight 175). I explain all of this in such excruciating detail in “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'” and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo” that only someone who has no capacity to reason or an op spreading disinformation could play the games that you play here. I leave it to readers to decide which you are–and possibly both.

      2. You have not proven the crashes into the towers are “impossible events” Fetzer.

        Personally I think these were specially modified aircraft, and certainly understand all of the evidence proving they were not the commercial craft involved. It is a leap into fantasy however to postulate video fakery or holograms to explain the visual evidence.

        I’ve read the debates between you and Balsamo on the Pilots site. If you think you came off as anything other than a fool in those exchanges…well here we are at the bottom line again.
        How you were ever able to manage getting PhD in anything is a grand mystery.

        ww

    2. You misunderstand my position. Because they include impossible events, they cannot be authentic with regard to both the integrity of the videos and the reality of the planes. Some, such as Rosalee Grable and Ace Baker, believe there were no planes and that the videos were altered after the fact by means of CGIs or video compositing. If that is the case, however, then all of the witnesses who reported seeing a plane BEFORE any videos were broadcast have to be wrong.

      At least some of the witnesses seem to be completely sincere. (Hear my interview with Scott Forbes on “The Real Deal”, for example.) Since no real plane could not perform the feats that we observe in the videos, we must be dealing with something that looks like a real plane but is not a real plane. Indeed, it has no strobe lights, casts no shadow, and has a left wing that disappears BEFORE it enters the building, as the last video on “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” shows.

      When you study the evidence I have presented there and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, it should be obvious that “Flight 11” does not resemble a 767 and has to be a simulation, which I conjecture may be four UAVs in close formation. “Flight 175 likewise has to be a simulation, but of another kind, probably a sophisticated hologram. If you or another serious student has a better explanation, I would be glad to consider it. Flakes can wait.

      Since Pilots has shown that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh at the time, by the way, what we have here cannot possibly be Flight 175, which means that one or another form of video fakery has to be taking place here, which is why I cannot understand Rob’s rejection of video fakery. I suspect he does not understand the meaning of the phrase, which covers either altered videos or faked planes. If this isn’t Flight 175, then we have to be dealing with here video fakery, necessarily.

      I have been meaning to say that I have appreciated your posts here. I have probably not read all that you have written, but your comments, like those of several others, are a breath of fresh air compared to some of the moronic drivel that keeps popping up again and again and again. So I appreciate your being here and have yet to figure out why we were at odds on the Pilots forum. From what I can tell, we seem to be very much on the same page about these four crash sites.

      1. Anyone who does not understand classic Newtonian physics should not be addressing any of these issues. Anyone who has studied the design of the South Tower should recognize that no plane could enter this massive, 500,000-ton building without displaying the effects of a collision.

        But this “plane” effortlessly passes through eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns, filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which represents an acre of concrete apiece and enormous horizontal resistance.

        Some here completely ignore these eight (8) floors and accept the Purdue animation, which I have demonstrated to be completely fraudulent in “Reason and Rationality: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. It is pitiful to see grown men offer childish claims and expect to be taken seriously.

      2. “Anyone who does not understand classic Newtonian physics should not be addressing any of these issues. Anyone who has studied the design of the South Tower should recognize that no plane could enter this massive, 500,000-ton building without displaying the effects of a collision.”

        Says Mr. Fetzer, as if there was no display of the effects of the collision. The impact did show an explosive impact, debris did fall, the very shredded type of debris one would expect.

        It is as if Fetzer is reporting from some alternate universe here – as if he is talking about completely different videos than everyone else has seen.

        Yes the buildings were massive, and they were also built in that unique tube fashion, with a facade meant to impart a certain amount of flexibility – certainly not the bunker facade of the Pentagon, and especially not the massive reinforced concrete structure Sandia built specifically to test the impact of a plane against an immovable object.

        Failing to recognize the vast differences of these two structures is jejune or dishonest.

        ww

  57. I want to make an important point about the “Hani Hanjour flying skills” argument.

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4305

    Dr. Fetzer, how do you know that Hani Hanjour was incompetent? Is it not reasonable to think he might try to paint himself as an incompetent dabbler to divert suspicions? After all, Project Bojinka was known since the capture of Abdul Hakim Murad in 1995.

    First off, there is no verifiable proof whatsoever that “Flight 77” crashed at the Pentagon.

    F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/14406

    Defendant’s motion reads in part:

    “Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records.  The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)”

    Secondly, the alleged “hijackers” were never verifiably identified

    http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf

    Nuclear DNA testing (along with dental records and fingerprints) of the remains from the victims aboard American Airline (AA) Flight 77 and within the Pentagon was useful for identifying 178 of the 183 victims. Five missing individuals (four within the Pentagon and one aboard the airplane) could not be identified due to lack of biological material from the crash.  Five remaining nuclear STR profiles were obtained from the crash site that did not match any references for the victims. These profiles were thought to represent the terrorists aboard the flight. The 40 victims aboard the United Airline (UA) Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, PA, were also identified by nuclear DNA testing, dental records, and fingerprinting. Four nonmatching nuclear DNA profiles were also obtained from the crash site and again tentatively ascribed to the terrorists.

    The official spin about “hair samples” allegedly taken from a hotel room to identify some of the “hijackers” is mentioned nowhere in that report. 

    An FOIA requesting the “bodies identified” only reinforces the above when only “58 victims” were allegedly listed ( bar 2 year old Dana Falkenberg). No “hijackers” were listed.

    There were allegedly 64 passengers.

    Even though the debate over this alleged personality, Hani Hanjour and his alleged “pilot skills” is irrelevant seeing as how there is no verifiable proof that “Flight 77” crashed at the Pentagon, even that claim is full of holes and leaves more questions than answers.

    http://www.crono911.net/public/doc1/Hanjour%20License%20AP.pdf

    Report: 9/11 Hijacker Bypassed FAA 

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/homefront.html
    D A L L A S, June 13 — A suspected Saudi terrorist believed to have piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon bypassed the Federal Aviation Administration for his flight licenses, according to a published report today.
    Sources and agency records cited by The Dallas Morning News showed that Hani Saleh Hanjour obtained certification by using private examiners who independently contract with the FAA. That certification allowed him to begin passenger jet training at an Arizona flight school despite having what instructors later described as limited flying skills and an even more limited command of English.

    ….

     FAA officials confirm one of their inspectors, John Anthony, was contacted by Pan Am International Flight Academy in Miami in January and February about Hanjour and, at the request of the school, checked Hanjour’s commercial pilot’s license to ensure it was valid.
    “There should have been a stop right then and there,” said Michael Gonzales, an FAA inspector speaking as president of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists chapter in Scottsdale that represents FAA field inspectors. He said Hanjour should have been re-examined as a commercial pilot, as required by federal law.

    —The Associated Press

    Just 3 weeks before 9/11, “Hani Hanjour” was described as a “shoddy” pilot.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html

    Cached here

    http://web.archive.org/web/20020405020924/http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story

    Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine.

    Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz. Previous and sometimes contradictory reports said he failed in 1996 and 1997 to obtain a license at other schools.

    “However, when Baxter (Sheri Baxter, flight instructor) and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot’s license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

    More details and chronology of events here

    http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/53603/1/

    The “Hani Hanjour” is on record as being a “bad pilot”. End of story.

    Even the CIA mouthpiece, CNN, didn’t mention Hanjour’s name in initial “intelligence reports” of alleged hijackers involved on 9/11.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/bn.01.html

    KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Leon, we did manage — CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers that is supposed to be officially released by justice sometime later today. I will do my best to read, to read the names, some are a bit unfamiliar…..

    ph=phonetics

    Abdul Ala Mari (ph) and Setam Segani (ph), Marwanal Shehhi on the list as well. They are looking an awful lot alike here, Leon. Marwan Al Shehhi, a UAE passport. Fayez Ahmed, Mahad Al Shari (ph), Hanza Al-Gari (ph), Amdad Al Dandi (ph). Let me stop here for a moment. We have a few more names to read. The way this is working out, there were five hijackers on two planes, four hijackers on two others. We are told by law enforcement sources that most of these names in some way connect in some way to indirectly or directly to Osama bin Laden. 

    Continuing on, united Airlines flight number 93, Almad Alhanawi (ph), Almed Alnami (ph), Ziad Girad (ph) and Sayd Algamdi (ph).  American Airlines flight number 77. Cammid Al-Madar, and Mosear Caned (ph), Majar Mokhed (ph), Nawar Al Hazni (ph) and Salem Al Hazni (ph).

    Discussed here in David Ray Griffins piece “Was America attacked by Muslims on 9/11?”

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-America-Attacked-by-Mu-by-David-Ray-Griffin-080909-536.html

    What about the passenger manifests, which list all the passengers on the flights? If the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded the flights, their names would have been on the manifests for these flights. And we were told that they were. According to counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, the FBI told him at about 10:00 that morning that it recognized the names of some al-Qaeda operatives on passenger manifests it had received from the airlines.77 As to how the FBI itself acquired its list, Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, said to the 9/11 Commission in 2004:
    On the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest for the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers. Within 45 minutes of the attacks, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community.78
    Under questioning, Bonner added:
    We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through [our lookout] system. . . . [B]y 11:00 AM, I’d seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.

     Bonner’s statement, however, is doubly problematic. In the first place, the initial FBI list, as reported by CNN on September 13 and 14, contained only 18 names.80 Why would that be if 19 men had already been identified on 9/11?
    Second, several of the names on the FBI’s first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names. For example, the previously discussed men named Bukhari, thought to be brothers, were replaced on American 11’s list of hijackers by brothers named Waleed and Wail al-Shehri. Two other replacements for this flight were Satam al-Suqami, whose passport was allegedly found at Ground Zero, and Abdul al-Omari, who allegedly went to Portland with Atta the day before 9/11. Also, the initial list for American 77 did not include the name of Hani Hanjour, who would later be called the pilot of this flight. Rather, it contained a name that, after being read aloud by a CNN correspondent, was transcribed “Mosear Caned.”81 All in all, the final list of 19 hijackers contained six names that were not on the original list of 18—a fact that contradicts Bonner’s claim that by 11:00 AM on 9/11 his agency had identified 19 probable hijackers who, in fact, “turned out to be. . . the 19.”
     

    Finally, which of these people is “Hani Hanjour”?

    Taken from the FBI released images of the alleged “hijackers” here

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6eonppuEMEo/S5EL-G7UP1I/AAAAAAAAJwU/edOOTBykCxw/s640/untitled.bmp

    A “Hani Hanjour” as per FBI

    A “Hani Hanjour” still withdrawing money

    A “Hani Hanjour” in alleged Dulles Airport security camera still

    Which is it?

    No doubt Good would label this as “spam”, but there is nothing linking “Flight 77”, let alone terrorists to the Pentagon attack. “Hani Hanjour” is a phantom.

  58. “Hani Hanjour” is a phantom.” ~ OSS

    Agreed, the whole hijacker tale is a story they made up: al Qaeda is a subsidiary of western intel.

    The whole ‘War on Terrorism’ is a myth of gargantuan proportion.

    Let’s cut the spat OSS – we have more in common than in dispute.

    ww

    1. What a ridiculous claim: OSS is honest and sincere and dedicated to the truth. You could not be more opposite. It is disgusting that you are here trashing everyone who is speaking 9/11 truth.

      1. KMA Fetzer, I have had enough of your oink.

        If 9/11 ‘truth’ is confined to your bullshit no-planes nonsense then it’s finished.

        ww

  59. Gage said to McKee just now, ““It would have been a more honest approach to declare that, ‘We think the plane flew over the Pentagon, but our witnesses who we using to make that point didn’t see anything like that. In fact, they said they saw the plane hit the building.’ ”

    It appears Gage is still leveling charges of dishonesty. Let’s see if this charge stands up to scrutiny. Here’s a link to the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

    William Middleton does say on the film that it hit: “Where it hit at, it used to be the heliport.” See 36:25.

    Craig Ranke says at 44:15: “While all these witnesses believe the plane hit the building, their unanimously corroborated placement of the plane is in direct contradiction with the South Side approach.”

    And less than a minute further, the point about witnesses ducking, flinching, running the other way after first seeing the plane is made. Darius Prather is quoted as saying: “No body was really tryin to look to see if it would hit the building or not hit the building, everyone was running for their lives.”

    And at 48:56 “It was almost like, not really going in nose first, it’s like almost just like at an angle.” Those are the words spoken by Sean Boger, the guy in the heliport tower. Mr. Gage, did you notice dem words “going in?” That would indicate that the witness believes the plane hit.

    Furthermore, at 49:34, Ranke says: “Although [Boger] reported the plane hit the building, his corroborated placement of the plane on the north side proves it could not have.”

    So how could Mr. Gage possibly claim to have been “surprised” to later learn that the witnesses say the plane hit?

    1. @Cubic Sphere

      What worried me more was this statement in the interview

      “RG: “Right. Ya. There’s a lot to be resolved there. I actually don’t have an opinion on whether the plane flew over the building or went into it. That’s not part of my statement. But I do believe there was a plane. These witnesses saw a plane, that’s an important distinction and also a disruptive set of elements in the 9/11 Truth movement. Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement think there was a plane.”

      And

      “RG: “I didn’t want to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, because both sides of this argument are very convincing and very difficult, and I needed to be done with the issue and get off the fence.

      “I’m not interested in pursuing the points any further because I’m already behind in the work that I’m doing and I need to focus on that. But if there’s some kind of information that proves something I might be inclined – probably not, though – if it draws the 9/11 Truth movement together instead of splitting it apart then I’d be … I’m a servant of the 9/11 Truth movement, ultimately.”

      He needs to distinguish between the truth and an organization that calls itself the “Truth Movement”.

  60. onesliceshort says:
    “I want to make an important point about the “Hani Hanjour flying skills” argument……….”

    You see what Mr Good is doing?

    He says elsewhere that the government lies, and yet he repeatedly counters none- believers alternate hypotheses with an assumption that the government is telling the truth about whatever government learned “fact” he employs to counter with .

    Thus, Hanjour is absolutely assumed to be an unarguably real person [ i.e absolutely no possibility that he’s not], and therefor a real pilot who piloted a real plane into the Pentagon.

    Then that “fact” is used to “refute” an alternative proposition regarding what did/did not happen at the Pentagon[ or wherever].

    However, as you demonstrate, the problem with Mr Good’s initial assumption [that Hanjour was/ is real] is that there is absolutely no good reason to assume that Hani Hanjour , or even Fl. 77, ever existed.

    Even more curious than that: why does a person who repeatedly claims here that the government lies, then assume that the government is telling the truth about Hanjour, or about any other “fact” that the government claims about what happened at the Pentagon, or indeed anywhere else on 9/11?

    Beats me.

    Others here do exactly the same thing when they start their counter arguments by assuming that a certain parts of the governments story are undeniably true [e.g. that planes flew into the North and South towers and into the Pentagon, or disappeared whole into the ground in PA, [ an even more blatant violation of the laws of physics than even the WTC1 and 2 fantasy tales, if ever I saw one🙂 ].

    And yet out of the other side of their mouths they will ,at the very same time, all seriously argue [with a straight face, no less], and insist that the government is verifiably lying about _other_ [individually cherry-picked] parts of its grand fairytale story – but just not the bits they have, for some strange reason, assumed to be unquestionably true. [for example, that planes really flew into buildings- it must be true because the government says so, “eye witnesses” say so, and because they saw it on some crappy “amateur” video, or “live” on Fox5 TV etc.🙂 ] .

    And so it goes.

    regards, onebornfree

    1. Onebornfree,

      I think Mr. Good has been “sent to the cornfield” {as in that old Twilight zone episode}…

      ww

  61. Jim Fetzer said: “it should be obvious that “Flight 11″ does not resemble a 767 and has to be a simulation, which I conjecture may be four UAVs in close formation. “Flight 175 likewise has to be a simulation, but of another kind, probably a sophisticated hologram. If you or another serious student has a better explanation, I would be glad to consider it.”

    Well, Mr Fetzer, whether or not I am a serious student is very much open to debate [especially here🙂 ] , but nonetheless, I have a perhaps “better” [than plane inserts,UAVs ,holograms] explanation concerning the videos allegedly depicting both Fl 11 and Fl. 175.

    If you are interested, I will email it to you.

    Regards, onebornfree

  62. “Jim Fetzer said: “it should be obvious that “Flight 11″ does not resemble a 767 and has to be a simulation, which I conjecture may be four UAVs in close formation”

    Yea that;s it sure…four little planes in tight formation, that’s what it was….jeeeeezis, this is too funny, this is burlesque – right you guys…??

    WTF?

    ww

  63. This is the crux of the paper by Jenkins:

    There is a 70% decrease in velocity just after the tail section passes through the outer wall, not 0% as alleged by Morgan Reynolds3 and others, representing a net loss in kinetic energy of 91%.

    A very small change in velocity of the tail end is not unexpected. Analysis of an F-4 Phantom jet aircraft impacting a massive slab of concrete at Sandia National Laboratories shows no loss of velocity of the tail end during collision within the measured error.

    However, this miniscule deceleration does not represent the deceleration of the entire airplane,
    only the tail end. The center of mass represents the motion of the entire airplane. Since the front of the aircraft decelerates faster than the tail due to impact, the center of mass shifts towards the tail end. Therefore, the center of mass of the plane travels less distance than the tail.

    Using Figure 7-34, 0 one can see that the center of mass only travels approximately 75% of a plane length over 0.2 seconds which represents an average velocity of 406 MPH. This results in an average decrease in velocity of 406/542 = 25%.

    [[ For chart and full argument see:

    Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower – By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics ]]

    ww

    1. This is incredibly insulting. There is no decrease in velocity–none! If there were, then a frame-by-frame analysis of the plane passing through its own length into the building could not possibly occur in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. This proof does not require more complicated calculations than addition and comparison, which overrides what he is shoveling here. If there had been deceleration, this method would have detected it; and, since the effect should have been gross (by its velocity falling to zero as it impacted with the building), no amount of subtle hand-waving can salvage the case. This man is insulting your intelligence.

      1. Repeating the same argument over and again against this material isn’t going to make your argument any stronger Jim.

        Are you now going to tell me that this PHYSICIST is “obviously unqualified–does not understand–massively ignorant–complete incompetence– ” and perhaps even recommend him for “Dunce of the Year” award ”?

        ww

        1. What could be simpler: d = r x t. So if “the plane” passes through its own length (distance) into the building in the same number of frames (tiime) it passes through its own length in air (distance), then it has to be passing through both (equal distances in equal times) at the same rate (speed). That a member of this forum is suggesting that I am a dunce when the most elementary physics shows that I am right and he is wrong is beyond belief.

          If I believed he was sincere, he would qualify as a mental midget, but the explanation obviously lies elsewhere. His repeated claims that I am supposed to be some kind of “disinfo agent” or “liar” are contradicted by the evidence, including our respective positions about elementary physics. If he were both serious and competent, he would be so embarrassed that he would not show his name here again. This is a nice example of projection.

      2. “If there were, then a frame-by-frame analysis of the plane passing through its own length into the building could not possibly occur in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air.”~Fetzer

        That is the whole point of the analysis presented here mr repeato – a frame by frame analysis shows it does NOT pass through toe impact site in the same number of frames…did you even read the damn thing? Or are you just bluffing, hoping no one else will read it themselves, because the great and mighty wizard of Oz has spoken?

        Remember by your assessment of the act of criticism – this is an “attack” on this person, perhaps even characterized as vicious because of it’s repetition.

        ww

      3. Jim Fetzer says: “This man is insulting your intelligence.”

        That’s pretty much all he/it does, as you are discovering , Jim .

        P.S. He appears to believe that the government and its bought and paid for media is somehow telling us the the truth about planes hitting buildings. Why , I have absolutely no idea, but I’ll hazard a guess:

        Specifically, this would appear to be because so doing [ i.e. supporting the idea that there were planes hitting buildings because the government /media said so] , supports his very own fiercely defended theory that remote -controlled planes were used – therefor the videos _must_ be real, otherwise his very own pet “how they did it” theory is “cooked”, which is a threatening idea for him. Persons like him simply cannot allow their pet theory to be wrong. Not a chance. Its a [big] ego “thing”, if you will.

        The never-ending” insulting your intelligence.” ingredient is all a part of the same “modus- operandi” , used in order to defend an “incontrovertible” conclusion that appears to be under attack and cannot afford to be proved wrong [resultant ego damage because of inflexible position held].

        Outside of my own, admittedly weak guess, why anyone in their right mind would believe _any_ part of the governments “official” story, such as: ” there were planes and they flew into buildings”, and actually vigorously defend it in print, and yet still claim , out of the other side of their mouths, that [paraphrased] “it was an inside job and the government has lied about just about everything else”, is beyond me, but what do I know?

        Still, in the end, if nothing else, his “posts” do have a certain amount of “curiosity value”, I suppose .🙂 . Regards, onebornfree

  64. The plane in the Naudet video occupied a space only about 20 by 20 pixels, not enough to show much detail even if the video were in focus. You might as well try to duplicate Michelangelo’s “David” using bricks. The claim that the video should have clearly shown a 767 is an amateur argument born out of a lack of understanding of how
    resolution affects the clarity of that image. And this misunderstanding continues.

    Compounding the misinterpretations due to blurry footage, the no-planers were originally using a half size, compressed mpeg movie to conduct their analysis. Moreover, Webfairy performed processing on this low quality movie which created even more degraded images, aptly described by Mark Bilk as “abstract video art.” The no-planers, not knowing what full quality video was or what compression artifacts were, claimed these muddy, altered images were proof of the absence of a real plane. The observation of wings “flickering” on and off is one good example. These “flickering wings” only occur in the poorer quality video in which the brightness of the wing closely matches that of the background.
    What is happening is simple: noise and compression artifacts blur what little visual data there is of the edge of the wing. The wing then becomes indistinguishable from the background in that frame, hence the “disappearing wing” anomaly. Whether it happens or not in a particular frame is determined by random dispersal of noise and compression artifacts. But stepping back from the technical analysis, the flickering wing claim itself is fundamentally illogical: Other video angles show no flickering wing, undercutting the idea that the hologram was malfunctioning. And flickering like this simply does not happen in 3D animation unless the artist programs it to happen, thus eliminating the TV fakery hypothesis. `Salter
    [[ A Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories ]]

    ww

    1. To appreciate the irrationality of his position, just look at the evidence. See, for example, “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'”. A 767 has a wingspan of 150′ which should cover 3/4 of the 208’ width of the side of the North Tower. I looks nothing like a Boeing 767 and creates four hit-points when it comes into contact with the building, a “Z” configuration that turns into an elongated “V” after the smoke clears. Anyone who tells you this is a 767 is contradicted by readily-available evidence.

      1. WTF Fetzer??? You repeat again: “It {sic} looks nothing like a Boeing 767” – after the whole point of the paper is to explain why it looks nothing like a Boeing 767 — because of lack of resolution and focus. The wingspan issue is resolved by the same token – the combination of lack of resolution and focus means a loss of visual information for the thinnest parts of the airplane – so you arent seeing the total wingspan to the tips. All of this is explained in plain straight forward language above.

        You’re claim of “Z” to “V” is due to the same problems of lack of focus and resolution, the smoke is obviously going to change shape at the impact point.

        You say,” Anyone who tells you this is a 767 is contradicted by readily-available evidence.”

        But by the same token and this is the point of dispute: Anyone who tells you this cannot be a 767 doesn’t have any idea of what they are talking about, has no aptitude in photo analysis, and completely mis-comprehends the issues of this argument.

        ww

    2. No one who reviews the videos I have included at the conclusion of “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'” is going to be taken in by this smooth-talking used car salesman. Check them out. No real plane could enter this building without displaying any effects of collision. There is no deceleration. The plane does not crumple. Its wings and tail do not break off. No bodies, seats or luggage fall to the ground. It does not even explode until it is ALL THE WAY INSIDE THE BUILDING. But that is impossible. It should have exploded upon impact. This cynic believes he can deceive you with his silver tongue. But he is in fact exposing himself has someone who trades in falsehoods and fraud.

      1. “No real plane could enter this building without displaying any effects of collision. There is no deceleration. The plane does not crumple. Its wings and tail do not break off.”~Fetzer

        Regardless of the resolution/focus problems with this particular film – you are making the same tired and disputed arguments that you have been making for years for all of the visuals of the WTC plane hits

        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your argument has brought, not only no extraordinary evidence, but has in fact only offered loopy unfounded theoreticals and absurd argumentation.

        And you further assert this:

        “But he is in fact exposing himself has someone who trades in falsehoods and fraud.”

        Which is the crux of the whole biscuit; just WHO in fact is the one, “who trades in falsehoods and fraud.”

        ww

  65. I see no reasons that suggest this video to be anything but real.
    Please pay special attention to the starboard wing of the plane and notice how the two timber poles slice right through the wing with relative ease.
    By the looks of it such round timber poles would have a diameter of around 12”.
    It’s hard to gauge the speed of the plane, but for argument’s sake let us say 300 Km/h.

    (We can of course already imagine what will happen when the speed of the plane decreases proportionally, i.e. the wing resist the impact with the poles more and more, ending up remaining completely intact).

    The question we must ask ourselves is simply this: What happens to the wing in regard to the impact with the timber pole when the speed of the plane increases?
    Will the timber pole with more ease slice through the wing the faster the plane fly?

    Or, as some would argue, will the wing experience a regeneration of strength in direct proportion to the increase in speed, and become stronger and stronger again, in such manner that a reversal will occur and a point will be reached by the increase in speed where it is now the wing which will slice clean through the timber pole?
    (At this point let us quickly replace the timber pole with a 14” x 14” steel column firmly anchored in its place, and continue).

    If the latter is the preferred option by the plane-hugger-impact people, and which it seems like, then i can see nothing but big problems ahead, as some very pertinent questions will then have to be answered!

    In this case where a transition between two mutually extreme possibilities take place based on speed and impact, a point of absolute equilibrium between the one condition and the other must be found.

    We must ask, at what speed does the wing experience its optimal stage of vulnerability to the impact with the steel column before us, as seen in the video? (Remember the poles got replaced)!
    At what further faster speed does this vulnerability start to decrease, finally to stop, and instead a transition suddenly begins whereby the wing continuously gains in strength, along with the increasing speed of the plane, getting so strong that it is now the wing which actually slice through the steel column this time?
    Do we measure this point of transition within the speed/distance of one kilometer, a meter, a centimeter, a millimeter, smaller??
    At what speed between our estimated 300 Km/h. and ca. 900 Km/h. do we find this equilibrium? And why?

    These are some of the questions the plane-huggers will have to answer first and foremost, but will be unable to, as this problem is of course unsolvable. It cannot happen this way, so we have no other choice but to simply disregard this second option.

    The first option must therefore be the right one: The faster the speed, the more easily the steel columns will slice through the wings of the plane. It is as simple as that!

    But that’s not what we see at the cartoon cut-out holes in the towers façade. On the contrary. Here we see the steel columns sliced through by the wings of the alleged plane, which in true reality is an impossibility shown by the foregoing proof.

    In addition to this, we see the alleged plane with an estimated speed of around 900 Km/h. slice effortlessly through the perimeter wall and stop dead in its track just inside the building!

    We know this, because a fireball first starts to take place on the east side of the building within the first 1/3 of the total horizontal tower depth of 64 meters, followed by a fireball coming out of the entry hole straight after. Not to forget also of course the third fireball coming out from the north wall in hot pursuit after the famous nose-out configuration that appears first.
    We know that the alleged plane was banking prior to the alleged entry into the tower; starboard wing tilted up and port wing down, covering over 6 floors.
    We know the flight path of the alleged plane, so know that the fuselage and the starboard wing and the vertical stabilizer would have missed the center core columns.
    We know that most of the alleged plane would have encountered nothing but open floor space; reason being that we can disregard the resistance of the trusses owing to the angle of approach of the alleged plane; and that 6 to 7 floors of 4” concrete on steel pans only constitute approximately 800 – 900 mm. of spread out solid resistance. (Remember that the steel columns and spandrels had allegedly already been penetrated by the whole plane at this point)!

    And yet the alleged plane comes to an instant halt from a speed of 900 Km/h.!!! while there was little to hinder that most of the broken apart or broken up parts of the plane, ostensibly caused by the no- more-there-façade-lattice and the floors, continued their forward momentum at high speed (in spite of the explosions and fireballs) through the empty spaces of a very short distance with a split second to the next perimeter walls!

    But we see none of that. We see nothing of substance penetrating from the inside either the east wall or the north wall. We see no indication whatsoever.
    (We can forget about the alleged ‘engine’ part)!

    And we can forget all about the so-called ‘physics’. All we really have to do is using all the power and all the strength of our minds, together with the imaginations and the intuitions we have all been so handsomely endowed with, and soon we should all be able to recognize the total baloney and all of this inane and insidious humbug they are trying to stupefy and stultify us all with!

    Conclusion: There was no plane impact. All plane-huggers will have to rethink. There’s no other way!

    Cheers

    1. Tamborine man,

      It is obvious from this video that the plane has already impacted the ground at the time it’s wing is hitting the pole, which means the integrity of it’s structural properties are already compromised.

      In other words, nice try but no cigar.

      ww

    2. “plane-huggers”….now ain’t that cute?

      As the rest of your argument has been address countless times, I will leave you to stew, as per my daring to even address your majesty.

      ww

    3. Tamborine man,

      You obviously don’t understand Kinetic Energy Physics. You can babble on all you want about what you speculate “might” or “should” happen at such and such speeds, but, as they say in technical parlance, “You don’t know shit from shinola”. FIrst of all, the plane is not just impacting the pole/column with the mass of just the leading edge of the wing, it is impacting with all of the mass behind the leading edge of the wing that is greatly increasing its momentum, whereas the pole/column is standing perpendicular to the lateral force of the plane, which means much less mass is being used to resist the plane, as well as the fact that the plane is impacted the pole/column at its most vulnerable orientation where it is most likely to give. Think about it: If you were to flip the pole/column around to where it is impacting with the plane head on at its smallest profile, the pole/column would go through the plane rather than vice versa. Steel skyscrapers are designed primarily to resist vertical forces from the gravity of the structure pulling downwards. Steel skyscrapers are not engineered to resist anywhere near as much force laterally. Second of all, Kinetic Energy multiplies this difference in mass exponentially as the speed of impact increases. KE = 1/2 M x V^2 (Kinetic Energy equals one half time the mass times the velocity squared). For example the difference in Kinetic Energy, or penetrating energy, of an object traveling 10mph as opposed to 500 mph, which is multiplying the velocity by 50 times, results in the Kinetic Energy being multiplied not just 50 times, but by 2500 times!

      Now, Tamborine man, why don’t you run along and do some homework. Go study some Kinetic Energy Physics, and when you can prove to us that you have grasped the subject, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, when you come back with some CALCULATIONS where you can show us some actual NUMBERS (i.e., how much mass of what is impacting with how much mass of what and how much kinetic energy, etc.) rather than your baseless uninformed babble, then we MIGHT be able to have a worthwhile conversation about the subject. Otherwise, don’t expect anyone to take your pseudo-science nonsense seriously. Mkay?

      1. This is very revealing. Where are the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed to the entry of a Boeing 767? Speaking only of one force involved is clearly a form of deception. And remember that, the effects of a 767 flying 500 mph into a stationary 500,000 ton tower would be the same as a 500,000 ton tower flying at 500 mph into a stationary plane!

        He has never even acknowledged that, as Pilots has shown, a standard 767 could not fly at that speed at that altitude. So we know something is wrong from the beginning. And, as I have explained many times now, it was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other.

        They were filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which means each represented an acre of concrete. Think about the effects if a plane in flight were to encounter just one of those floors suspended in space and you can being to appreciate the enormity of the fraud that this man has been attempting to perpetrate on this forum–again and again and again. It is insulting to our participants’ intelligence.

      2. To appreciate the depths of deceit involved in these replies to Tambourine man, just remember that the effects of a plane traveling at 500 mph just skimming the ground (which is not even aerodynamically possible) and hitting a lamppost (not to mention a series of lampposts) would be the same as a stationary plane being hit by a lamppost (not to mention a series of lampposts) traveling 500 mph: the wing would have been ripped apart and the fuel stored there would have burst into flame. What could be more obvious? According to the official account, none of that happened, which means we are being sold a fantasy. But these guys–who must be among the most gullible saps I have even encountered, if they are sincere–buy it hook, line, and sinker. I guess P.T. Barnum was right when he said, “There’s a sucker born every minute!” Here are two.

      3. Fetzer exclaims:

        “This is very revealing. Where are the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed to the entry of a Boeing 767? ”

        But his question is even more revealing, the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed to the entry of a Boeing 767, would only be applicable if it were asserted that the airplane knocked over the building by it’s impact.

        The only applicable calculations are those involving the physics of materials, momentum, and kinetics.

        It should be very obvious that this argument you have is misplaced and misleading.

        ww

      4. Faulty Conceptualization

        The bat and ball analogy is misplaced unless adjusted for materials and configuration of both objects.

        I would assert that the more exact analogy would be an orange slice batted by a tennis racket.

        So the logical result in that would be if the building were “picked up” and swung at the plane, the same effect would ensue as we have seen at the impact. Just as the orange slice would be strained through the racket, the plain would be ‘strained’ through the building.

        ww

  66. The weaknesses of the “9/11 Truth Movement” is that it is vulnerable to distractions, to infiltration, to bogus evidence, and even to nonsensical arguments.

    I have pointed out in a lucid manner that Fetzer’s arguments are nonsensical. I have pointed out here on this forum that he has zero comprehension of photographic analysis – his arguments against Salter’s quotes being a prime example.

    Fetzer also makes spurious arguments against a PhD in physics – a credential that Fetzer dare not claim for himself. He continues to argue that ‘counting the frames’ proves his point, when it is indeed verifiable that on closer examination by actual video experts, verified by the Sandia data as well proves him wrong.

    I am therefore unwilling to continue any more debate on these issues. If Fetzer has other issues he wants to bring into the picture, I will address those. But continuing a back and forth on the aspects we have already been through is futile.

    I will state for the record here, it is my opinion that Jim Fetzer is a 9/11 disinformationist, that he is being dishonest and is attempting to lead the movement into untenable ground. I see this as not only self evident, but also that I have given some prime examples of this behavior. That I am not alone in this assessment is a matter for others to discover – I only speak for myself in these public exchanges.

    This is my bottom line on the issues of what is shown in the visual evidence. If Mr. Fetzer would like to proceed to other issues it is fine, I will address those.

    ww

    1. “it is my opinion that Jim Fetzer is a 9/11 disinformationist, that he is being dishonest and is attempting to lead the movement into untenable ground.”

      I concur, and I would further add that Mr. Fetzer has so sullied the reputation of Indiana University where he received his PHD in the history and philosophy of science, that if I were Indiana University, I would revoke his PHD immediately.

      I consider Jim Fetzer to be just as dishonest and ill-intentioned as Brian Good and has no legitimate claim to being a member of any truth movement. To put it simply, Jim Fetzer is a liar, not a truther.

      1. Well, then it should be easy to show what I have wrong, which neither you nor your little buddies have done, in case you haven’t noticed. Just show what I have claimed, explain why I have made that claim, and then explain what I have wrong and how you know. It is certainly true that I have no patience for fools and frauds, where you and hybridrogue1 take large pieces of the cake.

      2. You’re too funny, Mr. Fetzer. You know full well that your pseudo-science nonsense and false interpretations of Newton’s Laws have been debunked over and over again on so many forums, and yet you always pretend that no-one has ever responded to your bull crap. On top of that, you make all kinds of bogus physics-related claims without backing any of it up with calculations and refuse to submit any of it for peer review like any legitimate scientist would do (for obvious reasons). Then you attempt to reverse the burden of proof onto others who have been asking you to prove your claims when there is no numbers or calculations presented by you to disprove. Who do you think you are fooling?

        1. It requires no more than elementary physics, d = r x t, to demonstrate that no deceleration takes place. Counting frames and comparing them is elementary calculation. So you are wrong on both counts: I have proven my point. And onebornfree has confirmed the impossibility of what we are observing, where there is no deceleration and the plane does not explode on impact. Some of us may have a few loose screws or display ignorance of physics, but that would be you two, not us.

    2. Here we have a typical example of the feeble arguments that hybridrogue1 has advanced. When he suggested I had no background in physics, I explained that I had earned my Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science, where the history of science is dominated by the history of physics. I also observed that I had taken a year-long course in physics at Princeton, when it was ranked #1 in the world in physics.

      I have explained several times why this massive, 500,000-ton building would have posed enormous resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight, especially when it would have been intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete, where each represented an acre of concrete.

      He talks about the kinetic energy of an aircraft that was traveling faster than is aerodynamically possible for a standard 767, as Pilots has confirmed. So at the very least, if he were candid, he ought to acknowledge that this cannot be Flight 175. Moreover, Pilots has also determined that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh at the time.

      He cites Eric Salter and Greg Jenkins as thought they were trustworthy sources. But their claims of modest deceleration upon impact are absurd on their face: the plane should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. Its fuel ought to have exploded on impact. None of that happened.

      Most importantly, its velocity should have fallen to zero, as occurred with the Sandia experiment. In that case, the F-14, which was filled with water, blew apart into millions of pieces. None of it passed through that massive concrete barrier. The South Tower had small and narrow windows, so some parts would have entered the building.

      But most of it would not. Even the engine found at Church & Murray was not from a Boeing 767 and turns out to have been planted. How much of this rubbish are we supposed to swallow? It is a common technique to resort to ad hominems when you are out-gunned in argument. What this man has been arguing has no basis in physics.

      So he can cite all the authorities he wants, but bad arguments are still bad arguments. The fact that, using frame-by-frame advance, we find that “the plane” passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames as it passes through its own length in air settles the question. One of us is a fraud, I agree, but it ain’t me.

      1. “I also observed that I had taken a year-long course in physics at Princeton, when it was ranked #1 in the world in physics.”

        If that is true, then that proves that you should know better and are intentionally presenting bogus physics arguments. Shame on you.

      2. Again, repetition will not correct a false argument.

        As far as your PhD it is in the History of Physics as I recall.

        I had a teacher who was a PhD in Art History…he could draw and paint at about the 6th grade leve. Appreciation for and a master of are two separate propositions

        But it is not any ability that I doubt – it is the matter of intent which is my indictment.

        I think Onebornfreak is just a silly dupe, but Fetzer is another case, he is a mucking shill, a saboteur of 9/11 Truth…worse than an Albury Smith, as he is inside the gates of the movement.

        ww

        1. Since you are unable to defeat any of my arguments, you resort to more ad hominems. But even at that, your incompetence at research is showing. I earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. I also spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. I can spot phony arguments as effortlessly as that plane entered the South Tower, where you turn out to be as flaky as they get. Why are you posting so much rubbish? Have you no sense of shame? If you think I have something wrong, then prove it. Your puerile ramblings show you have nothing of value to contribute here, where I am sure I am not the only one to question why you are here at all.

      3. Jim Fetzer says: April 22, 2012 at 1:23 am

        “Since you are unable to defeat any of my arguments, you resort to more ad hominems.”

        Rather than address the rest of the post which is another redundant bout that has been addressed over and again, just let me say that Fetzer has that grand ability to be insulted by another,s “ad hominems” , while being quite adept at slinging these at others.

        In the very first posts on this threat that he addressed me we find:

        “obviously unqualified–does not understand–massively ignorant–complete incompetence–I recommend him for “Dunce of the Year” award ”

        ~Fetzer in just his first two responses to my comments, which he characterized as “attacks”.

        Whether anyone has defeated your arguments Fetzer is not for you to judge for yourself. As you claim to have taught, ” logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,” you should already realize this.

        ww

  67. Sorry if I’ve missed it, but could somebody please point out the response to my earlier question?

    How can video footage that has been claimed to have been tampered with, be used in any capacity whatsoever, to draw any scientific conclusions from? If it’s claimed that holograms were used, and that aircraft were inserted into the footage, who’s to say that other elements weren’t manipulated?

    I haven’t got the credentials to debate the physics of the impact, but there is one image that stood out to me.

    If this impact hole were indeed created by explosives/shaped charges, how were the indentation marks created where the left wing and lower part of the vertical stabilizer would have struck?

    As for the “nose out” footage (as with the real reason I personally believe NPT is designed to distract from other anomalies regarding impacts), discussed here

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804353

    Particularly this superslowmo video of an 84mm Carl Gustav HEAT 751 Shaped Charge tandem warhead

    Can you see the “nose out” effect?

    1. OSS,

      How does the left wing enter the building without breaking off when there appears to be no opening much beyond where the engine would have gone through? And don’t some of those steel columns look like they’re bending out?

      I know I’m committing blasphemy by wondering these things, but that hole doesn’t strike me as one that would accommodate a 767 without the video showing large pieces breaking off. I don’t have the credentials either, but this pic doesn’t convince me of much. If I’m missing something, please help me out.

      1. Hi Craig,

        If you are speaking to the first jpeg, I have given my impressions in my first comment to OSS since I have been back from lunch. I don’t see any steel members sticking outward.

        In what portion of the photo do you see this?

        As for the second shot of the outward blast, I see nothing whatsoever incongruent with this photo as per the angle the plane would have been at – it appears to me as a fuel ignition blast, with mostly small particulates. A larger piece of something seems to be just above the flaming part….what is the question here?

        ww

      2. One more point, it is my opinion that the wingtips and tail would not have simply broken off, they would have shattered to confetti – and we do see this in the impact video, quite a bit of shrapnel flies off the front of the building with a fairly substantial flame burst – nothing to compare to the burst on the exit side of course.

        ww

      3. Hi Craig,

        I can’t explain the more central area of the impact hole. It would be a lie for me to say that I don’t have problems with how the aircraft managed to penetrate.
        So, I looked at the impact damage itself and tried to envisage how they would create or physically carve the “illusion” of an impact using explosives. What I can’t figure out is how they could create precise indentations in line with the left wing tip. The lower part of the vertical stabilizer is a clean slice. 

        As for the notion that no debris fell on the outside, there is clearly debris of some kind falling from the impact side of the facade which canbe seen towards the end of this video:

        Flight 175 stabilized

         I looked for possible alternatives such as the appendage clearly visible not only underneath the aircraft but having a physical interaction with the facade. It’s clearly discernible from different angles.


        I recommend watching this video in full.

        I don’t necessarily agree with the “drone out” claim as that section of facade opposite the impact side shows no sign of a solid object being punched out but I strongly believe that we’re seeing the effects of a shaped charge explosive event seen in the video I linked to inmy last post.

        Uranium shell penetration and UA175

        Flight 175 – Hijacked Boeing Or High Tech Military Weapon

        There were also flashes seen (more noticeable in the first impact) that have been washed along on the NPT rollercoaster.

        And this alleged audio captured where two explosive events are captured 3 seconds apart

        9/11 WTC Rare Video of First Plane Attack – WNYW TV

        All of those anomalies have been handwaved away or left to rot because of NPT. In my opinion.

    2. OSS,

      I just came in from lunch, and this is the first time I saw your questions – having been unduly involved with that other argument…

      As per the fist image, what I see is almost all indicative of an entrance wound…and yes the slice of a scar where the wingtip hit is pretty affirmative of this. There are a few slices of the aluminum fascia angling outward some off of the steel members to the left, but this seems like they are ‘sprung’ from the impact, the concussion plus loosing grip on the steel portion. This whole shot looks like very strong evidence of the impact of the plane…[Road Runner jokes aside.]

      As far as your first question about tampering with the visuals, as I do not believe that to be the case, I will leave that answer to someone who believes such.

      I’ll look at the other images on the basis of whether or not they load for me. I have some problems with my browser on that head.

      ww

    3. There are four possible combinations of videos (genuine or altered) and planes (real or faked):

      (1) genuine videos of real planes (no video fakery)

      (2) genuine videos of fake planes (video fakery)

      (3) fake videos of real planes (video fakery)

      (4) fake videos of fake planes I(video fakery)

      The use of computer-generated images or of video compositing to add the images of fake planes to videos has been advanced by Rosalee Grable and by Ace Baker, respectively. But then the only images of planes would have been seen on the videos broadcast after the alleged impacts.

      To the extent to which we give credence to the witnesses who claimed they saw “a plane” hit the South Tower, we have to acknowledge that, since it could not have been a real plane (given the arguments I’ve posed), they must have seen something that looked like a real plane but was not.

      In the case of Flight 175, which was actually over Pittsburgh at the time, that appears to have been done by using a sophisticated hologram. John Lear, Steffan Grossman, Stephen Brown and I are among those who hold this position. So I believe we have video fakery of type (2).

  68. onesliceshort said: “who’s to say that other elements weren’t manipulated?”

    Exactly, which is why to me it makes sense not to trust any of the alleged “live” network footage, all 102 minutes of it.

    For as Simon Shack has repeatedly shown , for every network that ran their own version of it , every part of that 102 minute supposedly “live” footage, regardless of TV station, shows obvious [to the trained eye] signs of being merely a pre-fabricated computer generated simulation, with very little actual difference in any of the individual “live” feeds between any of them.

    See:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE

    and also : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802 sid=73c921635e860c909e4bca88e07e2673

    onesliceshort said: “I haven’t got the credentials to debate the physics of the impact, but there is one image that stood out to me.”

    OSS, that image is a photoshop job, pure and simple. It will show different dimensions, shape, damage etc. etc., depending on which version you run into on the internet. Check out the various versions yourself. Completely unreliable as evidence of anything. [Question: Could the planes actual wing tips themselves, in real life, have cut through steel girders, which is what the photo depicts?]

    OSS and Craig, you do not need an advanced physics degree, just an impartial mind-set for review, and a fair helping of basic common sense. A real ,140 ton aircraft with its plastic nose cone and 2mm thick aluminum skin, surely [?] could not/cannot travel through concrete and steel weighing 100’s of tons, at anything like the same speed as it does through the air immediately before it contacts that concrete and steel, as this supposed video of Fl. 175 [ by alleged “amateur” videographer Evan Fairbanks] attempts to have you believe :http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html.

    As Mr Fetzer has repeatedly stated, in real life, the laws of physics [i.e Newton’s 3rd law of Motion] dictate that plane must start an almost complete deceleration the moment it contacts the building, with the wings and tail section continuing forward at a speed closer to the original speed as they break free from the fuselage while still on the outside, and then most likely falling to the ground shortly after separating from that fuselage.

    But in the various Fl. 175 videos no parts break free at impact – and the entire plane travels , in one piece, inside the building at the same speed as it traveled through the air it had just passed through, like “a hot knife through butter” .

    [ So that instead of having a famous “magic bullet” that did seemingly physically impossible things in the JFK err, “investigation”, we have a whole “magic plane ” [actually 1 of 4 “magic planes”], in the case of 9/11.🙂 ]

    Also be aware that a real jet will create a natural air vortex behind it as it moves through the air, [something like a miniature whirlwind]. Meaning that when the explosion occurs[ the explosion is to be seen in other videos of the same alleged event] , that the explosion would be greatly disturbed by the planes very own vortex , which would still be present in the air for at the least a few seconds – therefor the vortex should be show as a similar type of disturbance within the smoke and flame of the initial explosion, thereby distorting/influencing the shapes the explosion and smoke take. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krL4fkrySZ4

    Of course, there are no visible plane vortices in any of the alleged Fl.175 “plane into building ” footage , take your pick. { A major error on the part of the various movie fabricators] .

    Every pixel of that Fairbanks video I linked to via my blog entry is computer generated [i.e _no_ plane inserts, every pixel of it is computer generated ]- it is fake from start to finish, for reasons I will not get into here other than the one obvious one, that is: it depicts a scientifically impossible event.

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. “Exactly, which is why to me it makes sense not to trust any of the alleged “live” network footage, all 102 minutes of it.”

      Apart from the footage of the impacts? Why does that get a “get out of jail free card”? Why is the impact footage straight up? See what I’m driving at?

      OSS

  69. onebornfree makes this absolutely astounding statement:

    “For as Simon Shack has repeatedly shown , for every network that ran their own version of it , every part of that 102 minute supposedly “live” footage, regardless of TV station, shows obvious [to the trained eye] signs of being merely a pre-fabricated computer generated simulation, with very little actual difference in any of the individual “live” feeds between any of them.”

    To seriously assert that Simon Shack or yourself have a “trained eye” is so spectacularly absurd as to be worthy of a Guinness world record for Tall Tales, for it is a whale of a tale for sure.

    And whatever you know about science has certainly been thoroughly withheld from this forum thus far.

    I refer all to the ‘debates’ on the “36 truth leaders” on this very blog. You seem to be not only visually inept but without a functioning memory as well.

    Heaven forbid we have to ride this lunatic roundabout again.

    ww

    1. hybridrogue1 has no standing to fault others, when his role her has been to promote misinformation and attack those, including onesliceshort, who are attempting to come to grips with the evidence as he is not. I think the idea of a shaped charge to have created the image is an interesting conjecture, since no real plane can have done it. In both cases–the cut out in the North Tower as well as in the South–those who planned this were out to create cookie-cutter like impressions to be spoon-fed to the American public. The case of the North Tower is especially interesting, where the right-wing cut-out was even extended after-the-fact to accommodate preconceptions about what it should have looked like. I would also add that onesliceshort’s observation about some falling debris would be from creating the cut-out, not from the plane. My point was rather that the fuselage should have crumpled, tie wings and the tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground, none of which happened. I think onebornfree, onesliceshort, Tamourine and probably also Senor El Once are on the same page about this. If I am mistaken about this, I would welcome a correction.

      1. “hybridrogue1 has no standing to fault others, when his role her has been to promote misinformation and attack ”

        That’s rich Fetzer,

        We all have standing for finding the faults of others when those faults are apparent. As far as aptitude for offensive arguments you have no equal.

        You are an agent of Public Relations as far as I am concerned, and your mastery of plausible rhetoric is your forte. None of your other purported ‘talent’s’ come close – Expert Propagandist is your epitaph.

        ww

      2. Jim, if you remember our conversation over at Pilotsfor911Truth, I’m in no way in the NPT camp.
        My observations listed in the earlier post were to show that the aircraft itself may have been modified to aid penetration, possibly within the nose of the aircraft or in the appendage seen on the underbelly. Although this appendage may also have been for the purposes of radar/remote control:

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

        There are many visual anomalies regarding the impacts (including the flashes – especially Tower 1) but I believe that they are due to physical manipulation of the aircrafts rather than a manipulation of video and camera footage.

        All of these visual and tangible evidence would have to be discarded if one were to accept NPT.

        As for the falling debris seen on the impact side of Tower 2, it’s still debris whether you say it’s due to “cookie cutter charges” or not. But if I were to go down this rabbit hole, I’m still left wondering how such charges could not only cut the shape of the plane, but leave indentation marks that outline the left wingtip and lower vertical stabilizer.

        If it’s claimed that the above image or any other video is fake (particularly the claim that the aircraft in the “ghostplane” video has been inserted), how can an entire theory be based on another aspect in the very same footage (the impact itself) that one claims to have been
        manipulated?

        I’m not playing games or twisting words. I’ve looked at this objectively, more out of respect for Tamborine Man than anything else. NPT was designed to fail and leaves a lot of tangible evidence on the wayside. Whether you really believe it or not.

  70. Real Monsters Never Die

    This is starting to seem like one of those serial monster movies where it looks almost certain that the monster must be dead, only to find that somehow it has miraculously escaped death by some fantastic fabrication of the script writers.

    It may be entertaining “at the movies” – but it has a very sinister effect in the real world.

    Sunstein has obviously set the web up for a “Really Big Show” for the death of reason in the 21st century.

    ww

    1. What’s the point of this? Acknowledging you were wrong without admitting it? I have written about Cass Sunstein and “cognitive infiltration” in “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”. Why don’t you simply concede that you were mistaken about the use of remote-controlled drones because they would have been real planes and could not have performed the feats that we observed in the videos of Flight 175? Unless these Arab “terrorists” could suspend Newton’s laws, the plane could not have entered the building without collision effects, including its fuel tanks exploding OUTSIDE of the South Tower. One of the reasons for faking it was because they needed to get “the plane” all the way INSIDE the building before it exploded as a pseudo- explanation for the “collapse” of the tower (from the intense heat of the burning jet fuel, as Harley Guy explained to a reporter on the scene at the time–all rubbish, of course, since the jet fuel was consumed in the first 15-20 seconds and the modest fires that remained did not burn hot enough or long enough to weaken, much less melt, any of the steel). But a gullible public was not going to notice because it is so used to seeing impossible events occur in the movies and television.

      1. Uncle Fetzer,

        Why don’t you stop the rhetorical bullshit of mixing “Arab terrorists” in with the argument of whether these were airplanes that hit the towers or not?

        I will tell you twinkletoes, it is because you are adept at nothing – more than you are at slick and sneaky couplings of issues. This is what you are best at in my analysis of structure and subtext.

        ww

  71. OSS,

    great examples in the April 21, 2012 at 10:43 pm post. I have always though that the pod scenario as proven and obvious…the shot above makes that VERY obvious.

    The last two audio centered information makes it obvious an airplane flies overhead before the sound of an explosion. I think what explains the second sound of the explosion in the one video is an echo throughout the canyon of tall buildings in lower Manhattan.

    BTW for the sake of disclosure; Salter disputes the pod biz, claiming it to be a shadow effect, and I disagree with that, it was one of his first efforts on the 9/11 examination. I am not sure he still holds that view or not. His later work is much more top notch…I don’t think anyone is correct 100 percent of the time – heck, I was even mistaken once {grin}

    ww

    1. There was an analysis of the “shadow” claim done by “La Vanguardia” in Spain, discussed here

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21851&view=findpost&p=10804296

      And shadows don’t cause physical reactions.

      I’m not throwing all of my eggs into one basket but I definitely believe there are “old school” issues such as the appendage and the flashes.

      And yeah, I wasn’t 100% on the audio evidence. There was an audio recording of the first impact caught during an office meeting which caught two distinct bangs. I can’t find it anywhere.

  72. onesliceshort said: “Apart from the footage of the impacts? Why does that get a “get out of jail free card”? Why is the impact footage straight up? See what I’m driving at?”

    Assuming you are addressing me, no, not really. Who is saying the impact image is believable? [Not me.]

    In my previous link to the Fairbanks video on my blog site I stated that in my humble opinion it was a 100% fake video [i.e. not just plane inserts into otherwise live imagery ] ; also that with other “amateur” footage of Fl 175 into WTC, where both the plane image and the explosion are clearly seen, that for [just] one thing, there is no visible vortex produced by the plane disturbing/altering the shape of the explosions depicted, as it should have done, therefor those videos are all also fakes[leaving aside, for the moment, the sheer physical impossibility of the event depicted in all of them]. [I previously gave a youtube link to a short video explaining the vortex phenomena and examining the lack of any discernable vortex in any of the plane crash video sequences. Here it is again, if you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krL4fkrySZ4

    There are many other technical reasons to believe that all of the various Fl.175 collision footage sequences are 100% fake, mostly to do with perfect hand-held camera tracking of objects claimed to moving at 500mph, [for example, see the short gif movie taken from the Herzekhani ” amateur footage at the very bottom of my blog page here: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2009/09/dr-reynolds-and-planebuilding-meld.html , where the moving plane image somehow manages to stay perfectly in the center of successive frames even as it moves across the screen ] ; plus impossible vantage points of the alleged photographers, perfectly timed zoom-ins, lighting /shadows totally at odds with known lighting conditions that morning , etc. etc [the list of anomalies is long and I will not attempt to get into them all here, just to mention a few in passing ] .

    Concerning the lack of a visible vortex distortion of the ensuing explosion, the exact same is true of the Naudet footage of the first strike – there is no visible plane vortex distortion of the explosion itself whatsoever, when there should be one clearly seen, given the cameraman’s vantage point, which indicates to myself and others that that footage was also probably faked in its entirety [i.e. no plane insert into an otherwise live feed] .

    It appears that Mr Fetzer may believe that the Naudet video of the first strike is real-time, but that it had a plane image inserted into an otherwise live feed, if I understand him correctly. [Although the original Naudet footage was never broadcast as “real-time” “live”, it was not seen on national networks until the next day, the 12th, I believe] .

    I would myself suggest that the absence of any visible plane vortex in that Naudet video sequence is but one of many reasons to conclude that the entire sequence is fake- there are many, many other technical anomolies corresponding to the short list I just gave above for all of the alleged Fl.175 “amateur” footage.

    Also for more Nuadet sequence anomolies [e.g. missing frames] see Simon Shack’s Naudet footage analysis : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM&feature=relmfu

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Your analyses are very thoughtful, slice, even when I may dissent from them. My inference has been that Rosalee Grable may well be right and that we are viewing a close arrangement of four UAVs approaching and hitting the North Tower, where I show the four impact points in “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery'”. So my belief is that, while all four of the crash sites were faked, they were done in different ways, where no plane crashed in Shanksville; a plane flew toward the Pentagon and then swooped over it at the same time explosives were set off in the building; that the North Tower hit was one kind of simulation, as I have described, and the South Tower yet another.

  73. As both Keenan and I have pointed out here, Fetzer will never acknowledge his errors, not matter how many times pointed out. He has a mantra and he is sticking to it.

    He has been skewered on the topic of deceleration, proven flat out wrong and will not cop to it.

    He has been shown to be utterly inept at forensic photography as shown in our exchange about the Nuadet sequence, as per pixelation/resolution and focus. It is dishonest to pretend he is unaware that his arguments do not stand up on those issues – his continuance of repeating them is from either ego or agenda.

    This is obvious to all but the most biased mind.

    ww

  74. Jim Fetzer says:
    April 21, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    “Well, then it should be easy to show what I have wrong…”

    Sure it is easy to show what you have wrong. The problems comes from your refusals to admit that you are wrong.

    It has been shown to the candid world on countless occasions on a myriad of web sites that you are a charlatan Fetzer. One set upon a mission to deceive will certainly not admit so such deceit.

    And you can not turn this around on me. I have no mission, I have no organization, nor am I a so-called “Leader in the 9/11 Truth Movement”. My sole agenda is thinking for myself and expressing my own opinions based on such thinking. This can in no way exempt me from quoting others at times any more than it exempts anyone else.

    You have proven nothing, and others have proven that too many times to cite.

    ww

  75. Jim Fetzer says:
    April 21, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    “He talks about the kinetic energy of an aircraft that was traveling faster than is aerodynamically possible for a standard 767, as Pilots has confirmed.”

    This misrepresents Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s position. Lear has been disputed by many of the other pilots in the forum. As is plainly stated in the heading to that site, they do not deal in speculation as an organization. The forum is not their opinion, it is opinons by individual pilots.

    Your choice of Lear is misplaced at your own peril:

    “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

    This single sentence deconstructs everything else Lear has said in this, what – 15 page affidavit.

    “While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test” – this is the crux of the matter, everything else is spin.

    The speed limit set for the 767 is statutory not structural – large margin of error is in place for safety purposes, and the comfort of passengers. this would have been no flight for a pleasure cruise.
    ww

    1. The speed limit set for the 767 is statutory not structural – large margin of error is in place for safety purposes, and the comfort of passengers. this would have been no flight for a pleasure cruise.

      I don’t agree with you there HR1.

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21888&view=findpost&p=10803788

      What is absurd is claiming an aircraft can fly 150 knots into the “red zone” and maintain control, stability and structural integrity as claimed by those who blindly support the govt story and/or Pentagon Bloggers. They have yet to find precedent, data, and/or one verified pilot to support such an absurd notion. In fact data, precedent and numerous verified pilots oppose such an absurd notion.

      The main problem is the proposed  controllability of the aircraft at that speed. At that altitude. And during that final manouevre.

      As for Jim Fetzer’s claim that the speed issue “proves” that there was no plane..

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804528

      We aren’t using the speeds as “proof” of anything. We are saying that the speeds reported do not support the govt story.

      The govt story does not add up.

      Unlike Shanksville and the Pentagon, there is ample amount of evidence which shows real planes caused the impact damage at the WTC. There is no evidence to prove that the aircraft observed to cause the damage were N334AA and N612UA. In fact, the evidence provided by govt sources contradict their own claims.

      This is one of the many reasons why P4T is calling for a new independent investigation.

      Again, people are free to explore any theory they want. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 

      This is why we as an organization do not offer theory. How could we when we don’t have subpoena power to examine all the evidence, such as aircraft parts recovered, calling witnesses under oath.. etc.

      This is why our Mission Statement has not changed since 2006.

      As I have stated before, we have many varying opinions within our organization. John Lear for instance believes holograms were used and is one of our Core members in good standing. However, this cannot be proven until someone shows us the Hologram machine used, operates it, and even then, they would have to prove it was used on 9/11.

      This is what a Jury will require. This is what society will require. This is why NPT has not gained any support in 6 years and has done nothing but divide the “movement” while providing ammo for those who want to paint anyone who questions the govt story on 9/11 as lunatics.

      …….

       If you feel evidence is fake, you cannot use it as evidence to prove your case. This is a classic logical fallacy. These are just some of the reasons evidence is tossed from a Court Of Law every day.

      1. I am NOT “maintaining that the speed shows there was no plane”, ONLY that it shows that, if there was a real plane, it cannot have been a standard Boeing 767, which, I take it, is also the position of Pilots, which confirmed that the plane seen in the videos was traveling at a speed that would have been aerodynamically impossible for a standard Boeing 767. Do we agree?

      2. Thanks OSS,

        I understand your argument here, and I personally do not believe that a commercial Boeing is the animal we are dealing with here. Obviously the statutory speeds are based on the structural issues as well. However even reading the statutes, it is said therein that the plane can be flown faster at lower altitudes in careful test flight ops, and these statutes can be waved for such purposes.

        But rather than argue a point that I am not in support of, I will leave that point, and make the one I do think is applicable. And that is, to repeat what I have said before elsewhere, that these attack planes were specially modified military Boeing machines, hardened at both wing edges and nose. The engines would be modified as well, replacing the normal fan with one that could make the engines operate in the thicker medium at near sea level. I also postulate they were flown by programmed autopilot that once engaged would be tamper-proof to human intervention.

        I also postulate that a missile fired at impact is a strong probability.

        I made the point that Lear himself stated in his deposition, that it is the case the 767 can be flown faster. My pointing this out does not annul my further postulations I have just stated.

        To be clear, I have already rejected the hijacker/hijacking scenario many times over. I have in fact made the same argument for a modified plane as far as three blog-thread back.

        Bottom line, I think a real aircraft hit the WTC towers – I do not think these were the commercial craft claimed by the official story.

        ww

      3. I am NOT “maintaining that the speed shows there was no plane”, ONLY that it shows that, if there was a real plane, it cannot have been a standard Boeing 767, which, I take it, is also the position of Pilots, which confirmed that the plane seen in the videos was traveling at a speed that would have been aerodynamically impossible for a standard Boeing 767. Do we agree?

        Yes.

        Now quoting Rob Balsamo, repeating the question I’ve personally asked 4 times in the last number of posts.

        < If you feel evidence is fake, you cannot use it as evidence to prove your case. This is a classic logical fallacy.

        Do we agree?

        1. Slice, proving something has been faked is evidence of fakery. Egad! We have proven that the backyard photographs presented as evidence of Lee Oswald’s guilt in the assassination of JFK were faked by imposing his face on someone else’s body. (See “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald” with Jim Marrs in Veterans Today.) That is proof that he was being framed.

          The discovery of video fakery in New York, for example, is comparable evidence that someone was being framed, namely, the 19 Islamic “terrorists” who allegedly hijacked these planes and committed these atrocities under the control of a guy is a cave in Afghanistan. Except all four of the crashes were faked! That is evidence that other forces were at work and powerful proof of their complicity.

          Egad! Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has never proven that any of those alleged hijackers were abroad any of those planes. David Ray Griffin and A.K. Dewdney have shown that all of those phone calls were faked. Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, although there are millions of uniquely identifiable parts for those planes, the government has produced none.

          Given the evidence we have that all four of these crash sites were faked, how much more proof do we need of governmental–and media–complicity in 9/11? The situation is absurd. And there is no “classic logical fallacy” involved here at all! Proving that the videos were faked is part and parcel of the case implicating the government. Are we really unable to appreciate such an obvious point?

        2. OSS,

          Unless I’m missing something, I don’t agree with this point (“If you feel evidence is fake, you cannot use it as evidence to prove your case.”) I’d agree that faked evidence couldn’t be used to support the official story, which depends on the evidence, visual and otherwise, being authentic. But if you’re arguing that a deception has been engineered, I would think that evidence proving to be faked would support the idea that we’ve been lied to.

      4. @Craig and Jim

        “OSS,

        Unless I’m missing something, I don’t agree with this point (“If you feel evidence is fake, you cannot use it as evidence to prove your case.”) I’d agree that faked evidence couldn’t be used to support the official story, which depends on the evidence, visual and otherwise, being authentic. But if you’re arguing that a deception has been engineered, I would think that evidence proving to be faked would support the idea that we’ve been lied to.”

        Let me elaborate. It’s Jim Fetzer’s claim that because of what he sees as anomalies in the physics of the impacts to the towers, the aircraft must have been inserted into every video and image taken.

        Video samples

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804272

        That every verified witness to an aircraft actually reinforces the “hologram” claim(!)

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804309

        So, we have the circular argument that the aircraft was inserted. That is, a full blown manipulation of said footage. To manipulate the footage to the extent being claimed, this means that cameramen and videographers were placed in multiple locations and filmed an explosion in the towers and then aircraft were inserted afterwards. And that witnesses to an aircraft actually saw a hologram.

        My point is, if the footage, which is allegedly manipulated to the point of pure invention, how can the same footage be used to make a scientific evaluation?

        Even the “Ghostplane” footage shows how the actual impact itself can be manipulated/inserted.

        On a separate note, if there are anomalies, which I believe there are, why not concentrate on those first? They’re more tangible and less open to speculation.

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804353

        Look at the OCT “evidence” that was rightly rejected as proof of anything (NOC) because the “loop” west of the Potomac lie was part and parcel of it.

        NORAD

        Or National Geographic

        Or the alleged last RADES datapoints

        Smoke and mirrors.

        1. OSS,

          Sorry to belabor this point, but, hypothetically, if you have a video that shows a 767 flying at 800 mph into a building, couldn’t you scientifically determine that this speed was physically impossible, and therefore conclude that the video was fake? So couldn’t the fake video be used to prove that the image was manipulated?

          1. Violations of laws of nature (of physics, chemistry, biology, but also of aerodynamics) are a sure sign that something is wrong, since they cannot be violated and cannot be changed. But what precisely is going on may require some study. We could be dealing with any of these three combinations:

            (A2) Real video of fake plane
            (A3) Fake video of real plane
            (A4) Fake video of fake plane

            What we know–conclusively, from the occurrence of physically impossible events–is we do not have

            (A1) Real video of real plane

            At one point in time, given the then-available evidence, it was not unreasonable to conjecture that we might be dealing with special planes or remote controlled aircraft but, as more and more evidence is taken into account–about the structure of the South Tower, for example, and the planted engine component found at Church & Murray–it becomes an increasingly difficult position to defend.

            So while some prefer to cite only the evidence in their favor–such as the force of the plane on the building but not the resistance of the building to that force–that becomes more and more obvious as “special pleading” in violation of the requirements for rational belief, which I explained at the start of “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, for everyone who reads it.

            I have enumerated many points about it now, including the nice point by onesliceshort about the absence of any wind vortex effects. Unless this plane is “so special” that it can violate Newton’s laws, this is no longer a rationally defensible position, but this does not preclude some here from attempting to spare themselves embarrassment by making moves to evade logic and evidence.

        2. I am simply dumbfounded. It is not my position that images were inserted into videos. My position is that videos took images of what looked like planes but were not real planes. In the case of Flight 11 and the Naudet Brotheres footage, it looks a lot to me like an arrangement of four UAVs flying close formating (and making four points of contact with the building). In the case of Flight 175, the use of CGIs (computer-generated images) or of video compositing appear to be ruled out, because then the only images of planes would have been in the videos, not in real space/time during the event they record. But we have many witnesses who reported seeing what they took to be a plane but which was performing feats that no real plane could perform. I am therefore disposed to believe we are dealing with a sophisticated hologram, which could be projected as flying faster than a real Boeing 767, whose image could enter the building in violation of Newton’s laws, and which could pass its entire length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its entire length in air. (It also has no strobe lights, casts no shadow, and has a wing that disappears before it enters the building.) I have explained all of this in excruciating detail in my articles, especially about Rob Balsamo. Kindly do me the favor of understanding my position before you reject it. Thank you.

      5. Sorry to belabor this point, but, hypothetically, if you have a video that shows a 767 flying at 800 mph into a building, couldn’t you scientifically determine that this speed was physically impossible, and therefore conclude that the video was fake? So couldn’t the fake video be used to prove that the image was manipulated?

        Craig

        Yes, the speed is physically impossible for a standard 767. And for alleged hijackers to control.

        Just because we see anomalies does not mean that the only conclusion that can be reached is that there was no plane and all of the baggage that this entails. In fact, if we were to accept NPT and reject the aircraft’s very existence (during the attack) and with that, all of the anomalies I’ve listed above, all that is left is unfounded speculation. Speculation based on what’s claimed to be totally manipulated footage.

        This brings us back to the illogical stance of deciding which part of these videos are “manipulated” and which part is valid. One thing is to reject what the videos show in their entirity, another is to shape a theory around the same videos!

        The claim is that a hologram was used in conjuntion with a multitude of operatives and  “cookie cutter” charges that could simulate precision markings on the facade that include details that I can’t fathom. Yet at the same time, the simpler idea of a modified aircraft designed to penetrate, possibly made of materials designed for this purpose (such as tungsten).

        That’s pure conjecture on my part but I think anything else is giving way too much credit to those who controlled the ops on 9/11. Way too much.

        1. OSS,

          Both you and Adam have provided straight answers to sincere questions, and I appreciate that. I understand that it is a subject most truthers would rather went away.

          You wrote: “Just because we see anomalies, does not mean that the only conclusion that can be reached is that there was no plane and all of the baggage that this entails.”

          I agree. Ideally, I’d like to be able to explain the anomalies so that no questions linger.
          I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on your next point:

          “In fact, if we were to accept NPT and reject the aircraft’s very existence (during the attack) and with that, all of the anomalies I’ve listed above, all that is left is unfounded speculation. Speculation based on what’s claimed to be totally manipulated footage.”

          This seems like a circular dilemma to me. If you prove that the video evidence of planes is manipulated, then you have no reliable evidence upon which to base a claim that what we see in the video evidence isn’t real. It still seems to me that manipulated footage would be proof of some kind of deception. But I’ll leave that one; perhaps it’s more of a semantic argument.

          *And I hope my reference to 800 mph was understood to be a hypothetical to make a point. I know that we’re not dealing with speeds anywhere near that.

  76. Jet Fuel Explosion Colors?

    While on the subject of observable building explosions for either WTC1 or 2, a secondary point : besides the complete lack of observable plane vortices that one might expect to disturb the explosions expansion paths : my present understanding is that the color of the explosions themselves [i.e. bright orange fireballs] is entirely inconsistent with the color that is normally produced when jet fuel catches fire and explodes.

    In other words, both ensuing explosions appear to be pure “Hollywood” creations that are only consistent with what film goers are used to seeing in major Hollywood disaster movies, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRyoFgAhW4c

    Regards, onebornfree

  77. P.S. : earlier I’d said: “Also for more Naudet sequence anomolies [e.g. missing frames] see Simon Shack’s Naudet footage analysis : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM&feature=relmfu

    Sorry, my mistake- on re-review, the particular Simon Shack Naudet analysis linked to does not in fact address the issue of editing anomolies vis a vis missing frames, but focuses on other glaring anomalies instead.

    I was confusing it with another, more recent Naudet analysis he has done. If I find that I’ll post it if anyone’s interested, just let me know. regards, onebornfree

  78. It should be brought to the attention to everyone, and stated clearly; that arguing with Jim Fetzer is not the same thing as arguing with Isaac Newton.

    I have never argued against these physics – I have argued against their MISAPPLICATION by Fetzer.

    Let it be admitted that it is the physics that any allegories are based upon, and not visa versa. It is the physics themselves that are immutable – not the tools of conceptualization and visualization such as allegory.

    I mentioned several times that the ‘Bat and Ball’ analogy is insufficient to the ‘Plane and Building’, and was summarily attacked for denying the ‘physics’ of momentum and inertia. I was not, I merely said the ‘analogy’ was insufficient.

    My adjustment of the analogy; replacing the ‘bat’ with a tennis racket, and the ‘ball’ as an orange slice, in no way defiles the physics behind the allegory.

    As far as the physics of momentum, it is Fetzers misrepresentation of the building as a solid object such as a bat, when it indeed is more correctly compared to the tennis racket.

    This argument began with Fetzer’s exclamation:

    “This is very revealing. Where are the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed to the entry of a Boeing 767? ”

    But his question is even more revealing, the calculations that show the enormous resistance the building would have posed *to the entry* of a Boeing 767, would only be applicable if it were asserted that the airplane knocked over the building by it’s impact.

    The only applicable calculations are those involving the physics of materials, momentum, and kinetics.

    It should be very obvious that in this argument he is misplaced and misleading.

    The bat and ball analogy is misplaced unless adjusted for materials and configuration of both objects. Wherein I made the following argument:

    I would assert that the more exact analogy would be an orange slice batted by a tennis racket.

    So the logical result in that would be if the building were “picked up” and swung at the plane, the same effect would ensue as we have seen at the impact. Just as the orange slice would be strained through the racket, the plane would be ‘strained’ through the building.

    ~ww

    1. I find it painful to read such rubbish. This man ignores the structure of the South Tower and, so far as I have been able to determine, offers a calculation of the force that would have been imparted by a plane upon the building without any calculation of the resistance of the building to the plane. How dumb is that?

      Moreover, as I have repeatedly explained, “the plane” was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which represent an acre of concrete apiece.

      How he can feign to be serious about all of this when he repeatedly ignores my points is beyond me. He must take the members of this forum to be as gullible as he in swallowing impossible events as though they did not entail violations of Newton’s laws. This guy comes across as some kind of scam artist.

      The effects of a plane flying at 500 mph into a stationary 500,000-ton building would be the same as a 500,000-ton building flying into a stationary plane. Anyone familiar with the effects of a tiny bird on a commercial carrier must appreciate the complete absurdity of his position. And he claims that I do not understand Newton!

      1. And do I need to add that I have repeatedly explained that, while the South Tower had small, narrow windows, which were designed to keep light and heat out to reduce the expense of air conditioning, they were considerably less than 50% of the surface area, as anyone can tell from an examination of photographs?

        So, while some parts of a real plane would have entered the building, most it would not. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. It could not possibly have entered the building without huge collision effects. Its velocity would have fallen to zero.

        All of this he wants you to ignore by talking about TENNIS RACKETS. Does anyone seriously believe that the South Tower had the structure of a tennis racket? Where are those trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete that would have posed such enormous horizontal resistance? This man has completely lost his grip on reality.

      2. “The effects of a plane flying at 500 mph into a stationary 500,000-ton building would be the same as a 500,000-ton building flying into a stationary plane. Anyone familiar with the effects of a tiny bird on a commercial carrier must appreciate the complete absurdity of his position. And he claims that I do not understand Newton!”

        Why are you doing this again Fetzer? You are not arguing against what I just said. I accept that the effect would be the same – I have noted that. I am saying that you are misinterpreting what that effect would be by asserting that the building is an analogy of a ‘bat’ – that it is a solid single object, my replacement of this bat with a racket, which is not a single solid object, but a construct more applicable to this analogy. You are in fact the one arguing that the structure is like a solid wall from side to side, a completely solid object, while at the same time citing that it is indeed a building with a tubular facade, that even Demartini envisioned would be capable of ‘absorbing’ the impact of a plane like mesquito netting absorbing a poking pencil.

        “I find it painful to read such rubbish,” you say – while it is obvious that the pain is the result of any critique that indicates you dissembling.

        ww

  79. onesliceshort says:
    April 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    “Jim, if you remember our conversation over at Pilotsfor911Truth, I’m in no way in the NPT camp.
    My observations listed in the earlier post were to show that the aircraft itself may have been modified to aid penetration, possibly within the nose of the aircraft or in the appendage seen on the underbelly. Although this appendage may also have been for the purposes of radar/remote control:

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

    “There are many visual anomalies regarding the impacts (including the flashes – especially Tower 1) but I believe that they are due to physical manipulation of the aircrafts rather than a manipulation of video and camera footage.”

    “All of these visual and tangible evidence would have to be discarded if one were to accept NPT.”

    BUT which of the following claims–which define “No Plane Theory”–do you not accept:

    (1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;

    (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;

    (3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

    (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

    You seem to believe (mistakenly) that NPT requires that there be NO PLANES, when all it entails is that NONE OF THE OFFICIAL FLIGHTS CRASHED AT ANY OF THE ALLEGED CRASH SITES.

    How many times do I have to explain this? Since Pilots has established that Flights 93 and 175 were both in the air but over Urbana, IL, and Pittsburgh, PA, how can you possibly deny (1) or (4)?

    Either you reject Pilots own research, which establishes their locations, or you accept that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville and that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower. So which is your view?

    And I suppose you are enlightened enough that you do not deny (2). So, unless you deny (3)–which I doubt if you have read “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”–you actually endorse NPT.

    You just don’t know it. And when it comes to video fakery as any use of videos to convey a false or misleading impression, how can video fakery not have occurred if Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh?

    If it wasn’t Flight 175, when these videos have been used to support the government’s position, then video fakery took place in New York. The videos weren’t altered. The planes were faked!

  80. (1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;

    (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;

    (3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

    (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

    I think we are all in agreement with Fetzer on these points. And there has never been an indication from anyone here that we disagree to this basic set.

    It is rather the false conclusions apparent in this:

    “And when it comes to video fakery as any use of videos to convey a false or misleading impression, how can video fakery not have occurred if Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh?

    If it wasn’t Flight 175, when these videos have been used to support the government’s position, then video fakery took place in New York. The videos weren’t altered. The planes were faked!”

    “The videos weren’t altered. The planes were faked!” – Verses – “how can video fakery not have occurred if Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh?”

    You have two competing conclusions mixed into your construction here Jim, do you wish to chose one over another?

    ww

    1. Well, this is some kind of progress. Now even hybridrogue1 acknowledges that NPT is correct:

      (1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;

      (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;

      (3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

      (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

      Those are the claims that DEFINE “no plane theory”. Sensational! But if Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower, as (3) and (4) maintain, then HOW COULD VIDEO FAKERY NOT HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE IN NEW YORK?

      Those videos have been presented as proof that Flight 11 hit the North Tower and Flight 175 hit56 the South, in case you haven’t noticed. But even if you were right in your account, the videos would still be being used to convey a false and misleading account of these events.

      Since “video fakery” encompasses any use of videos to convey a false or misleading account of the events in New York, unless Flight 11 hit the North Tower and Flight 175 the South, video fakery WAS taking place in New York. Now, is that too difficult for you to finally understand?

      1. Jim,

        Wouldn’t most people define “video fakery” as meaning the alteration of the sound or images? If the contents of the image are merely mislabeled (intentionally) then that’s certainly a deception, but should we call it fakery?

      2. I think you have again fallen back on rhetorical games here Fetzer.

        NPT means No-Planes Theory, it does not mean ‘switched planes theory’…you seem to be switching definitions mid stream – changing the rules of the game while the ball is in play.

        This is the type of false argumentation you are caught in over and again.

        I think we would all appreciate less rhetorical dodge and weave and a bit more straight forward constructions as to what your points actually are.

        ww

        1. Either we know what we are talking about or we do not. I explained these terms in my articles and studies, including “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. That you and Rob have been careless in your reasoning and use of language is unfortunately, but that you continue to abuse language and logic after I have explicitly explained the difference is deplorable.

          I have done my best to be charitable to you and to Rob, but you have both done nothing but heap scorn and ridicule upon me. Even in this post, you are dismissing clarity of expression and precise reasoning as “rhetoric”. Well, it isn’t “rhetoric”, but being exact about meanings and being rigorous in reasoning. How else can we expect to sort things out if we don’t know what we’re talking about?

          You and Rob have been sterling examples of sloppy reasoning and irresponsible argument. His and your views are not even logically consistent, since you want to maintain BOTH that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh AND that videos purporting to show Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are not fake. And as I recall you even claim that I am a “disinfo agent” for having made this point again and again.

          Well, you guys are no doubt better pilots, but your incapacity to reason is seriously disturbing. You do not have to have taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years to figure out that your arguments are indefensible. But I have done that and you have not. And for you to regard me as an enemy because my ability to marshal arguments is superior to yours is one more blunder.

  81. Craig McKee says:
    April 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    “Jim,

    Wouldn’t most people define “video fakery” as meaning the alteration of the sound or images? If the contents of the image are merely mislabeled (intentionally) then that’s certainly a deception, but should we call it fakery?”

    Which is why I have taken pains to define it in my articles and studies. The notion is broader than the alteration of the film itself, because it properly encompasses any use of video to convey a false or misleading impression about 9/11.

    “Fakery”, in turn, can be defined as deliberately conveying a false or misleading impression. So the term fits. Even magic is fakery, except that it does not have sinister intent. In this case, videos were used to perform feats of fakery about that day.

    If someone wants to concede they were only rejecting “video fakery” because they did not think the videos themselves were altered, that’s fine. But we should also acknowledge that these videos have been used to convey false impressions of the events of 9/11.

    Haven’t I explained that there are four possible combinations of (genuine or altered) videos and (real or faked) planes. Unless they are genuine videos of Flight 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South, we are dealing with “video fakery” as that phrase should be understood.

    1. Jim,

      Based on your definition, I would say without reservation that fakery occurred. I feel more comfortable calling it just “fakery” because I think a lot of people would assume video fakery to mean what I suggested (rightly or wrongly). Having said that, I’m not saying the entire video record of that day is authentic. I have questions about this.

      1. Well, it was fakery done using videos! So why not call it what it is–“video fakery”? Not all of the videos that day were faked, but those of Flight 11 and Flight 175 involved faked planes (planes that were not Flight 11 or Flight 175). I don’t know how much more explicit I can be about all of this. But some here are more concerned about saving face than getting things right, which is also deplorable.

    2. I’m sorry Jim,

      It has been a distinction for much to long that ‘video fakery’ describes the school promoted by Shack and his ilk. And the ‘no-planes’ theory has stood for too long as meaning precisely what the initials stand for NPT = no planes.

      To move in with your own person lexicon in this instance is the largest part of your being misunderstood.

      “Video fakery” defined as the public relations of spin is a matter of your own spin itself. Using a false narrative is not and cannot be called “video fakery”, it is a form of propaganda not a technical manipulation of video imagery.

      It would be to your benefit to adjust your lexicon, and not demand that the general lexicon as has developed around these issues be changed to please you.

      ww

      1. A what, prey tell, would be a better name for fakery using videos than “video fakery”? Each of us has an obligation to make clear what we are talking about. I have done that, you and Rob have not. If you go back and review the exchanges on the Pilots’ forum, you will see what I mean. I was taking pains to be clear and precise, but Rob simply ignored what I was saying. He, like you, does not appear to have even bothered to read the articles he was attacking.

        So what should we call it? “No OCT Planes Theory”? This is getting rather ridiculous. I cannot recall even citing “September Clues” or Simon Shack. There are many different positions out there. If you are going to attack me, you incur an obligation to get my position right. How many times have I said, “If you think I have something wrong, then explain what I have said and why I said it (to be sure you have it right) and then tell me what I have wrong and how you know

        That it has taken this long to reach some common understanding is not because I have not been making myself clear and explicit. I am sorry, but you seem to be searching for an excuse to have paid no attention to my actual arguments as I presented them, again and again. I pointed this out to Rob, again and again, to no effect. But I do appreciate that your attitude appears to have improved considerably and we may even be arriving at some common understanding.

        The fact is that I am no more wrong about the physical impossibility of a real plane having entered completely into the South Tower than I am about NPT (as I have defined it), to which you now agree. Since a switched plane is no more Flight 175 than a simulated plane, I infer that we are now also in agreement with video fakery having to have occurred on that occasion, even if you don’t like the phrase. But it is a case of fakery done using videos, is it not? The phrase fits.

      2. hybridroque wrote:

        [quote]
        “I’m sorry Jim,

        It has been a distinction for much to long that ‘video fakery’ describes the school promoted by Shack and his ilk. And the ‘no-planes’ theory has stood for too long as meaning precisely what the initials stand for NPT = no planes.”
        [/quote]

        “Meaning precisely what….” – to whom!! The j-ref crowd and their ilk?

        CIT do not claim no-plane at the pentagon.

        Dom DiMaggio do not claim no-plane at Shankville.

        No sane rational person claim no-plane at WCT.

        Here, some people maintain that a plane impacted, while some people
        maintain that no-plane impacted the tower.

        We all agree that no-plane crashed into the pentagon, and no-plane
        crashed in Shankville.

        Therefore, some of us are 100% NPT, while some of us are 50% NPT.

        As times go by, and more information is revealed, the 50% will slowly
        change their minds and one by one join us 100%’ers.

        One day, NPT will simply become a symbol of pride, honour and
        distinction …… only ethereally and euphemistically speaking of course! ;o)

        You too, ww, will one day join us as well. but because you have revealed
        yourself to be a definite and unmistakable “snowcrash” kind of guy, you
        undoubtedly will come in as the utterly last of ‘the recalcitrants’ – lacking
        far behind all others by quite a distance.

        Cheers

      3. It is a key point when one reads Orwell, that is the corruption of language that is the goal of the Big Brother society.

        The term ‘No Planes’, is naturally assumed to mean, ‘no planes’

        The term ‘video fakery’ is naturally assumed to be faked videos.

        Any clickish lexicon is a confusion to outsiders. I don’t cherish clicks, I don’t like psychobabble nor the rhetorical defense of psychobabble.

        Those who want a secret language to communicate among themselves in a cult manner have no place in my world of simple rationality. Do you guys have a secret handshake as well?

        ww

  82. Again addressing Mr. Fetzer,

    You have postulated a series of propositions – each of which you maintain as rock solid and anchored by facts.

    Yet these are inconsistent with one another, ie:

    – The hologram assertion

    – The video manipulation

    – Plane switching

    Rather than enforce these ‘maybes’ as certainties, why not admit they are all theoretical, and dismount your high horse?

    ww

    1. This is completely unreal. I am not a “plane switcher”, that would be you. And I am not a “video manipulation” guy, that would be others. My name is “Jim Fetzer”. I have views that are mine, which you have not bothered to understand. Foisting off on someone positions that he does not hold is irresponsible. It is sloppy research. There are all kinds of views out there that are not mine. That you and Balsamo are so careless in your attacks on me is reprehensible. And now you want to continue with your buffoonery by attributing to me positions you hold and I do not? I am sorry, hybridrogue1, but your intellectual limitations are glaring. I have long since explained why “plane switching” is indefensible, in case you don’t recall. (It has something to do with that guy Newton, with velocities dropping to zero, and the impossibility of penetration without jet fuel explosions.) And I have also explained (in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, but also no doubt here) that the greater the weight we give to the witnesses, the more reason we have to accept a hologram instead of GSIs or video compositing, because GSIs and video compositing would not lead to the image of a plane being seen by witnesses at the time of the occurrence of these events but only after the fact. I have explained why neither “plane switching” or “video manipulation” are supported by logic and the available evidence. I cannot believe that you are engaging in this kind of sophistry when I have been so forthcoming. If you have an argument to show that I am wrong, then present it. This post is nothing but rhetoric.

  83. “..that the greater the weight we give to the witnesses, the more reason we have to accept a hologram instead of GSIs or video compositing, because GSIs and video compositing would not lead to the image of a plane being seen by witnesses at the time of the occurrence of these events but only after the fact.”~Jim ‘by gawd’ Fetzer

    No, the more weight we give to the witnesses the more reason we have to accept that real planes were involved.

    ww

    1. You continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of serious thought. Consider the evidence:

      (1) the plane is flying at an aerodynamically impossible speed for a standard Boeing 767;

      (2) it therefore is not a standard Boeing 767;

      (3) it has no strobe lights;

      (4) it casts no shadows;

      (5) it has a wing that disappears before it enters the building;

      (6) probably, it is not a real plane [by (1) through (5)];

      (7) it enters the building effortlessly with no indications of any collision effects;

      (8) it is intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete;

      (9) the horizontal resistance of that building would have been massive;

      (10) a real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, bodies and seats fallen;

      (11) this plane does not crumple, its wings and tail do not break off, bodies and seats do not fall;

      (12) its velocity should have fallen to zero, not some subtle and imperceptible percent but 100%;

      (13) it passes though its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air;

      (14) but that would be possible only if a massive building poses no more resistance than air;

      (15) it is not the case that a massive building poses no more resistance than air;

      (16) therefore, it cannot possibly be a real plane [by (7) through (15)];

      (17) the smoke that rapidly appears is not disrupted by wind vortex;

      (18) but if it were a real plane, the smoke that rapidly appears would have been disrupted;

      (19) there was no wind vortex (as onesliceshort has observed);

      (20) therefore, it was not a real plane [by (17) through (19)].

      Newton’s laws cannot be violated and cannot be changed, which means that this hybridrogue1 is postulating a physical impossibility. Moreover, Dennis Cimino already refuted the conjecture of a “switched plane” in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, which could not have strengthened wings and nose without redesigning the entire aircraft. We are not dealing with tinker-toys, where you can make different arrangements to suit yourself. But the fact is that not even a “switched plane” could perform the feats shown in these videos. And the engine component found at Church & Murray was an obvious plant that did not even come from a Boeing 767, as I explained in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video faker'”. So we have more and more proof that hybridrogue1, like Rob Basalmo, continues to attack my work without bothering to read it.

      1. “You continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of serious thought.”~Jim {quite certain} Fetzer

        I think this is a really great opening as an invitation to read your outline here…really gives one the incentive to deal with and take you seriously.

        So I read your points one through nineteen, and find it rather a jumble spanning a breadth of disputes in a rather shotgun manner. I am hardly impressed with either your manner of presentation nor the logic displayed.

        Your argument for momentum is still misplaced. As I have said, it is not suggested that the plane knocked a tower over, and that would be the only argument that the momentum physics would matter in.

        The mass ratio at the point of impact between the plane and the floors actually hit would be the two mass ratios to account for.
        And these masses are in fact fairly even in tonnage. It is AGAIN, misplaced to apply the mass of the entire building to this point of the argument.

        No one disputes that the mass of the plane was only three one-hundredths of 1 percent of the mass of the building. what is in dispute is that this has relevance to the impact point logistics.

        I flat out reject your application – which is NOT a rejection of any accepted physics but a rejection of your misapplication of those physics.

        Grasp that, deal with it. You have not yet up to this point.

        ww

    2. Since it cannt be a real plane (for reasons I have laboriously explained in excruciating detail), we are confronted with three alternatives: CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a hologram. Since there are witnesses who report seeing what they took to be a plane (but which cannnot be a real plane), where CGIs or video compositing would be inconsistent with seeing images of a plane other than on television, by elimination it cannot be CGIs and it also cannot be video compositing. Those of us who understand the nature of reasoning therefore soundly conclude that it was a hologram.

      1. “Those of us who understand the nature of reasoning therefore soundly conclude that it was a hologram.”~Jim {tho one and only} Fetzer

        Oh the exclusivity of that rare group, “who understand the nature of reasoning”

        What a pile of bald stinking hubris, while asserting the existence of a technology that to this date, ten frigging years later, has not been proven to exist.

        For a hologram to be seen it needs a medium to be projected onto. On stage this is usually a fog provided by a dry ice fog machine. And in these displays it must be dark overall to give the effect of solidity.

        The problems with projecting a hologram in broad daylight sans special medium is a deep problem to overcome.

        To assert as a ‘given’ that such technology exists – that it is certain, is not to “understand the nature of reasoning” – it is to understand the nature of speculation.

        If you are to claim that such holograms indeed exist and that the ones of planes used on 9/11 is the verifiable proof of such, you are then practicing circular reasoning.

        If you have proof that holographic projection systems of this sophistication existed back in 2001, I would be most interested in your sharing this with us.

        ww

      2. Dear Dr. Fetzer,

        Because I admit to blatant tendency to being duped by whatever crosses my plate, I am willing to consider the usage of holograms on 9/11. But what will push the plunger down on duping me is evidence and properly applied science. For all of the talk of holograms, I have to date not see evidence to suggest their operational ability, let alone applicability to 9/11.

        Kindly provide links to your research. [This forum supports most HTML mark-up. You should be linking to your articles elsewhere, not just blabbing their titles and expecting people to google them.]

        Dr. Fetzer wrote:

        Since it can’t be a real plane …, we are confronted with three alternatives: CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a hologram. Since there are witnesses who report seeing what they took to be a plane (but which cannnot be a real plane), where CGIs or video compositing would be inconsistent with seeing images of a plane other than on television, by elimination it cannot be CGIs and it also cannot be video compositing. Those of us who understand the nature of reasoning therefore soundly conclude that it was a hologram.

        There are more than three alternatives, although the fourth one is sort of composite. Namely, the money quote from the following video at 0:48 “Some people said ‘they thought they saw a missile.'”

        A missile with wings and paint to look like an aircraft certainly could fool people at a distance to really being an aircraft. Video compositing could then be used to mask out the missile and insert pixels of an airplane.

        On this front, Ace Baker [also sometimes pegged as a disinfo source] claims that masking over a portion of a real image (depicting a missile) with CGI pixels of a plane is too difficult. Maybe imagery manipulation experts Mr. HybridRogue1, Mr. Shack, and Mr. OneBornFree should weigh in.

        I have to say that a missile with wings comes damn close to being a “hardened plane.” However, I think enough distinctions between the two exist that I’m willing to keep missiles-in-make-up on the table for hitting the towers, but not commercial aircraft or “hardened planes.” It is a minor hair-split, but such hair-splitting language is important to understanding. I admit, also, that “missiles at the WTC” technically doesn’t invalidate “no planes (at the WTC)” that I would have to eat my words on (but would gladly do so with an apology will more research and understanding.)

        I thank Mr. OneSliceShort for the links and videos he present on the subject of missiles.

        1. Senor, you can find an article by entering its name just as reliably as using a link. Have you done a search on “holograms”? I mentioned that I interviewed Stephen Brown, who had just completed a course on holography at Cambridge. That can be found in the archives of “The Real Deal”, which in this case http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20dealstephen%20brown.mp3 For more, http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=holograms&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

      3. Jim Fetzer says:
        April 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm
        I am NOT “maintaining that the speed shows there was no plane”, ONLY that it shows that, if there was a real plane, it cannot have been a standard Boeing 767.

        Jim Fetzer says:
        April 22, 2012 at 8:08 pm
        Since it cannt be a real plane (for reasons I have laboriously explained in excruciating detail)

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        I don’t think any commentary is necessary Jim’s own words speak against themselves.

        ww

  84. “GSIs or video compositing”~Jim {for certain} Fetzer

    The term is CGI, for ‘Computer Generated Imagery’.

    ww