More absurd arguments on the Pentagon: ‘propaganda team’ sets its sights on Griffin


Legge and Bursill think it’s likely that this picture shows the scene of a plane crash.

July 16, 2012

By Craig McKee

The co-ordinated group that wants the Pentagon out of the 9/11 truth discussion has won some key victories to be sure. But there’s one battle they haven’t won, and it really bugs them.

The group I described in my recent post, ‘Propaganda team’ uses contrived Pentagon fight to derail 9/11 Truth movement (Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Frank Legge, Jonathan Cole, Jim Hoffman, John Bursill, and others) can’t stand the fact that David Ray Griffin continues to stand fast in his position that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon.

It seems to be their mission to convince all of us that we just don’t know what happened and we probably never will. They attempt to do this by talking incessantly about areas of evidence that they think we shouldn’t talk about so much.

With his “consensus approach” Griffin accommodated this small group by concluding that we all agree it is “relatively unimportant” whether a 757 hit the Pentagon but what can be agreed upon is that Flight 77 piloted by al-Qaeda did not. Griffin gave them six inches, now they want the whole foot.

Instead of doing what Griffin now advocates, which is seeking consensus within the Truth movement on where the official story can be shown to be wrong, this group pays lip service to wanting consensus at the same time they’re pretending to represent a significant and growing block in the 9/11 Truth movement in saying that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. They don’t, it’s not, and it didn’t.

The most recent additions by the real “fringe” element of the movement to the discussion have come from Legge and Bursill (I erred in leaving him and John Wyndham off the team the first time). They have each contributed some deliciously absurd statements intended to attack the no-757-impact position.

But the position they’re trying to defend is so indefensible that it forces them to make statements that most people would be embarrassed to make. And they’re statements that neither Griffin nor any of the other reasonable people in the movement would ever find persuasive.

In Chapter 7 of his most recent book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, Griffin makes a strong case for no plane impact and shows how weak the positions of Chandler, Legge, Cole, and Hoffmann really are. That was the good part. But he also gave way too much emphasis to their opinions by quoting them repeatedly. He bought into their con that they represent a significant part of the movement.

The other disturbing thing was that Griffin ignored CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth in his book, something that prompted outrage from former Consensus 9/11 Panel members Paul Zarembka, Barrie Zwicker, and Shelton Lankford. This, however, delighted Legge and the propaganda team.

Legge has latched on to this omission in his most recent piece of “research.” In “The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus,” published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Legge addresses Griffin’s Pentagon position and his omission of CIT:

“It is interesting that Griffin makes no mention of CIT in his latest book. One wonders whether consideration of this probability, and the relevant evidence, is leading him toward withdrawing his support for their no-plane-impact, flyover theory.”

You can wonder all you like, Frank, but it’s not going to happen. By the way, did you even read the chapter? Are you actually suggesting that it points to Griffin abandoning his no-757-impact position? In fact, it does just the opposite. Is this an oversight or a deliberate mischaracterization of Griffin’s position?

Bursill also dipped in the team’s current talking-points playbook in his recent appearance on The Kevin Barrett Show. He, like his pal Legge, predicted that Griffin was moving towards their position that a plane did hit.

“That’s why David Ray Griffin is winding back his position on the Pentagon,” Bursill said.

“In the last few years he’s been more and more careful about what did and did not happen on the Pentagon, and people are arguing in the scientific community that he should take a position that we don’t know what happened and there is evidence that a plane did hit there. And I believe this will end up being his position as time goes by and more and more people get involved in the argument on the Pentagon.”

Legge, Bursill and others in their group seem to think we have to start with absolute proof of what did happen before we begin to question the official version. There’s no requirement for the government to prove that a plane hit, for example.

Here’s how Legge explains it in his paper:

“As there is so much evidence for official misconduct, it is enticing to sift through the evidence in the hope of finding proof that the Pentagon attack was not as officially described. There is no doubt that there are suspicious features about the attack, such as the impact point being at the recently strengthened section of the Pentagon, still only sparsely occupied, and the failure to intercept the plane, but care is required to ensure that all claims are soundly based if credibility is not to be put at risk.”

I thought it was the government’s claims that we were examining and refuting. But it’s Legge, Bursill and their gang who are throwing credibility out the window. They want us to, “Look at the science!” but then they make statements like Bursill did about why the engines didn’t leave a discernible mark on the Pentagon wall:

“There was only enough place for the large, super-heavy parts to go through at the ground floor,” he said.

There was room for the super-heavy parts, but what about the regular heavy parts, and whatever is left after that? Where did they go? He is clearly stating that the hole is not big enough for the whole plane. And yet we were left with no major pieces of wreckage outside the building.

He explains the unbroken bullet-proof windows by saying that it’s reasonable to think a “sheet of aluminum” hitting the window would bounce off. This doesn’t quite jibe with his description of the incredible kinetic energy involved in this alleged crash that propelled the plane through the reinforced wall and into the building.

Please explain, John, how a piece of the aluminum plane can bounce off a window but not end up outside the building. Did you mean the familiar little piece with the red and blue American Airlines markings? I suppose you could make the case that this “bounced off.”

The thing that made listening to Bursill and his Pentagon views bearable was how Barrett stood up to him. My favourite part was when Barrett said Legge was full of hot air, prompting Bursill to react with alarm: “It’s not hot air, it’s science!” Priceless.

But Barrett was having none of it. He made his position clear:

“I have a very different opinion on that debate because Frank Legge’s work looks to me to be completely ludicrous in terms of his argument that a big plane could have hit on the official flight path; I mean it’s completely ridiculous.”

All the way through the show, when Bursill would hear even one word he didn’t like he’d jump in with no regard for the person he was interrupting. In terms of quantity, he was the clear winner. Many of his most ridiculous comments revolved around the idea that, “We just don’t have the data!” He seems to feel that when there’s any unresolved element at all, we should all default to the official story. That’s the one where Flight 77 hits the Pentagon, right?

Not to be outdone, Legge continues to try and convince members of the 9/11 Truth movement that he is a credible researcher on the subject of 9/11. Unfortunately, he keeps writing articles that prove otherwise.

In his new paper, he writes: “There are good reasons to believe the reported northerly path resulted from poor recollection of an unimportant detail which preceded a traumatic observation, as all these witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon, as have many other people (bold added).”

So, the witnesses had “poor recollection of an unimportant event.” Seriously? This is your explanation for Chadwick Brooks, William Lagasse, Ed Paik, Sean Boger, William Middleton Sr., Robert Turcios, Darius Prather, Darrell Stafford, George Aman, and Maria de la Cerda?

Legge will take as credible the accounts of those who claim to have seen the bodies of passengers inside the building, but he writes off as “poor recollections” the numerous witnesses who clearly establish that the approaching plane flew on a path north of the former Citgo gas station. This path, of course, is incompatible with the damage to light poles and the building.

Even more incredibly, Legge claims that anyone who believes the plane hit or that it was too low to miss is by default a South of Citgo witness because SoC is the official flight path. This is an incredible example of circular logic.

He puts the number of witnesses supporting impact at 93 (60 who believe the plane hit and 33 who believe it was flying too low to miss). He therefore states that it’s 93 for SoC and 13 for NoC (those interviewed by CIT). He doesn’t like the fact that Griffin found a number of these witnesses not to be credible.

First of all, the notion that anyone fooled by the Pentagon illusion is by default someone who thinks the plane flew to the south of the gas station is ludicrous. All of the NoC witnesses think the plane hit, too. Does that make them SoC witnesses?

Legge also ignores the many other witnesses who made statements consistent with the northern flight path. I refer you to an excellent compilation by Onesliceshort, a valued contributor to this blog, on the CIT forum.

In his conclusion, Legge makes a truly astonishing statement: “The great majority of the public believes that a plane hit the Pentagon, therefore if an activist tells people that there was no plane at the Pentagon, they will find the activist untrustworthy. How then can we expect them to pay attention to the far more important evidence that explosives were used at the World Trade Center, and falsely denied by NIST?”

Think about that for a minute. Take your time.

If we tell people that what they’ve been told isn’t true, they won’t think we’re trustworthy. But if we reinforce the false notion they’ve been fed by the government and the media, they’ll trust us. So why don’t we avoid telling people that explosives were used in the towers? We’re willing to risk being seen as untrustworthy to make that point.

Given the above quote, how can anyone find Legge trustworthy on anything?

This group has done everything in its power to marginalize evidence that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash. They worked on Richard Gage for a year and a half, finally convincing him to withdraw his stated support for the research of CIT. Gage released his withdrawal statement in February 2011, and he admits being “guided” by others in putting it together. Unfortunately, Legge is taken seriously by Gage who praised his “extensive” research in our interview in Montreal in April.

The propaganda team pressured others including Barrie Zwicker and Peter Dale Scott. Scott caved, Zwicker didn’t. The reversal of Gage and Scott gave team member Chris Sarns reason for optimism when he addressed Scott on 911blogger:

“I am now very confident that others will join you and Mr.Gage.”

But they didn’t.

Griffin compromised with his move to the “consensus approach” on the Pentagon, but at least he didn’t drop his support for the no-757-impact position. He has maintained this position throughout. And Griffin makes a very strong case in support of the no-impact position. But the team wants total capitulation. And they won’t stop pushing until they get what they want.

To all the members of this co-ordinated effort: he doesn’t agree with you. He’s not going to agree with you just because you push and push and push. Most of the Truth movement doesn’t agree with you. Your arguments for a 757 impact are ridiculous. There is a consensus in the movement – that you are wrong.

To conclude my remarks, I’ll take you to the beginning of Legge’s paper. He opens with this nugget of dishonesty.

“Strenuous efforts are being made to inform the public of this heinous crime but many activists are now concerned that this process is being hampered by ongoing dissension about what happened during the attack on the Pentagon.”

I’d rephrase it this way:

“Strenuous efforts to keep the evidence that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon from the public are being made by a small group of activists who are pretending that real dissension exists in the movement when it is they who are creating that dissension – deliberately.”

Okay, it might not flow as well, but at least it’s true.

370 comments

  1. it`s very odd that the one place with the most security cameras in the world does`nt have any pictures to show the public that even resemble a plane hitting the pentagon or a plane even in the area

  2. craig,
    excellent article, as usual.

    seems apparent that legge and bursill’s paychecks are part of the secret pentagon budget.

    even before i was aware of cit’s nsa, this was the topic that got me bounced from 9/11 blogger, i.e., i called out bursill for his position on the pentagon which was that unless we could prove exactly what happened there, we need to accept the official position. see http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-05/dr-frank-legge-visibility-9-11-mounting-evidence-shows-boeing-757-200-impact-pentagon-probable
    and search dennis55 (me, my comments are buried there).

    i’d say cit’s nsa has the culprits at the pentagon mightily concerned, hence the attack on drg, who i very much hope holds his ground on this issue, and even comes back to the right side (affirmatively endorsing cit’s nsa).

    1. Here’s what Griffin wrote on page 265 of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” about the witness accounts compiled by CIT:

      “This testimony, besides throwing into doubt the testimony of Don Mason and the other people who claimed to have seen the light poles clipped, suggests something even more important: that the five light poles were staged to provide evidence for the official story. If so, then we must suspect that other evidence for the official story was also planted. If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story.”

      There it is.

      1. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, as Thierry Meyssan explained long ago. Here is a concise summary of reasons how we know: “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html The official account represents both aerodynamic and physical impossibilities, since the plane is alleged to have just skimmed the ground at 500 mph, which is impossible because of ground effect (which would have made it impossible to come closer than 60 feet of the ground), and where the effects of a Boeing 757 hitting stationary lampposts would be the same as a stationary Boeing 757 being hit by lampposts traveling 500 mph: they would have ripped the wing off the plane, its fuel (stored in the wing) would have exploded, it would have snapped around, lost its tail, and it would have cartwheeled onto the lawn and created a terrible mess. None of that happened, so we know the official account cannot possibly be true. Witnesses who report events that cannot possibly have occurred, of course, are untrustworthy. We have around 80 or more untrustworthy witnesses reporting impossible occurrences.

  3. Craig,

    Thank you once again for your wonderful ability to clarify the confusing and make reading both informative and enjoyable. This post was a much-needed cleansing breath of fresh air for me.

    The following weekend after 9/11, I was on my way to a music gig when I got out of my car very near the CITGO station. I stood just there, a few hundred yards from the Pentagon, staring at the big wound in it, just trying to take in the enormity of it all. I remember feeling overwhelmed by conflicting thoughts and emotions to the point of feeling numb.

    Today, with the passage of time, I am much more able to, objectively study and understand the information and evidence simply not available back then, filter out the absurd, and appreciate the outstanding insight and work of David Ray Griffin, in particular, and others who continue to work to present the latest information for our collective consideration.

    And to think, that the answers to all of our questions about what really happened to the Pentagon are locked up in a vault somewhere probably not very far away.

    -Sherif

    1. Thank you for saying that, Sherif. I’ve actually added in a small chunk that I inadvertently left out last night that you might also find entertaining. It involves Kevin Barrett’s opinion of Frank Legge. Look for the paragraph that starts, “The thing that made listening to Bursill and his Pentagon views bearable…”

      I know you were not alone in feeling overwhelmed and numb that day. That was clearly the intent of the perpetrators. But it didn’t work on all of us in the long run. So it’s up to us to carry this message to others whether they want to hear it or not.

      You’re right that the key information is indeed in a vault. But the Legges and Bursills of this world want us to use that as an excuse to give up and take the government’s version as the default truth. But we’re not going to do that.

  4. You can wonder all you like, Frank, but it’s not going to happen. By the way, did you even read the chapter? Are you actually suggesting that it points to Griffin abandoning his no-757-impact position? In fact, it does just the opposite. Is this an oversight or a deliberate mischaracterization of Griffin’s position?

    Duh… how can it not be deliberate?

  5. Most commentators on Truth and Shadows know that I had a very long email exchange with Legge on the matter of the Pentagon. He in fact sent me at least five different drafts of his newest paper. I don’t know if it has been published yet or not. If so, perhaps it is the one Craig speaks to in his excellent report above.

    As I reported back as Legge and my email conversation broke down and came to an end, Frank became increasingly hysterical with my refusal to accept his less than lucid arguments. After all the citing he did of the blackbox, and forensic expositions he makes in the papers, he even exclaimed at one point that his whole position was based on the witness testimonies. Which is like saying, ‘I really didn’t mean all that stuff about the flight data recorder that I say in the beginning of my paper’.

    But the real zingers came in our argument over the testimony of Hemphill, who he continues to frame as a ‘South Approach’ Witness despite all the obvious aspects that prove Hemphill saw the plane fly not only “over the Citgo” but when pressed to be more specific says it was “more to the cemetery side”.

    I could pull up my word doc files on this email exchange and write a lot more about this if it is warranted as the commentary here proceeds.

    Thank you for another important and well expressed article Craig.

    ww

      1. Craig…Lol…it was two months or more of arguing back and forth.

        But I’m sure I can dig up some gems to share. I have a lot of windows open at the moment. But I will pull up my relevant “Legge document” and see what is fun to share.

        Oh, BTW, I did notice that the newest from Legge on Journal is published as a “Letter”, not a peer reviewed article which he was desperately seeking reviewers for. That is a victory in itself – as small as it might be.

        Willy

  6. Brilliant article once again Craig. I feel your pain of having to listen to the interview between Kevin Barrett and John Bursill’s enormous ego.

    FYI, John Burill is an Aircraft Engineer (not a Pilot) and Frank Legge is a Chemist (also not a Pilot).

    John Bursill’s recent comment on YouTube in relation to the Vancouver Hearings really sums him up, atrocious spelling and all (still can’t spell hijackers hey John):

    “Yes these guys will be all over the “holograms” they love the whole wacky angle on 9/11!

    No planes, no high-jackers, space beams, Jews etc etc etc

    John Bursill”

    1. Thanks, truthoz. And I had to listen to it at least twice! Had to get those quotes verbatim.

      When truthers use words like “wacky” red flags go up for me. By the way, I have no problem with the idea of no hijackers. Or high-jackers.

    2. What I find ironic is that I have not found EVEN ONE mainstream media hit piece attacking the Vancouver Hearings. Or, for that matter, even Screw Loose Change. The entire world (mainstream wise) ignored the existence of that event. So the idea that an event featuring “crazy” theories being discussed is an invitation for FOX, CNN, etc. etc. etc. to come out of the woodwork and do multitudes of hit pieces seems to be a non-starter.

  7. Craig,

    Once again an excellent essay on your part. The point I would add is that I tend to agree with Paul Zarembka that DRG not mentioning CIT and P4T in his chapter on the pentagon is shameful and nearly unforgiveable. DRG remains naive or intentionally blind about the fact that professional disinformationists such as Legge and Bursill are in our midst. Trying to reach out to them as DRG is doing tends to lend them credibility as legitimate truthers which they most certainly are NOT. DRG essentially gives them a platform to continue their disinformation operation. Personally I am disgusted by that. I am also disgusted with DRG and Richard Gage for essentially stone walling all of us who have reached out to them on this issue. My stance at this point is that if neither man can address these serious and legitimate concerns we have raised then I will not support them or their work financially or otherwise. If they don’t have time for us then we shouldn’t find time for them. A real truther doesn’t hide from debate nor is he or she afraid to admit it when they make a mistake. So the stone wall BS has to go before either man will win back my support. If you cannot stand up to your critics and offer a legitimate argument on your own behalf then perhaps it is time to consider the possibility that those critics are right on target. In truth I really do not consider DRG or RG to be leaders of the truth movement at all. I used to think of them as leaders but now I realize that they are just like most people, afraid to take a strong stand if it happens to be controversial within their peer group. No progress will ever be made with that attitude. Anyway the bottom line is that if we want any real progress to be made towards a breakthrough in the 9/11 truth movement we need to do it ourselves and stop looking to ANYONE else to do anything. We will do it ourselves or it won’t get done.

    1. Adam,

      I agree about how bad these decisions by Griffin and Gage have been. I think we need to be a bit careful about how we criticize them so that we don’t play right into the disinfo people’s hands. They’d love it if Griffin and Gage were totally neutralized as forces in the movement. With Richard, there’s not a lot we can do because he left himself little room to repair what he’s done. I’d love him to withdraw his withdrawal of support, but he’s unlikely to do that. Maybe someday.

      But Griffin still opposes their Pentagon position, and that’s crucial. This is the jewel these assholes are going after, and that’s why I choose (when talking about the Pentagon, at least) to focus on how he has not caved in to pressure on the impact question.

      David needs to know that while some of us don’t agree with his compromises, we still support him on his key Pentagon position. He has to know – and I’m sure he does – that reversing himself on this question would be devastating to the movement and to his credibility. It would also cost him most of his current support. He won’t do it.

      We’re disappointed in some of what’s happened, and with good reason. And we should be free to say so. But ultimately, let’s not let the agents have the free ride they’re after. Gage’s and Griffin’s accommodations of the anti-Pentagon gang have been especially harmful because that group has credibility they don’t deserve. Let’s put their record under the spotlight. Once people see how hollow and dishonest their “arguments” are, then the accommodations won’t mean as much.

      We’ve been on the defensive too long. It’s time to turn the tables.

      1. Adam and Craig,

        Good comments all round, though I agree with Craig that the Sunstein infiltrators would LOVE to see both RG and DRG neutralized as forces within the movement. I think it is a little bit too harsh, particularly on Griffin, to publicly declare that you currently do not support them at all. My sentiments mirror Craig’s; Richard Gage did far more damage. His statement was a full blown endorsement of the official story, and he used his “leadership” position to tell the global audience known as the truth movement, in essence: “You needn’t watch National Security Alert; others have watched it for you and have debunked it, and it’s a deceptive film and should be condemned. Vic Ashley’s excellent website and Frank Legge’s scholarly paper prove the plane did hit.”

        Griffin’s compromises, as disappointing as they are, have not done the same degree of damage to this issue that Richard did. But yes, Craig, that quote you posted of page 265 of Debunking 9/11 Debunking is the David Ray Griffin I know and love!

        Griffin exemplifies the lofty academician who spends more time in the office than out amongst the “streets,” whether in real life or on facebook. It is clear every time someone on facebook takes a poll on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon, that virtually everybody rejects this official claim.

        I consider 9/11 truth on facebook to be the online equivalent of a large number of truthers gathered in, say, Central Park or Times Square. Griffin does not get into these kinds of crowds very much, either online or in real life. He stays in the professors’ faculty dining room, having coffee with other “academic” types. Because of this disconnect from the “popular pulse” of the movement, so to speak, it was easy for ivory tower figures like Ryan, Chandler, and Legge, and Elizabeth Woodworth to convince him that the “split” in the movement over the Pentagon was (1) genuine [i.e. 50% of the movement believing in no-impact while the other 50% believe in impact] (2) profound and (3) destroying the movement from within. So he came up with this “consensus approach” to try and repair bridges and mend fences. Unfortunately, as well intentioned as it might have been, it only served to play into the hands of those who would like to see some of our strongest evidence swept under the rug.

        I wonder if Griffin, since the 10th anniversary and particularly the fallout within the consensus panel, has done some sober reflecting on his decision to take the compromised position in order to accommodate the propaganda team.

      2. Craig and Adam Syed,

        I understand that you both feel I am being to harsh especially with DRG. I disagree primarily because of the stone walling they both do which you didn’t address. I agree DRG did not do as much damage as Gage but he does stone wall all of us and I find that to be not only unacceptable but also a strong warning sign that something is seriously wrong.

        After over 10 years in the truth movement I have seen it all, argued about it all, and fought for it all. I have to be honest with myself and admit that what I have been doing and what we have been doing isn’t working. It isn’t getting results. I know that if we continue along the same path we will get the same results, namely none.

        I do not consider DRG or RG to be leaders because they have simply not demonstrated leadership. They are doing the same thing they have always done which is talking about the evidence but they are NOT taking any bold action. For example they are not confronting the pentagon issue head on and taking a god damn stand. Real leaders take real stands in spite of peer presure.

        The evidence DRG and RG talk about and present is solid and I have not changed my opinion about it nor am I rejecting that evidence. I am simply rejecting the concept of the two men as leaders to be respected above others. I don’t respect stone wallers or people who sling mud and then refuse to debate it. Both types of people I consider to be cowards. REAL leaders and REAL truthers do not hide from opponents or critics, they confront them head on with better arguments and if they cannot they admit they may be wrong. CIT did that when they responded to David Chandler’s piece of crap paper on the pentagon. Chandler did not act like a truther or a leader in response, he ran away! Now DRG and RG both work directly with this clown who has been debunked CONCLUSIVELY and comprehensively. Yet there is Chandler on DRG’s panel and DRG has done nothing but brush the issue under the rug. NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! No true leader would do that. RG uses Chandler’s bullshit hit piece as a reference for his withdrawel of support for Christ sake. How can I consider him to be any kind of leader or example when he does that? I can’t.

        The truth movement in my opinion is dying the same death as the USA is. Well intentioned people are speaking out about 9/11, that is true, but when push comes to shove no REAL resistance to these wrongs is being offered. Take the Occupy wall street protests for example, when the police moved in on the LA group they were simply not prepared to stand their ground. A few individuals did stand their ground but the vast majority turned tail and fled. They obviously had the idea in their heads that if they held up signs and camped out on the lawn for long enough that they would effect change. WRONG! The only way for them or us for that matter to actually cause change is to put our asses on the line and face billy clubbing, arrest, intimidation, and harrassment AND NOT GIVE UP. Had OWS stood their ground in mass and come back again and again and again after city hall was fenced off they and us would be celebrating at least one major victory right now.

        1. Adam,

          I do understand your anger and your feeling that true leadership has been lacking (or absent) from the most visible names in the movement. You’re right. I guess what I was saying was not that we should rally behind these figures, but rather that we shouldn’t give away the positive things – like David Ray Griffin’s position on no 757 hitting the Pentagon. The criticisms of his other actions are fair game, but let’s not let Legge, Bursill and company start claiming that Griffin is moving away from this position.

  8. Dear Mr. McKee,

    Well done. I was simply floored at the back-stage 9/11TM machinations and intrigue. Who would have thunk it?

  9. As the only expert witness invited to present at both the Toronto and Vancouver
    9/11 Hearings, and on the Pentagon attack, please look at my PPT for Vancouver
    which can be downloaded at the below link, and address comments and questions
    to bshonegg@gmail.com.
    http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/barb-honeggers-vancouver-powerpoint/
    As you will see, the Pentagon fabricated an attack on the official story alleged impact site, but there was also a real plane explosion that couldn’t have been Flight 77 at/near
    the heilport north of the official story alleged impact point at 9:32:30, stopping the
    heliport firehouse clock at that time, more than five minutes before the official story
    impact time of 9:37:46.
    Barbara Honegger

    1. Very interesting Barbara,

      Why aren’t there two separate wounds in the aftermath?

      One for the goose and one for the gander?

      Could you please explain this here, rather than sending us to the presentation, just so we can follow up with questions to your answers.

      Thanks, Willy Whitten

      PS
      I have enormous respect for your work on the Iran/Contra, and your support of Danny Sheehan and the Christic Institute. I used to listen to all of that on KPFK LA.

    2. I think using the term, “real plane”, is very bad. What Barbara seems to have in mind is a Global Hawk, which she did not substantiate during the hearings. She showed a slide displaying confetti-like debris–possibly small metallic pieces, but all of seemingly uniform shape and size–and, when I asked, “What happened to the plane?”, she said, “It went ‘Poof!'” If we would not accept this kind of account from the government, we certainly cannot accept it from one of the government’s critics. I hope that she will do more than she did in Vancouver to explain what she means.

    3. Barbara and I had an ongoing “debate” of sorts via e-mail and I found her to be extremely evasive and to be playing dumb (a disinformation technique) about what was actually said. I asked legitimate questions of her and made reasonable points and she proceeded to ignore them completely and disingenuously change the subject. In short she refused to debate in good faith. I saved the entire exchange and will be happy to post it if Barbara wishes to contest what I just said. Long story short her second plane theory has virtually zero evidence to support it and considerable evidence that refutes it. Sorry Barbara but I do not consider you to be an expert on the Pentagon at all. CIT and P4T are far and away the experts on the Pentagon not you I am afraid. I notice that you never miss an opportunity to promote yourself and your dubious second plane theory though.

      1. Hi Adam,

        I had a bit of wonder at Barbara using the term “expert witness” as well…I figure she means it in that she was an “eye witness” to the aftermath and ‘was there’, during the event. “Expert Witness” has a technical meaning as far as legal terminology. I shrugged that off as simply her ignorance of legal lexicon.

        All I can say about the idea that ANYTHING hit the Pentagon is, I think that has been disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.

        ww

        1. Expert witnesses are typically NOT eyewitnesses, which reveals a lapse in understanding. Even Wiki has a decent discussion of this matter: “An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness’s specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder.[1] Expert witnesses may also deliver expert evidence about facts from the domain of their expertise.[2] At times, their testimony may be rebutted with a learned treatise, sometimes to the detriment of their reputations.” Barbara is an “expert witness” as is Enver Masud, who is both an expert witness and an eyewitness, having observed the Pentagon following the alleged “plane crash”. See their Powerpoints, http://www.911vancouverhearings.com.

  10. It would all be so clear if the Pentagon would release all the video evidence collected. The Pentagon establishment is hiding something. Griffin may not know the whole story, but anyone who thinks its been told is an idiot.

    1. They’ll never release them, at least not genuine videos. The Pentagon is hiding the fact that their story about Flight 77 is fiction. There was no 757 impact that day. There was one that approached the building, but it didn’t hit.

      You’re right, we may never know everything. But we know enough to know the official story is a lie. Just look at the picture at the top of this post and ask yourself, “Can this be where a 100-ton airliner just hit?” It’s a joke.

    1. Jim Fetzer says:

      >”Not only did not Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, but all four of the crash sites were fabricated”
      ……

      While it can be agreed to that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, and Shanksville is an obvious set dressing of a gash in the ground long surveyed by the USGS; in what ways do you assert that all four crash sites were fabricated?

      Of course I am asking about the plane strikes on the towers, and of course the commercial airliners maintained by the official story are excluded.

      You still maintain that no physical airplanes struck the WTC towers?

      ww

  11. From the article – “All the way through the show, when Bursill would hear even one word he didn’t like he’d jump in with no regard for the person he was interrupting.”

    And this is the exact reason why Bursill will never, EVER, debate a real aviation professional through written dialogue, and has run with his tail tucked firmly between his legs each time confronted on his bogus claims.

    Click here for more on Bursill…

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?&showtopic=19288

    Click here for more on Legge et al…

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7163&view=findpost&p=10798304

    Thanks for the email notification Craig. Good job!

    1. I listened to the entire Bursill interview on Barrett’s radio show and he filibustered quite a bit and talked over the host and callers quite a bit as well. The main premise of his is that the movement needs credibility cops like him to keep the movement from being attacked and embarrassed. That entire premise is BS on it’s face. First of all whatever one person says or does reflects on that person alone not on others.

      Just because Judy Wood promotes a DEW theory it doesn’t mean anyone else supports that theory and it certainly does not reflect anything about the truth movement. It reflects on Judy Wood and that is it. Bursill’s stupid idea that bogus theories somehow get cooties on the rest of us is a load of crap. Judy Wood does not reflect on me at all. The whole premise that he is some kind of noble cred cop trying to protect us from ourselves is so egocentric it borders on insanity.

      John should study Joseph McCarthy, another ultra arrogant blow hard, so he realizes that he is practicing McCarthyism without even knowing it.

      After this interview I am more convinced then ever that John Bursill is an egomaniac of the highest order. I am also 100% sure he is pushing false information knowingly and purposefully. In other words he is a disinformation agent.

      1. I agree 100%. They claim they’re helping the movement by purging it of bad arguments. What a load of crap. What a convenient excuse for bashing other truthers instead of the official story.

  12. Unfortunately, Legge is taken seriously by Gage who praised his “extensive” research in our interview in Montreal in April.

    I’d actually like to elaborate on this, Craig, for the T/S audience.

    McKee and I were chatting on the phone a few weeks ago, and he relayed to me some more insights into his April interview with Gage. I think the exact nuances of the moment are revealing. When Craig mentioned “Frank Legge” and “Pentagon research” in the same sentence, Gage briefly interrupted to interject: “Extensive research,” with heavy respect and gravitas afforded to the former word. He wanted to make it clear to McKee that Frank Legge is no ordinary researcher, but an extra-valuable one, and the overall insinuation was: “Don’t poo-poo Frank’s Pentagon work.”

    1. And then Richard Gage sends me something like this for our organization to sift through..

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22101

      Go figure…

      So, to sum up, Richard Gage not only promotes confirmed disinformation from Legge, but then sends me a document — which I admit i did not thoroughly research — but for those who have… feel to be disinformation….

      Hmmm…..

      I thought Richard Gage was a Truth Seeker? Why exactly is he sending us a document which most feel is disinformation, and why is he promoting confirmed disinformation from a person like Legge who has nothing but a fabricated flight plan printed from his own computer to support his claims of being a pilot? (and a Student Pilot at that.. if true).

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21569&view=findpost&p=10800694

      What a joke…

      1. That thread was very interesting. It appears there were some issues of mutual respect being discussed.

        Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, isn’t it better for you to be aware of this document so that you can react to it when others bring it up, as they were bound to do? Should Richard really be faulted on that one point?

    2. Most unfortunate about Gage’s buying into Legge’s rhetorical slamdance.

      In my view there are three verified moles deep inside the Truth movement, who ingratiated themselves in their earliest incarnations, only to bloom into full blown frauds later:
      Frank Legge, Morgan Reynolds, and Jim Fetzer – each with their own particular blade on the same spinning axel.

      ww

      1. For this guy to issue such a smear is unconscionable. If there is one OBVIOUSLY UNTRUSTWORTHY commentator here, it is hybridrogue1. He has abused the privilege of posting in the past and has just done so again here. If he thinks I have anything wrong, he should identify what I have said, explain why I have said it, and then laid out what he thinks I have wrong and why. He has never done that, where his area of specialization is cheap, undocumented smears like this one. Enough!

      2. Jim Fetzer says:

        “If he thinks I have anything wrong, he should identify what I have said, explain why I have said it, and then laid out what he thinks I have wrong and why. He has never done that, where his area of specialization is cheap, undocumented smears like this one. Enough!”

        You have a short memory Fetzer, you made the same challenge only two threads ago, which I took you up on, regarding the explosive qualities of superthermate and other sol-gels.

        I challenged your obvious lack of knowledge of applied physics as per the, center of mass as center of momentum in crash physics ala the Sandia tests.

        You simply disappeared, after repeating the same nonsense time and again and pointing to your own URLs as appeals to authority.

        Even Mark Hightower said point blank that superthermites are indeed explosives. But you still play the tapeloop that you have “Proven time and again that superthermites are not explosives.” And from that point forward you were gone like a hot wind from a rear end.

        Further, you have been shown to be absolutely without a clue as per the crash physics involved in the WTC tower crashes [see: 36 Truthers thread].

        And what about your “little bird flying on an aluminum beercan” bullshit? Or as you say in mantra fashion; “Mass differential” is the prime aspect to consider in the physics of the WTC plane crashes.

        If you want these specific points made in detail thrown in your face again, in yet one more thread, I can oblige you.

        And by the way Fetzer it is Craig McKee who determines what is and is not an abuse of the privilege of posting on Truth and Shadows.

        ww

        1. Here are four studies about what happened to the Twin Towers. T. Mark Hightower has made several posts about this on the other thread. Nanothermite could be described as a “feeble explosive”, as I have in the third of these articles. To call it “explosive” without the qualification that it is, for example, only 1/13 as powerful as TNT is highly misleading, but an effective rhetorical device for those who are trading upon equivocation. Your role here is all too apparent and it has nothing to do with exposing falsehoods or revealing truths.

          “An analysis of the WTC on 9/11”, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread662308/pg1

          “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
          http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

          “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

          “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/

          More significantly in light of The Vancouver Hearings, anyone with a serious interest in how the Twin Towers were destroyed should go to http://www.911vancouverhearings.com and review the Powerpoints for Sessions 2 and 3 by Charles Boldwyn, Jeff Prager, Don Fox, Claire Kuehn, and Dwain Deets. The myth of explosive nanothermite was a limited hang-out that stiffled serious research on how the buildings were destroyed for six years. That is long enough. This guy wants to perpetuate the charade. None of us should be buying it.

      3. ARE NONOTHERMITES EXPLOSIVE?

        The specific question put to Jim Fetzer was this; ‘Is Nanothermite/superthermite an explosive?’
        I repeatedly reminded him that the question was removed from all others, as to whether the specific substance found in the dust was capable of fragmenting the steel…the question was narrowed down to that one point specifically. The following is but three of at least a dozen times throughout these threads that Fetzer boldly claims that ‘Nanothermites are not explosive”:

        Jim Fetzer says:July 1, 2012 at 2:32 am>No–and deliberately misreading what Mark has written does not make you smart, Rogue. Give it a break. Nanothermite is non-explosive.

        Jim Fetzer says:
        June 25, 2012 at 11:07 am>I have repeatedly published links to the studies that demonstrate nanothermite is non-explosive:

        Jim Fetzer says:
        June 29, 2012 at 10:36 pm
        “…here this guy denies what has been repeatedly proven, namely: the non-explosive character of nanothermite.”

        I pointed out to him such evidences as this, with many many citations to others as to the known explosive characteristics of the sol-gels, aerogels, and nano-milled weapons:

        “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” (Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005;http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech)

        In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives.

        material energy density
        by mass: MJ/KG
        by volume: MJ/L [L= load]

        aluminothermic incendiaries

        Thermite
        (Al + Fe2O3) M>4.13 – V>18.40

        Copper Thermite
        (Al + CuO) M>4.00 – V>20.90

        nitro-aromatic explosives
        TNT
        (Trinitrotoluene) M>4.61 – V>6.92

        Furthermore, when I asked Mark Hightower point blank the simple question, “Are nanothermites explosive?” His response was that indeed nanothermites are explosive. This is the exchange:

        hybridrogue1 says: July 6, 2012 at 1:24 pm
        Mr. Hightower,

        Are superthermites an explosive?

        T Mark Hightower says: July 6, 2012 at 6:13 pm

        “The highest detonation velocity I was able to find in the technical literature when I searched one year ago for an iron-oxide aluminum nanothermite was 895 m/s for an aerogel produced by the sol gel method. This certainly qualifies as an explosive. If you want to read the paper where this is cited, here it is.”

        https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/302999.pdf

        Now ‘this guy’ Fetzer is backtracking – using the excuse that nanothermites ARE explosive….”BUT, yada yada yada”

        However even his yada yada doesn’t stack up, as neither he nor Hightower have the slightest idea of the brisance of the variety of sol-gels that may have been involved in the destruction of the towers. That the specific samples tested by Jones and Harrit have a certain characteristic doesn’t mean others weren’t involved. Hightower himself makes note that it must not be assumed that just because this one has an expansion of some 840 m/s, that all blends, mixtures, and formulas of sol-gels would.

        ww

        1. More in the endless stream of rhetorical devices in his ongoing attempts to obfuscate what we already know in an effort to make it appear uncertain. To all nanothermite “explosive” when it is an incendiary with minimal explosive force is more misleading than it is accurate.

          With a detonation velocity of 895 m/s (and notice he can’t even get THAT right!), it cannot pulverize concrete (which requires at least 3,200 m/s), much less decimate steel (which requires at least 6,100 m/s), the crucial points he is attempting to finesse by distraction.

          We discussed this issue in detail in the articles I have previously cited. So here are two others that add an extra dimension to this exchange, where the proof that nanothermite cannot have been the principal cause of the towers demise is well-established, namely:

          “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/the-debate-over-911-truth-kevin-ryan-vs-jim-fetzer/

          which is a nice illustration that Kevin Ryan, a champion of nanothermite, not only does not know what he is talking about when he touts its “explosive” potential but is so incompetent he doesn’t even know what he is talking about when he attacks me, which is absurd. And,

          Steve Fahrney, “Confessions of a 9/11 Truth Activist”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/22/confessions-of-a-911-truth-activist-2/

          where an activist who worked for A&E911 had to endure the suppressive atmosphere in which any discussion of alternatives to “explosive nanothermite”, such as nukes or DEWs, was not only not tolerated but actively suppressed, which is a very unscientific approach.

      4. “The highest detonation velocity I was able to find in the technical literature when I searched one year ago for an iron-oxide aluminum nanothermite was 895 m/s for an aerogel produced by the sol gel method. This certainly qualifies as an explosive.” ~Mark Hightower.

        Go ahead Fetzer – blow up a typo as a big deal.

        You are misframing my argument. Anybody with a lucid mind who reads my post that you just answered to will be able to see that.

        My bottom line is; you have no idea of the brisance of any of the sol-gels that may have been used other than the single variety found in the WTC dust. For all we know several other substances may have been used PETN – both as blasting cord, and Semtex and RDX charges. There could even be a thermobaric element, a theory I have been developing.

        I argued with you over a series of threads for at least three months, and you continued to claim that; “nanothermite/superthermite is nonexplosive”. Now, only after being cornered do you admit, ‘well yea, it is explosive but only in a tiny way.’ [paraphrased].

        My point the whole time has been simple; nanothermite/superthermite is explosive.
        This is true regardless of anything else you say.

        ww

  13. Jim Fetzer says: “Not only did not Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, but all four of the crash sites were fabricated”

    As were the flights themselves, as were the alleged passengers, as were the alleged terrorists, as were the alleged phone calls, as were the alleged “live” US network broadcasts [including all building collapse sequences shown, plus all of the Pentagon wall collapse sequences], as were all of the alleged “amateur” “plane into building” videos, [ which all exhibit entirely contradictory flight paths, see : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfacCQj_mlI ] , as were most, if not all of the alleged victims, see :
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=18&sid=ac1c64abedeb70d42c0cc2ef95897c1d

    Regards,onebornfree
    [p.s. sorry Jim, at this time I could not find my links to the faked Pentagon wall collapse sequences, will post later when I re-locate them.]

  14. Back on topic and before the usual suspects deflect away from the article that Craig has written.

    If you want to know the totally illogical leaps that Legge has to make to support the official flightpath at the Pentagon, look no further than this thread from last year on the Oz forum. Legge is actually the poster gravity32 who responds once without admitting that it is Legge himself.

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9620

    Albert Hemphill is an interesting Pentagon witness who was always used in favour of the official flightpath due to his quotes of seeing the plane hit the Pentagon from the Navy Annex and the plane coming over his right shoulder. CIT tracked him down and interviewed him o confirm his actual location and his memory of the flightpath. Legge wrote that Hemphill confirmed the official flightpath despite the fact that Hemphill identified the plane coming over the Navy Annex and to the cemetery (north) side of the gas station.

    It seems to me that when the planners analysed the 9/11 event in the days following, they would have identified that the Pentagon was the weakest part of the story hence the need to fill the media with quotes about lightpoles etc etc. They would also know that one day, researchers would realise that the witnesses saw a different flightpath making lightpole collision impossible and that this evidence must be marginalised at all costs. What better way to do that than set up established truthers to lead the direction of the movement and then dismiss the research.

    Because of course absolutely anyone with a logical mind can see that the north of Citgo witnesses prove inside job with no scientific background required to understand the evidence. In fact the whole of 9/11 can be summarised very easily as

    Either you completely believe the impossible story of the taxi driver despite nobody else seeing it and multiple witnesses contradicting it …..

    Or you believe 9/11 was an inside job ……..

    1. KP,

      The Hemphill testimony is the point in the email conversation with Frank Legge, that I became firmly convinced that not only was Legge wrong, but that he is a purposeful disinformation operative. He went into almost a state of hysterics, as I argued the points you make here, to him.

      We even had the overview photos with flight paths laid out as we discussed this, along with ground view photos of the Naval Annex showing Hemphill’s exact position at the time. Legge STILL would not admit that Hemphill was describing the North Approach.

      When I posted this, proving all witnesses are North of the official flight path, Legge exploded, saying that “even a child could see,” that I was wrong:

      Deb Anlauf, Sheraton—–>plane traveling due east —>> Hemphill, Annex>>—–due east—>> Lagasse, Turcios, Brooks,>>–Williams, Stafford and Prather ——->> due east >>———–>>Helipad tower “straight in from Annex” >>— due east—>> straight in at Pentagon…

      And I will have to add that my experience with Legge is on par with my experience with Fetzer here on this blog. Both can deny the most OBVIOUS truths – and do it right to your face.

      Both appeal to the lowest common denominator. Just like PTBarnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” – that’s why carny hawkers can continue their trade.

      ww

      1. Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote:

        [Frank Legge] went into almost a state of hysterics, as I argued the points you make here, to him. We even had the overview photos with flight paths laid out as we discussed this, along with ground view photos of the Naval Annex showing Hemphill’s exact position at the time. … Both [Dr. Legge and Dr. Fetzer] can deny the most OBVIOUS truths – and do it right to your face.

        Your language leaves the impression that you met with Mr. Legge in person.

        Were you writing about a cyber-exchange? Or did you really meet with him?

        I suspect the cyber-exchange, but just wanted to be sure.

      2. Well Señor,

        I thought I made it crystal clear that I refer to an email exchange between Frank Legge and myself.

        The point about the aerial views of the area, were discussions of jpeg images we both knew as specific ones that I and he had exchanged. That may be what gives you a question as to our speaking in cyber space or in person.

        I’ve never met the guy, or even spoken on the phone to him.

        ww

    2. A comment that’s on topic? You like to take the road less travelled by, don’t you?

      The comment from Legge on your link is hilarious! He give CIT the “cherry picking award” because they focus on the north of Citgo part of Albert Hemphill’s account. But he accepts as definite Hemphill’s statement that the plane flew on his right side. But so were the witnesses interviewed by CIT! Legge they were mistaken and going on “poor recollection” when they said the plane was on the left of the station. Apparently Hemphill has a good memory and none of the others do?

      He writes: “Well he [Hemphill] is adamant that the plane was on his right and went straight into the Pentagon. He repeats it many times with emphasis in two interviews, and in early and recent statements.”

      Amazing.

  15. Craig,

    What do you think about Barbara Honegger and her disinformation?

    Do you have any plans to write an article on her?

  16. The official story has supporting evidence of “downed lightposts that were struck by the plane’s wings” Well, the thing is, commercial jetliner wings cannot strike lamposts and not be sheared off. Here’s what happened to NWA 255 in 1987
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255
    “The MD-82 went into a stall and rolled 40 degrees to the left when it struck a light pole near the end of the runway, severing 18 feet of its left wing” — this plane stalled because it could not obtain takeoff velocity — so was going much slower than the “plane” that hit the pentagon. The internet is full of picture of jetliner wings sheared off or nearly sheared off from striking things like birds, treetops etc. At most real plane crashes, the wings are detached from what’s left of the fuselage. No possible way could a 757’s wings strike lightposts at the (impossible at that altitude) speed and not be sheared off, sitting there for all to see. All the mumbo jumbo ignores the fact that for a 757 to do what the official story claims it did, it would be breaking the basic laws of Newtonian physics that most of us learned in high school. Same thing with at the WTC — no way can the wing tips penetrate the grid of steel, glass and concrete of the WTC, let alone after having been subjected to the deceleration caused by the nose striking first. Oh, and we are supposed to believe the tail fin could do this as well, after having been subjected to the entire length of the plane’s rapid deceleration that began at the moment of impact. It’s so absurd.

    1. So What do you think Morty?

      Is it your position that no planes hit the WTC towers?

      You believe that enough integers match the Northwest Airlines Flight 255 accident and the WTC scenario? One cannot take a single Newtonian formula and leave out all other integers that are described by Newtonian physics.

      What about vectors/momentum, kinetics – and inertia?

      What about visual and physical evidence?

      You say that “no way can the wing tips penetrate the grid of steel, glass and concrete of the WTC, let alone after having been subjected to the deceleration caused by the nose striking first.”

      How much length of the “wing tips” is asserted to have “penetrated” the tower’s facade? How much “deceleration” did the plane have after the nose struck first?

      Just asking…at this point.

      ww

    2. Hi Morty,

      I agree with you that the idea of the wings knocking the poles over makes no sense. I’ve heard it claimed that the speed of the aircraft was the reason for this, but I’m not certain enough of the physics to say for sure.

      1. No, Craig. As I explained in an early post and as onesliceshort has reinforced, by Newton’s third law of motion, for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. That means in this case that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph and impacting stationary lampposts are the same as a lamppost flying 500 mph hitting a stationary plane: it would have ripped the wing off the plane, the fuel stored within it would have burst into flames, it would have lost its trajectory and snapped off its tail while cartwheeling into the lawn, with debris spread all over the place. None of that happened, which is one of the reasons the “official account” of the Pentagon is not even physically possible. The speed does not affect the impossibility and make it possible, but only affects the magnitude of the effects (how widely the debris is distributed, for example, and how extensively it disrupts that clear, green Pentagon lawn).

  17. I am a new but regular reader of this truth blog; it is refreshing to find a collection of genuine human beings that seem to resonate with my perception of the events of 911. Not being as insulated within a 911 subculture, despite my voracious research into the topic, I find it surprising how difficult it is to observe rational progress and consensus within the movement as a whole, even years after definitive evidence or revelations have been brought forward. I am relieved so many serious scholars, for instance, are finally realizing the \”no planes/no hijackers\” premise, the nuclear anomalies, and so forth. But is like pulling teeth with some people, and so much energy is wasted on arguments that matter little. People need to implement litmus tests and stop giving so much space to prople like this hbridrogue1 character, an obvious disinformation agent. An obvious one! Will no one call this loser out? Why can he monopolize the comments here?

    Also, Tarpley is correct in his notion that most truthers are a bit politically naive, and a bit in the Star Trek geek loop of comparing stats every day with little scope of the meta-narrative. The greatest tool the government used to deflect JFK activism was to create a perpetual debate about ballistics. That is why Richard Gage, and the disinfo agent from BYU won\’t touch the sensitive material that reveals the government complicity. People are naive to think the if the case is just made articulate enough about the demolitions, then the justice fairy comes and jails the culprits.

    I think there is a place for this debate, of course, but it seems like too much time is spent on defense. I am still waiting for the rest of you to understand the fake victims, the video fakery, and the other things that are self-evident. But I guess that eon\’t become mainstream until the Vancouver 2016 hearings.

    People have to get real and call out the enemy. Great blog.

    1. James says:

      “Also, Tarpley is correct in his notion that most truthers are a bit politically naive, and a bit in the Star Trek geek loop of comparing stats every day with little scope of the meta-narrative. The greatest tool the government used to deflect JFK activism was to create a perpetual debate about ballistics.”

      …..
      Tarpley may be more or less correct about most truthers being politically naive – but that applies to the general population as well.

      But your point about the governments greatest tool being a debate about ballistics is actually “politically naive.” If you actually believe this to be true then you do not grasp the power dynamics of a coup d’etat.

      The powers that took out Kennedy didn’t give a flying fish about the ‘debate’ of those who recognized and spoke out about the assassination. They controlled, as they control now – the power of FORCE.

      In a coup d’etat that has been successful, those who recognize what has happened, despite their political leanings, also recognize who NOW has the power, and how dangerous it would be to confront them.

      The politically sophisticated would recognize that the status quo, the real powers behind the throne had the directing hand in the event, or it never could have taken place.

      I would suggest that you study the architecture of modern political power, and recognize the issue of ‘systemics’.

      You are here now, if you consider me “the enemy” – go ahead, confront me…call me out. But be specific, know your facts, and prove your points with those, rather than making broad generalizations.

      Be my guest.

      ww

    2. Thanks, James. Glad to hear from you.

      I agree that we need to develop a more coherent strategy to move forward and actually achieve something rather than just preaching to each other. We need to look for any avenue to do this. This is why dumping the Pentagon evidence strikes me as horribly counter-productive.

      Thanks for reading, and I hope we’ll hear your thoughts on this in the weeks to come.

  18. Craig McKee said: “If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story.”

    Isn’t that just another way of saying “false in one, false in all”, Craig? And if so, does it not apply equally to all 4 alleged crash sites?

    Regards, onebornfree.

  19. morty said: “…All the mumbo jumbo ignores the fact that for a 757 to do what the official story claims it did, it would be breaking the basic laws of Newtonian physics that most of us learned in high school. Same thing with at the WTC — no way can the wing tips penetrate the grid of steel, glass and concrete of the WTC, let alone after having been subjected to the deceleration caused by the nose striking first. Oh, and we are supposed to believe the tail fin could do this as well, after having been subjected to the entire length of the plane’s rapid deceleration that began at the moment of impact. It’s so absurd.”

    Morty, you need to understand, that as simple and basic as it is, practically no-one here understands Newton’s 3rd Law of motion. Practically every major contributor here will swear up and down that aluminum planes can and will easily slice directly through multiple steel girders – so you need to be prepared for an onslaught of outraged ” scientific experts” here testifying to that very “fact” .

    Essentially, they are arguing, by logical extension, that the 1000’s of tons of steel framework of the towers should have been made out of aluminum instead [because, to paraphrase , they say “aluminum is stronger pound for pound than steel” ] and then , and only then, would the towers [and Pentagon]have been able to resist penetration by the planes. http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Onebornfree,

      You certainly have a way of misframing the arguments, while proving your utter ignorance of physics.

      Newton’s 3rd Law of motion has absolutely nothing to do with comparative materials strengths. It has to do with momentum. . The key factor here is the speed. Energy increases exponentially as velocity increases.

      You do not understand basic physics, math, nor are you able to retain simple data when given to you repeatedly. The main problem you have is that you think a modern airliner is more like “an empty coke can”, than an actual airliner weighing over 300,000 lbs. You also think the entire weight of a stationary structure is a factor when calculating dynamic collisions. You are wrong.

      > A state of Momentum has three components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction.
      [*vector]

      In the frame of the WTC crash ONLY the plane has momentum.
      The tower has only one component – Mass at rest, an inert state.

      > A state of Inertia has only one component of Momentum – Mass.

      Moment and Point of Impact are both necessary integers in formulating impact physics. At that point and moment the kinetic energy of the mass in movement is transferred into the building AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT – the impact zone.

      These facts have been made to you countless times OBF…you simply have no comprehension of what they mean, let alone the ability to hold that thought.

      ww

    1. This guy Fetzer may have faulted me for combining all three of Newtons Laws of Motion in my argument to Onefornfree, rather than my parsing out the third law; that of “equal action and reaction” OR: ‘When two bodies interact by exerting force on each other, these action and reaction forces are equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction’.

      But the two bodies had to meet first – thus the goods on momentum.

      The Third Law isn’t in application until the actual plane strike on the tower, as I describe in my original post.

      ww

  20. Jim Fetzer says:

    “We really do not need more frivolous rubbish from this guy. He does not belong here.”

    That is a most impressive argument from ‘this guy’ Fetzer, I think I’ll use it next time I’m in a pinch and don’t have a real argument to make.

    ww

  21. Professional engineer Jon Cole proved the cutting power of regular thermite

    Cole has not only successfully cut through steel with less than 5 pounds of a thermate compound as you can see in the above video, but in the process he’s reproduced several anomalous events at the WTC, from explosions, to expulsions of gray dust/debris, to white-hot flowing metal and melted steel with the appearance of swiss cheese.

    Cole set out to answer three questions:

    1. Can thermitic material melt steel?

    Conclusion: Yes.

    2. Can it cut steel horizontally or vertically?

    Conclusion: Yes.

    3. Does it take massive quantities to do any real damage?

    Conclusion: It takes only a few pounds to melt completely through steel that is over an inch thick.

    ww

    1. I have repeatedly explained my position about this, where continuing to ask–over and over and over again–is simply harassment, even a form of cyber stalking. That should not be allowed here. Calling it an “explosive” is more misleading than informative. You are trying desperately to make something out of nothing, because you have nothing. It’s that simple.

    2. This question was discussed extensively in the “Free Form 9/11” thread, where Hightower pointed out the absurd quantity of nanothermite that would have been required had it been the principal cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers, which it OBVIOUSLY was not:

      T Mark Hightower says:
      July 6, 2012 at 11:56 am

      Niels Harrit did a calculation which he emailed to me and various others on 7/26/2011. He calculated that conservatively 11,660 metric tons of iron-rich spheres were present in the dust generated from the destruction of one Twin Tower. Depending on the thermite content of the nanothermite used he calculated a range of the from 29,000 to 143,000 metric tons of nanothermite used for each Twin Tower, assuming of course the source of the iron was the thermite reaction.
      Reply

      His persisting with this issue, which does not belong on a thread devoted to the Pentagon, is outrageous and corrupt. Many others have observed that he does not belong here. He is on an assignment, making no effort to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11.

      1. So what Fetzer?

        Niels did a calculation based on a false assumption, that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized — they were not, and this can be proven by they debris samples themselves as Prof Jones points out. Only a portion of the materials were pulverized to nano particulates – that is a FACT.

        It then naturally follows that the amount of energy required to pulverize this lesser amount of materials into ‘dust’ [not gravel – not chunks] would be significantly less energy than those based on Niels’ calculations.

        And who the f**k do you think you are telling anyone that I don’t belong on this site?
        You don’t like me here because I highlight the bullshit your spread, it’s as simple as that.

        Yes, I am on an assignment, a self generated assignment exactly to ‘expose falsehoods’ and reveal charlatans such as you.

        ww

      2. Mr. Rogue wrote:

        Niels did a calculation based on a false assumption, that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized — they were not, and this can be proven by they debris samples themselves as Prof Jones points out. Only a portion of the materials were pulverized to nano particulates – that is a FACT.

        To pulverize anything into nano-particulates is still a large energy sink.

        The assumption that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized is worst case. [However, I have doubts that assumption applies in a straw man fashion, but let’s go with it anyway.]

        So, Mr. Rogue, please do some math and scale back Dr. Harrit’s supposition of the “source” materials until you think the nano-particulates and the not-so-nano-particulates output are representative of the actual evidence. The adjectives applied to the resulting initial quantities will still be “massive” and “ginormous”.

        One other thing, possibly a misframing (or “science-challenge skewing.”) My understanding of Dr. Harrit’s email was to account for the extrapolated-from-dust-samples amount of spheroid iron estimated in the debris pile. Again taking a worst case approach (albeit very conservatively) and assuming the iron spheroids were one of the resultants of a nano-thermite chemical reaction with steel, the quantities of nano-thermite had a significant number of “000,000” between a non-zero digit and the “kg” units [for just one tower], making logistics an Occam Razor negating factor.

        Now I know that in recent discussions [July 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm, July 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm], Mr. Rogue has been talking mixing (either chemically or in a tandem parallel fashion) nano-thermite with another explosive [e.g., PETN, Semtex, super-RDX, and thermobaric] with more “brisance.”

        Brisance is the shattering capability of an explosive. It is a measure of the rapidity with which an explosive develops its maximum pressure. A brisant explosive is one that attains its maximum pressure so rapidly that a shock wave is formed. The net effect is to shatter (by shock resonance) the material surrounding or in contact with the supersonic detonation wave created by the explosion. Even within high explosives which build up a supersonic shock front, some build up faster than others, yield higher detonation velocities, and tend more towards controlled shock fronts in bulk, all of which lead to higher brisance.

        I’ve highlighted the nugget of truth: a shock wave is formed. Shock waves produce sounds… loud sounds… sounds measurable as high decibel levels.

        I’ve written before that Dr. Sunder — neither an actor nor a politician — said on camera with a straight face and no lying ticks paraphrased words to the effect: “We ruled out known conventional controlled demolition explosives and known military explosives, because the signature decibel levels were not present.” [I think Dr. Sunder was told what it was, that it wasn’t chemical explosives, which then enabled him to talk with a straight face and say the words that it wasn’t chemcial explosives. So could I.]

        However, this posting here is mixing together different things. One thing is accounting for the iron spheroids (Dr. Harrit’s email.) Mr. Rogue is now trying to explain nano-particulates — and seems to be pointing to the same Dr. Harrit email.

        Doesn’t matter. Those “brisant-y” materials can have math estimates made regarding their likely initial quantities. As I’ve done mathematically before (July 10, 2012 at 4:44 am), you can start at one extreme — 100% nano-thermite — and scale back its usage in favor of those “brisant-y” materials. Quoting myself and so soon:

        The adjectives applied to the resulting initial quantities will still be “massive” and “ginormous”.

        Ain’t so Occam Razor, and those pesky hot-spots and “tritium” reports suggest something else was involved.

        //

      3. I made the following statement:

        Those “brisant-y” materials can have math estimates made regarding their likely initial quantities. As I’ve done mathematically before (July 10, 2012 at 4:44 am), you can start at one extreme — 100% nano-thermite — and scale back its usage in favor of those “brisant-y” materials.

        I forgot to mention that due to the correlation of brisance to a shock wave that would have high decibel readings, the substitution of some of the 100% nano-thermite [as per Dr. Harrit, one extreme] for some percentage of brisance explosives will reach a limit very fast, else its usage will not be compliant with the audio evidence [harped by NIST and Dr. Sunder].

        //

      4. Señor writes:

        >”The adjectives applied to the resulting initial quantities will still be “massive” and “ginormous”.

        I suppose it depends on what is meant by “massive” and “ginormous” – considering there was up to 400 tons of asbestos in each tower, a very light substance to volume, it would seem that in an area of some two hundred acres might easily contain quite a ‘massive’ amount, of both explosives and incendiaries. See Jon Coles amounts for some idea of the cutter charge quantities of normal thermite; less than five pounds per one inch thick beam…and hissy silent.

        Now, you are relying on Dr. Sunder {neither and actor nor a politician??? bullshit} who was the spokesman for NIST – and yet you squawk about “gov reports” that Jones uses in his anti-nuke papers…which is it doodadio slash slash? You playing ‘heads I win – tails you lose’?

        Now, I really do hate to mention it, but we have been round’n’round these issues for months, and if you start throwing up your usual novel size posts again…forget it, I had enough of that the last thread.

        ww

      5. Senor Once,

        After the emails I received from Professor Jones this afternoon, I have more confidence than ever that I am on the right track with what I have been saying.

        I will have to put this in my own words, because I did not ask for nor receive permission to quote anything from those emails.

        Jones did not mention anything about Harrit’s calculations. But he did suggest a way for me to determine for myself what the probable amounts of explosives would be to take down the towers.

        That amount would be 52 tons of explosives with the brisance of TNT.

        Considering that there are explosives far more powerful for a 2001 event, I can be comfortable with the 52 ton amount, as a standard to be reduced or added to depending on what combinations of explosives and flagellants we wish to propose.
        ……….

        On a separate note:

        I submit to you that measuring the actual decibels by a sound recording is impossible unless one knows the exact mic and attenuation of the recorder. It would then need to be determined precisely where that mic was, in both distance and in terrain detail; to account for deflection and reflection of the sound wave.

        A seismograph would be more adequate in estimating the soundwave through extrapolation – but then it must be taken into account the attenuation caused by the building itself which is reacting to the blasts with oscillations/vibrations, that will be exhausted before reaching ground level for most of the sequence. So there is no certainty as to exact measurement of Db, by either process – just speculation based on extrapolation.

        If anyone knows the exact manner in which NIST came to the Db conclusion they came to I want them to show me.

        ww

  22. morty said: “…All the mumbo jumbo ignores the fact that for a 757 to do what the official story claims it did, it would be breaking the basic laws of Newtonian physics that most of us learned in high school. Same thing with at the WTC ”

    So you see, Morty, although flying birds can easily cut through the aluminum of airliners flying at 250mph and more, flying planes can _still_cut through 20+ 10 ton steel girders rooted to the ground, simultaneously, without appreciably slowing and without parts breaking off at impact , while at the Pentagon, the wings just folded back and disappeared inside according to eyewitness Mike Walters . Simple!🙂

    Regards onebornfree.

    P.S. don’t ya just love it when all these self- proclaimed ” inside job/conspiracy theorists”[there are many here] rabidly defends one of the most crucial evidentiary lies that make up the government and medias massive pile of lies, bending over backwards in pretzel -like contortions and practically sticking their head up their own you- know- what ,in order to try to convince everyone that they know what the hell they are talking about ? Highly amusing, I must say! Bring on the next bozo contortionist act, quick, I need more laughs !

  23. For Your Pleasure:

    “Then, we end up with ca. 250,000 tons of pulverizable material per tower (WTC1 or WTC2).”~Harrit

    “It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to
    understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance
    are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and
    that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC
    rubble.
    As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large
    chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was
    approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces
    of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the
    pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false
    premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder”~Jones

    Actually “pulverized” verses “pulverizable” – is the crux of the matter.

    Mr. Hightower might consider that Harrit really was asking for someone to spot the error.

    It is not in the math, it is in the faulty assumptions driving the math. Any math based on the false assumption that all of the ‘pulverizable material’ was actually pulverized is just playing with themselves.

    ww

  24. A 757 Actually DID Hit the Pentagon! Trust Us, We’re Truthers!
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/07/17/a-757-actually-did-hit-the-pentagon-trust-us/
    More absurd arguments on the Pentagon: ‘propaganda team’ sets its sights on Griffin

    By Craig McKee

    The co-ordinated group that wants the Pentagon out of the 9/11 truth discussion has won some key victories to be sure. But there’s one battle they haven’t won, and it really bugs them.

    How to Disappear Completely – A Short Film About Dustification

    1. On another forum i was ‘accused’ of being a “no-planer” – as if i was some kind of a “criminal”!

      Here is part of my response:

      “……
      Yes, i’m a “no-planer” in the sense that i have never ever believed that a plane impacted the pentagon nor a plane crashed in Shanksville. (I understand that you believe this as well).

      And for the life of me i cannot imagine a plane impacting the WCT2. I’ve tried and tried to come around to yours and others view, but no matter how hard i’ve tried, i still to this day find it an impossibility.

      My reasons are simple enough: We see a huge gaping hole in the facade of the building, which means that the missing steel columns must have been removed by the ostensible plane impact.
      This again means that small and even large sections of the plane must have penetrated the facade virtually unscathed with a velocity of more than 500 m/h.

      The building is 210 feet or 64 meter. deep. The apparent plane was 160 feet or 48 meter long. Part of the apparent plane only had to travel another 16 meters (front landing gear) or 35 meters (the engines) before reaching the back wall through open office landscape, traveling with the same initial velocity.

      The back wall shows no sign of having been hit at all by any of the surviving parts of the plane, coming toward this facade with this enormous speed, and with such very very short distance to travel. Because of the very high speed, the ‘belated’ explosions would have played no significant role in this scenario.

      This in short, is basically why i find it impossible to believe a plane impacted the WTC2.
      That you still believe a plane impacted WTC2 is quite OK with me, and promise i shall never call you “names” or feel i’m ‘superior’ to you because of this, as i fully respect that we can all have differing views on many things, depending on where we come from in life.
      ……”

      Cheers

    2. Dear Mr. Wegrzyn,

      I enjoyed the video. Nuggets of truth. Alas, I suspect that another type of nugget was also present that looked kind of like horse apples.

      I believe Dr. Wood is certainly over the target to point out the energy requirements of pulverization or dustification and to encourage us to look for more exotic means of explaining it.

      The horse apple that stuck on the sole of my sneaker is Dr. Wood’s free-energy mantra. Don’t get me wrong. I want to believe in this so badly. And we must use caution by asking ourselves questions about the viability of the technology and then its applicability to 9/11.

      I’ve read Dr. Wood’s wonderful textbook [that I recommend to others — even have the distinction of purchasing Mr. Rogue and Mr. McKee their copies], but believe that she gives “nuclear anything” a bum’s rush. [I’m including in that “nuclear anything” things like nuclear-powered DEW, nuking DEW ala Project Excalibur, and just plain milli-nukes.]

      Dr. Wood doesn’t address the “tritium report”, but my take on it is that it would not exist (with proven juking and with Dr. Jones’ companion “no-nukes” wave-off) if there weren’t something nuclear to hide (like companion reports on alpha, beta, and gamma radiation measured.) Dr. Wood tries to brush of the significance (and questions the existence) of the hot-spots, but to do this she relies on… a govt report… that is accepted without question. It has satellite images of hot-spots that may not be so trustworthy, particularly with regards to how it seems to contradict what first responders were saying many weeks into this.

      My issue with Dr. Wood and her textbook is that it stretches for “free energy from space” with little substantiation when a nuclear reactor or new fangled nuclear device (designed for specific electromagnetic output instead of forceful blast/heat waves) seem more Occam Razor to meeting the energy requirement and to explaining several niggly pieces of evidence in the aftermath that super-duper nano-thermite promoters trip over as if it were a 664k mile long imaginary garden hose wrapped around their feet.

      Be that as it may, I like how Dr. Wood in the video calls attention to WTC-4. Particularly considering its looted gold vaults, this building is worthy of deeper study by any serious 9/11 researcher.

      //

      1. Thank you Señor El Once

        “nuclear anything” is a psy-op distraction just like super duper thermite. I was (for a short while) thrown out of Veterans for 911 Truth for posting Dr Judy Wood’s evidence & no nukes, while trying to expose Professor Jones & Alex Gage as psy-op controlled limited hang-out left gate keepers. I was also sent a virus from v911t in my e-mail, they strongly advised me to follow the so called proven ((theory)) of non-sense (thirmite now nukes). They are not all psy-op controlled there, there are many who have the courage to support Dr Judy Wood and her evidence.

        …this is posted on my web site, please check it out.

        911 was REMOTE VIEWED in great detail back in Feb 2001. The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology was documented with the Military. This info became part of the well established Military “PLAN” _________________ Unconditional Surrender Only Option

        ‘You can dam a stream and you can dam a river, but you can’t dam a tidal wave.’

        The tide is turning….thank god

  25. @hybridrogue1 — I would be interested in hearing a scientific explanation, simplified to the point that reasonably intelligent, critical thinking non-experts could understand, that accounts for: a) how the crash dynamics were apparently opposite in Washington and NYC — at the Pentagon a twin engine airliner allegedly struck a building, and left a small impact crater that wasn’t wide enough to accommodate the fuselage, let alone the wings, engines and tail fin, and the official explanation supported by “eyewitness accounts” is that the wings (engines included) folded back and disappeared, whereas in NYC the wings of similar aircraft could penetrate a building, leaving a damage silhouette that roughly mirrors their shape. b) How these scenarios are both inconsistent with any previous or subsequent findings of other airline crashes. Swissair 111– “the aircraft struck the water at 300 knots (560 km/h, 348 mph) in a 20 degrees nose down and 110 degree bank turn, or almost upside down.[37] Less than a second after impact the plane would have been totally crushed, killing all aboard ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111. So less than a second after striking water, this widebody jet was “crushed”, while nearly a second after impacting the WTC, “UA175” still has an intact tail fin and rear fuselage. Even more pertinent is TAM 3054, which struck a building nose first at near ground level..at a speed less than the official pentagon story but more believable for controlled very low altitude flight. Here is a picture of the tail fin ..which didn’t manage to penetrate the building, or disappear completely. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19849850/ns/world_news-americas/t/brazil-jet-crash-was-speeding-down-runway/#.UAjwq6B0jYg
    The photos of this crash site are similar to what one would expect at the Pentagon. Perhaps you could also in a similar vein, explain the concept of deceleration…my schema on how car airbags work is that a computer can, in a very small fraction of a second detect deceleration from the impact of a moving object with a stationary object or another moving object, and deploy the airbags quickly enough to mitigate severe injuries. I realize that cars are moving slower than planes, but the distance from an airbag sensor to airbag to passenger in a car is much smaller than the distance from the nose of a 767 to the point on the fuselage where the innermost part of the leading edge of the wing is attached. In the “crash test dummy” commercials, we generally see super slow motion pictures of hoods crumpling, airbags deploying, etc. Basically the test car begins to lose structural integrity the moment it strikes. At the WTC on 9/11, the videos of “UA175” show no apparent loss of structural integrity (the tail strikes the building intact, the rear part of the fuselage is intact even as the front part is inside the building). I do not understand how this is physically possible, therefore I cannot believe that a B767 impacted the south tower of the WTC. Another more general question I have is why hundreds of millions of dollars are spent developing “bunker buster” rocket powered missiles and bombs with extremely dense impact surfaces to achieve essentially the same effect as a turbofan powered commercial airliners designed to be as lightweight as possible supposedly accomplished on 9/11.

  26. Yes, Indeed.

    Goes to show that Kevin Barrett is not “as stupid” as some ‘fractions’ of the TM tries so very hard to make him out to be.

    In fact, these people are turning “stupid” entirely back upon themselves, poor sods, and to such an extent that they are probably better left all alone, and to their own “devices” !

    Cheers

  27. Jim Fetzer says: “No, Craig…..by Newton’s third law of motion, for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. That means in this case that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph and impacting stationary lampposts are the same as a lamppost flying 500 mph hitting a stationary plane”

    Which also means,Jim, that if a 757 could be somehow locked firmly in place, and just _one_ 10 ton steel girder similar to the ones used in WTC tower construction [ [let alone the 20+ allegedly sliced through], was hurled broadside at that locked-to-the-ground 757 so that the steel girder impacted that locked down plane at 500mph, then the impact forces would exactly replicate the forces acting on both plane and one single girder in the alleged WTC plane/tower strikes, according to Newton’s 3rd law, yes?

    If birds in flight [ 10 to 20 lbs? at 15 mph?] , can make large holes in the nose, fuselage or wings of a commercial jet cruising at say 250mph. [just google image search with key words such as “plane” and “bird strike”] , what does anyone here who is actually rational think would happen when a 10 ton steel girder traveling through the air at 500 mph meets the thin [2mm.?] skinned aluminum body of a commercial jet firmly rooted to the spot? Hmmm?

    Despite the 100’s of 1000’s of on line image examples of the type of damage inflicted on commercial jets by birds in flight [feathers, flesh, bone and cartilage] , according to our hilarious collection of “scientific expert” naysayers here, the 10 ton steel girder will come of worse than the plane. You gotta laugh [to keep from crying]🙂
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. LITTLE BIRD MEETS BIG JET PLANE [REPRISE]

      This is a tale told by Fetzer to buttress his mass-ratio assertions to the plane impacts on the WTC towers. As many of those arguments, he does not argue to mass-ratio, but rather to crash dynamics and comparative materials strength. And he seems not to recognize this himself, as I have queried him on this myself extensively.

      Nevertheless the ‘Bird and Plane’ story is another instance of arguing material strengths and crash dynamics. However in this story he defeats his own mass ratio argument he plays to the crash into the towers. This story is actually an allegory to the building hitting a stationary plane; same dynamics: huge mass hitting tiny mass.

      First, ‘Comparative Materials Strengths:

      What do you suppose the tensile strength of a bird’s skull is? We are talking bone, at most two millimeters thick. The skull of even large birds can be crushed by a strong mans hand. The structural strength of the bones of the rest of the bird is even less than the skull. So in all, the structural strength of the entire bird is very small, birds are very frail in this regard. Now we go back to the airplane strikes bird story: How is it possible that a bird of such frail structure, and a mass thousands of times less than the airplane, is capable of penetrating metal that is stronger than industrial steel?

      To Mass-Ratio v Crash Physics:

      It is possible and has happened hasn’t it? Yes, and it has to do with speed, momentum and kinetics. Just like the impact of the jet into the towers – speed and kinetics and crash physics – not mass ratios; For what would you suppose is the mass ratio of our little bird and a 140 ton airplane? That mass-ratio would be just about 400,000 to 1. And the material strength ratio is literally inconsequential when one is comparing the crash physics of two metal objects to flesh, blood, and bones against metal.

      ww

  28. Morty asks:

    @hybridrogue1 — I would be interested in hearing a scientific explanation, simplified to the point that reasonably intelligent, critical thinking non-experts could understand, that accounts for: a) how the crash dynamics were apparently opposite in Washington and NYC — at the Pentagon a twin engine airliner allegedly struck a building, and left a small impact crater that wasn’t wide enough to accommodate the fuselage, let alone the wings, engines and tail fin, and the official explanation supported by “eyewitness accounts” is that the wings (engines included) folded back and disappeared, whereas in NYC the wings of similar aircraft could penetrate a building, leaving a damage silhouette that roughly mirrors their shape. b) How these scenarios are both inconsistent with any previous or subsequent findings of other airline crashes. Swissair 111– “the aircraft struck the water at 300 knots (560 km/h, 348 mph) in a 20 degrees nose down and 110 degree bank turn, or almost upside down.[37] Less than a second after impact the plane would have been totally crushed, killing all aboard ”

    Thanks you for the questions Morty, I may take more than on post to answer, so let’s begin with the portion of your question I quote above.

    a) The crash dynamics are different because the Pentagon wasn’t a crash, nothing hit the Pentagon. So we aren’t dealing with crash physics there, we are dealing with an internal bombing. Why there and not the towers? Because the top brass is in the Pentagon, and no 100 percent certain, fail safe operation can be guaranteed, and the planners would not take the chance – so it was totally controlled. This was easier, because there weren’t news cameras trained on the Pentagon, like in NY after the first hit.
    So to complete the answer as to whatever the ‘witnesses’ claim to have seen, that is all heresay, and has nothing to do with ‘crash physics’.

    b) “Swissair 111”:

    The WTC Towers were ‘boxes’ like all buildings are. Aside from the structural core and tube facade, these buildings are mostly thin air, work-space for people and their tools of trade.
    So the crash physics are not that of an airplane hitting a solid block, but are the complex issues of momentum, kinetics and comparitive material strengths, etc, as put forth to Onebornfree in my July 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm post.

    As per Swissair 111; Is freezing the only way to turn water into a solid? You said something about learning physics in HS.

    Think these over, and I will look at the rest of your question to see if there are points that need to be addressed beyond what I have already said.

    ww

  29. To Morty again:

    The plane crash physics:

    Note, you said that the plane took a second to enter the tower…no it took around 0.3 of a second from nose to tail. Too quickly for the human eye to notice any deceleration. Neverthelss:

    It bears repeating that the Sandia test determined that there was no measurable change in velocity before or during impact to within an error of 3%.

    A 3% margin of error in a computation showing zero change in velocity is statistically immaterial, as it is imperceptible to human senses.
    ……

    Analysis of F-4 Phantom Jet Impact Velocity

    Sandia National Laboratories conducted a crash test of an F-4 Phantom jet impacting a massive
    concrete block in 1988. Picture 1 is a still frame from the video segment used in the analysis
    (http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx) with an added overlay of blue and red equally
    spaced vertical lines. Although this particular segment is running in slow motion, Sandia reports
    that the initial velocity of the plane before impact was 480 MPH
    (http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html).
    The absolute time measured in units of frames (1/30 of a second) when the tail-end was
    aligned to each vertical line is tabulated in Table 1. Since the error bars are quite large (+/- ½
    frame), the time difference
    was calculated between
    every 2 vertical lines. For
    example, in Picture 1, the
    time difference calculated
    at the first red vertical line
    is taken as the time it takes
    for the tail-end to traverse
    both adjacent blue vertical
    lines, and the result placed
    into the row labeled “Red
    1” in Table 1.
    Since velocity =
    change in distance / change
    in time, and the distance is
    constant (the distance
    between every other
    vertical line), the relative
    velocity ~ 1/change in time and is tabulated in the third column of Table 1. The average
    of this column is computed and is used to normalize the data, resulting in column 4.
    The resulting graph of the normalized velocity is shown in Figure 2. The red and
    blue vertical lines in the graph correspond with those in Picture 1 (left-aligned). An arrow
    marks where the point of impact begins. Each data point should be thought of as a rolling
    average over the distance of 2 units of the x-axis.

    Data could not be taken for the last 20% of the impact since the tail was obscured
    by debris.

    No change in velocity was measured before or during impact to within an error of
    3%.
    ……

    NOTE: This was the above is taken from a PDF – the blank block to the right is where a frame from the slo-mo film of the test shows time segments on the jet hitting the concrete block>

    http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf – [Appendix]

    ww

    1. I can’t believe you are resurrecting the Sandia test. It was an F-4 that was filled with water and mounted on a railroad frame, then run at 500 mph into a concrete barrier. It blew into millions of tiny parts on impact, as its velocity went to ZERO. The plane at the South Tower purportedly flew into a 500,000-ton building, intersecting eight (8) floors with 4-8″ concrete apiece, but DID NOT blow into millions of tiny parts and its velocity DID NOT CHANGE. I really can’t understand what you think you are accomplishing here, because you contribute nothing but smoke and mirrors, which I infer is your mission: to attempt to sew confusion. But take a look: NO ONE IS BUYING WHAT YOU ARE SELLING! We have your number.

      1. It doesn’t matter to me if you prove every time you post that you don’t know diddly squat about physics Fetzer. Keep it up, it’s fine by me.

        Of course the plane that hit the towers shredded as it went through the facade.

        The velocity of the Sandia jet did not go to ZERO in a single instant. It happened real fast, that is what speed does, but everything taking place in the macro world takes time – even the flash of a camera bulb.

        You are conceptually crippled as far as physics is concerned Fetzer, you can mutter about “Newtonian Physics” all day long, but you obviously don’t understand it.

        You are a crank and a shill and you don’t belong here.

        ww

      2. Fetzer says:

        “Everyone has your number…NO ONE IS BUYING WHAT YOU ARE SELLING! We have your number.”

        What do you mean “We” kimosabe? Who turned the singular Professor Fizzhead into a plural being?

        Who exactly does this charlatan thinks he speaks for here?
        ……

        My main point in keeping the thermite debate alive is that it is yet still one of the only physical evidences that prove government complicity. As Jones remarked, there would be no other reason for the towers to have had these substances in them other than to blow them up.

        ww

        1. Since nanothermite cannot possibly have been responsible for blowing the buildings apart, it has to have been there for other reasons, which, as I explain in my Seattle presentation, may have been to prep the exterior facades of both towers to create the cookie-cutter like cut outs to create the impression of planes having hit the Twin Towers. Check it out here:

          Part 1: http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

          Part 2: http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

          or visit Richard Hall’s site at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5DgFcpsxes

      3. Fetzer says:

        [Thermite] “may have been to prep the exterior facades of both towers to create the cookie-cutter like cut outs to create the impression of planes having hit the Twin Towers.”

        Lol, that’s is one of the stupidest things I have seen you write yet. Absolute lunacy.

        ww

        1. More proof (as though we needed any!) that you are completely irresponsible and willing to make sloppy, unsubstantiated posts if you think they have the right rhetorical bite. Clearly, you have not watched my Seattle presentation nor Richard Hall’s masterful 3-D radar study which would enable any rational, non-agenda driven 9/11 student to understand my remark

          911 Flight 175 Radar Data 3D Analysis by Richard D Hall

          As many others have observed, we have your number, hybridrogue1. You are obviously here to obfuscate and obscure, confound and confuse, even about maters that have long since been settled. James, onesliceshort, Senor El Once and many more see through you.
          Your contributions are equal in value to the post-impact velocity of the Sandia F-4: ZERO.

      4. Speaking to the Richard Hall video:

        1] The right wing “slice” is not deep, but is a gash that appears to have cut the aluminum facing and only dented the steel underneath. In fact in several clear shots of this wound, the actual full through entry of the wings were only about half wing out from the engine.

        2] The “second” explosion of the Naude video is not unexpected at the angle the plane hit. It was not ‘seconds’ later if you watch the video at standard speed rather than the slow-mo in the shot in this video – it was but a split second accounted for by the right engine impact after the left engine and center of plane impacted – the right wing would have exploded with the impact as it bears the fuel.

        The conclusion is; no video discrepancies via the civilian radar data.

        However the other conclusions are incorrect for the reasons given above.

        ww

  30. There are signature effects to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific effects to determine the cause and effects of events. The known physical signatures of various types of explosions are well known, and that which distinguishes their differences and similarities. For example the signature of an explosion of a stick of dynamite is easily distinguished from the explosion of an electrical sub-station, and that to the explosion of a gas tank…etc.

    Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose that a nukes, DEW, Nuke/DEW would mimic these very specific signature characteristics.

    This is a sequential consideration that needs to be understood. Until the issue of the signature characteristics of the destruction of the towers is addressed in a full and complete manner, by a full and specific alternative to explosive demolition with a full description of how this alternative can mimic and account for all of the specific signature points – all of them that are well defined and understood, then the alternative fails at the beginning as a viable consideration.

    There are multiple points, including visual evidence, physical forensic evidence, wound evidence, sonic evidence, witness testimonies of their own sight hearing and physical experiences of multiple explosions. Some of these describe the sounds of perimeter wrap-around cutter charges, characterized as “bam bam bam bam,” punctuated by deeper rumbling booms. There is visual photographic evidence of ‘squibs’ – the whole litany every 9/11 researcher should recall from from 9/11 – 101. All of this must be weighed against any alternative theory challenging it.

    Now just consider one point from a guy submitting that there were Holograms used live in NY to trick both live witnesses and cameras:

    >“flying aluminum beer cans…” ~Jim Fetzer

    Tensile Strength:

    > Structural Steel – yield strength: 250 – ultimate strength: 400

    > Aluminum Alloy 2014-T6 – yield strength: 400 – ultimate strength: 450

    ww

  31. Perhaps hybridrogue1 is a cancer on this blog? But since he writes more than any other soul here, I should address you personally. I appreciated some of your JFK observations, but they didn’t speak to my point.

    The government is more than happy to stand by and let researchers fill volumes on points of dissent, so long as they fall within a safe epistemological framework. We all undertand the magic bullet is silly, so no one will invite the wrath of the government by suggesting as much in every blog. This was articulated in “Will History Absolve Us”, that posits that the government’s greatest trick was to perpetually make us believe that we don’t know enough yet; we need to debating, etc? Was it the Cubans, the mob? Oh well, who cam know? That is the safe distance we are allowed, because to move past that into dangerous consensus on the uniting, obvious affinities between all truth advocates, implies we as a people are ready to overthrow the guilty regime.

    And quoting back Tarpley to me is disingenuous, as I was claiming you were among those foolish knaves who want to battle statistics and find shelter among the incredulous “respectful folk.”. Do you really believe that one serious truth advocate in this world would trade any of his well-earned wisdom for all the prestige and respectibility in the world?

    If you think thus, please don’t speak for me, or push your personality all over everyone here and contaminate us like a hooker with tuberculosis.

    You haven’t earned the right to even be in the same room as Dr. Fetzer, let alone throw dirt on his name. Who does that with the cockey swagger as you do but a man who must know at heart he is in league with the very criminals he seeks to out?

    Do you think that if you only comment a thousand times how much you just love nano-thermite as a concept that you will halt the march of progress, close the door n truth? You do nit speak with the humility of one who is getting to know the truth, one who reveres the risk and sacrifice made by us who are ready to endure entire lifetimes without taking that guilty paycheck, or bowing down to any criminal enterprise.

    Forgetting what terrible motive brings you here to receive unversal scorn and enmity from everyone. EVERYONE. Do you not have any decency or pride as a man?

    I am not certain that I am correct all the time, and I am always ready for my entire paradigm to change. Why are you so committed to a preordained ideology?

    I was so thrilled to read here how utterly ludicrous this “John” appeared to readers when he spoke on Kevin B.’s show, because it was clear to me that he was a serious truth-faker, misrepresenting the movement while claiming to protect it.

    This John was shocked people might suppose him an agent. And do you hybridrogue wonder the same? Do you think you can stop the revolution singlehandedly? Which side do you want to be on? Or are you content to just be the first thrown against the wall?

    Make no mistake. When that bright day comes, we will find you–or those like you–and there will be no mercy; the human race cannot afford it. The future will not have any passive citizenry, but only heroic men ready to reinvent possibility on the ruins of the broken bones of the sad, dirty, petty halfmen like yourself.

    1. James You sure have a lot to say without saying anything pertinent about any of the subjects addressed here…just petty rage.

      “petty halfmen like yourself.” Lol, that’s cute.

      ww

  32. @mr. s.s.a. rogue,

    Of course the plane that hit the towers shredded as it went through the facade.

    …..

    The velocity of the Sandia jet did not go to ZERO in a single instant.

    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    But they also spew the most insidious and infantile crap, as well as trying to insult our intelligence to boot.

    So if the ostensible plane got ‘shredded’ by the steel columns upon entering the building, who removed the steel columns afterward and left a big gaping hole?
    And who cut all through the steel columns afterward, where the outer wings impacted and also got ‘shredded’ by those still standing unbroken steel columns?

    Yes, the Sandia jet did go to ZERO upon hitting the concrete block. This is proven by the fact that the concrete block didn’t move away from its place – yes?

    Truly amazing, but also rather tragic-comical that one is “urged” by mr. rogue to ask him these sorts of questions, but i’m doing it just to see what kind of ‘childish’ answers he can come up with next!

    Cheers

    1. Newton’s laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries, and can be summarized as follows:

      First law: Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.

      Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.

      Third law: When two bodies interact by exerting force on each other, these action and reaction forces are equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction.

      See Tangerine? It’s as simple as, 1 – 2 – 3.

      ww

  33. This thread seems to have reached a ‘Ludwig Wittgenstein Cul-De-Sac’ with the arrival of the Fetzerian Nut Train.

    All his fans are so hot with passion and lacking in simple scientific understanding. A sort of “like father like son” analogy.

    Perhaps they have need of sedatives.

    ww

    1. Well, let’s see. onesliceshort has your number. Tamourine man has your number. Senor El Once has your number. James has your number. And others do as well. We are a diverse and varied group. We all have your number. You are a disgrace.

      1. Jim Fetzer says on, July 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm:

        Well, let’s see. onesliceshort has your number. Tamourine man has your number. Senor El Once has your number. James has your number. And others do as well. We are a diverse and varied group. We all have your number. You are a disgrace.

        Onesliceshort and I are in agreement on almost everything. Senor and I have our differences and agreements.

        As for as Onbornfree, Tamborine man, and James…well, huh, the first two know as much about physics as a mouse does about the mechanics of a mouse trap. And as far as James; James has obvious emotional issues in my opinion.

        So as far as ‘your gang’, which I divide Senor and OSS from…I think you are all crackpots and couldn’t care less what numbers you have up your sleeves.

        BTW, I got a couple emails from Prof Jones this afternoon – Just so you know.

        ww

      2. By the way Fetzer

        This was my invitation to James to discuss things with me here:

        :] ‘You are here now, if you consider me “the enemy” – go ahead, confront me…call me out. But be specific, know your facts, and prove your points with those, rather than making broad generalizations.’

        If you have read James’ lunatic rant, you know he did not point out any facts, nor address any of the issues on any rational basis, but simply went on full flame hysterics. And this is just the kind of guy I would expect would fall for your flim flam.

        You are certainly welcome to him in your fold.

        “Disgrace”? You don’t recognize it even sitting neck deep in a pool of your own.

        ww

      3. @mr. rogue,

        As for as Onbornfree, Tamborine man, and James…well, huh, the first two know as much about physics as a mouse does about the mechanics of a mouse trap. And as far as James; James has obvious emotional issues in my opinion.

        So as far as ‘your gang’, which I divide Senor and OSS from…I think you are all crackpots and couldn’t care less what numbers you have up your sleeves.

        Actually, i agree very much with Señor el Once and his “nuggets of Truth” theme.
        In fact i agree with him on many things, and amongst those are the following he addressed especially to you on another thread, to describe how he perceive you as a person, mr. rogue:

        “…..
        6) Artificial Emotions. 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 rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ 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, or simply give up.

        7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
        …..”

        Cheers

        deep within.

      4. Tamborine man,

        I never denied that Senor and I have out differences. However, you will note that he doesn’t agree with you on many issues, and he doesn’t agree with Fetzer on many issues.

        Senor Once gets very heated in our exchanges and makes remarks like the ones you note here, because of the brisance of our exchanges.

        Now if Senor wants to step in here and say that overall, he actually believes the bullshit you quoted him as saying in this post. Fine I will accept that, if he really believes that I am an ‘agent’, we can go with that; he can form any opinions he wishes. If he does actually believe this to be so, let him state thus in no uncertain terms now, while we aren’t in a heated exchange, but now in a state of reflection.

        As far as you Tamborine man – I am dead serious, I think you are too ignorant to discuss any science in any fashion whatsoever, and I don’t give a flying fuck what you think about anything. We are clear on this. Right?

        ww

      5. Dear Mr. Rogue wrote:

        Now if Senor wants to step in here and say that overall, he actually believes the bullshit you quoted him as saying in this post. Fine I will accept that, if he really believes that I am an ‘agent’, we can go with that; he can form any opinions he wishes. If he does actually believe this to be so, let him state thus in no uncertain terms now, while we aren’t in a heated exchange, but now in a state of reflection.

        Mr. Tamborine Man is not quoting from me. He is quoting from the 25 Rules of Disinformation & 8 Traits of the Disinformationalist that I linked to repeatedly and dropped heavy hints as to having parallels with Mr. Rogue’s actions.

        At this point we should separate my beliefs from Mr. Rogue’s actions.

        Mr. Rogue has rightly called me gullible and naive on several occassions. I happen to agree with that assessment. [I tend to look for the good in people.] Which is why lots of seemingly reasonable and agreeable postings from Mr. Rogue has me thinking that — if Mr. Rogue did drink — having an indepth conversation over moderate amounts of libation would be a pleasant experience. I would be easily persuaded into believing that Mr. Rogue is not an agent.

        Whenever I’ve wound up “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” for a swing at Mr. Rogue’s agency associations due to his actions, it’s true intent was to jar Mr. Rogue into reflecting on his actions that have such a negative reflection upon him and to open up his mind to being more objective. This was also the purpose of my giving Mr. Rogue a copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook. It remains a test of his objectivity that coincidentally will allow me (and others) to push his Q-Group agency buttons until a good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter book review is forthcoming.

        Disclaimer: I am not 100% in Dr. Wood’s camp, and neither will Mr. Rogue so be upon completion of this commissioned task. But the surviving (good) nuggets of truth are going to be so, so, so important.

        Seeing how Mr. Rogue has established contact with Dr. Jones, maybe Mr. Rogue will find an opportune moment to present him with links to my criticism of Dr. Jones’ work.

        ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones’ excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement (2012-02-14)

        lead the readers in circles (2012-03-04)

        Possibly even more important that jabbing Dr. Jones with the blatant failings in his reports, Mr. Rogue gives us a great opportunity for a valuable exercise.

        Preamble to the Opportunity

        Mr. McKee included in his article “The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research” this quote from me:

        When we consider how the 9/11 Truth Movement has parsed and analyzed to hairsplitting detail just about everything ever written about 9/11, it becomes a rather obvious flag when that doesn’t happen, or when closer inspection reveals that the analysis is woefully incomplete, writes off the source too quickly as being “crazy, loony, nutty” and disinformation, and passes judgment based on second- or third-hand sources.

        When I opened my wallet to pay for Mr. Rogue’s copy of Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook “Where Did the Towers Go?”, I placed these conditions on the transaction that Mr. Rogue agreed to:

        Conditions:
        – You will give Dr. Wood’s textbook an objective and thorough [cover-to-cover] reading.
        – You will share your good, bad, and ugly reviews. If the “good” is missing, I clobber you with your own copy.
        – If pressed in debate (e.g., on Truth & Shadows), the good, bad, and ugly reviews will extend down to the chapter level. Again, if the good is missing, I clobber you.
        If the book is found worthy, you are to pay-it-forward (or loan/give your copy) to someone else influential in the 9/11 discussion (or leadership).
        – If the book is found totally unworthy at the end of your reading, then you should probably give it to someone who will appreciate it.

        Details to the Golden Opportunity

        Pay-the-book-forward to Dr. Jones, Mr. Rogue, so that the entire world can benefit from his good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter book review of Dr. Wood’s efforts.

        From your own experience with me, you can inform Dr. Jones that refusal to accept (or acquire) a copy will be made into hay as will all actions that don’t lead to an objective and thorough assessments.

      6. Senor el Once,

        I am going to read Wood’s book, and I will keep the book regardless of my assessment of her analysis, simply because it is a handsome volume, with the most comprehensive collection of images from the events, plus interesting charts and figures.

        As far as Prof Jones is concerned – like I said in another post, he is fed up with all of the contentions and bickering in the movement, and has moved on to working towards a more sane energy solution for the planet.

        I feel it is a great loss to the community that he was harassed to the point of bowing out.

        Whatever your take on him is utterly inconsequential to my opinions.

        Although I won’t send anything critical of him myself, his email is well enough known, and if you don’t have it, Mr McKee does, and will surely advance it to you, or just go to the BYU web page for Jones.

        I will however myself, read your two ‘critiques’ to see if there is anything there that hasn’t been floated to me before.

        ww

      1. No wonder it looks so obviously fake ! Overly bluish tint, strange looking smoke and bright orange fire [conveniently contrasted with overly blue background. Nonsensical, pasted in looking [or layered in] bright green foreground.

        Let me see, [ from his linkedin profile] : ” Forensic Photography Specialist at City of Phoenix .Past: Media Production Specialist at City of Phoenix, Video Editor at KTVK, [and last but not least]: “Combat Photographic Specialist at United States Marine Corps. ”

        That explains it all. And we are supposed to believe this is an authentic 9/11 photo? In what universe?

        Also his “fabulous” “high resolution” photos did not magically appear until 2007. What a guy!

        Just one more blatant example of government propaganda as far as I can see – personally, I would not believe one pixel of any of his alleged Pentagon photos, but I would guess that the “usual suspects” here and elsewhere have sucked this stuff right on up, as suckers invariably do.

        Regards, onebornfree.

      2. Jesus, I bet onebornfree shoots two glances out of the window when he opens his curtains in the morning.

        “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.” ― William Blake

  34. *cough*Pentagon discussion?*cough*

    Nice work Craig.

    He therefore states that it’s 93 for SoC and 13 for NoC (those interviewed by CIT). He doesn’t like the fact that Griffin found a number of these witnesses not to be credible.

    and those that allegedly “claimed that he aircraft was too low to pull up”

    Wow. He’s upping the ante and using Snowcrash “logic”.

    “If a witness claims to have seen an impact, he is therefore an SOC witness”

    You call it “circular logic” Craig, and I’ve struggled all year to label the logic of that statement! Ha!

    And who the hell claimed it was “too low to pull up”?

    I’ve had a lot of balls in the air lately, so I’m going to set a few down and bury this lie once and for all over the next few days.

    @truthoz (hi Noemi!)

    Did Bursill ever mention the thread at 911Oz where I confronted him on dropping the “scientific community” like a 14 year old hides his porn when his mum walks into the bedroom, when the muppets at TruthAction treat them like shit and he keeps his trap shut?

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12267

    @Barbara Honegger

    Shockin’

  35. Tamborine man says: “So if the ostensible plane got ‘shredded’ by the steel columns upon entering the building, who removed the steel columns afterward and left a big gaping hole?
    And who cut all through the steel columns afterward, where the outer wings impacted and also got ‘shredded’ by those still standing unbroken steel columns?”

    Who indeed? Reply- blank out!

    So, if plane aluminum really does cut straight through multiple steel columns weighing 100’s of tons simultaneously, as our chief resident “scientific expert” know-it -all claims to “prove” in his numerous voluminous pontifications here, presumably the new “Freedom Tower” will not have a steel framework at all but one made entirely out of aircraft aluminum instead, because its “stronger” . Makes sense to me !

    I wonder what the structural engineers would say to that idea- after all, it could save $millions in construction costs.🙂

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Regards onebornfree says:

      “…presumably the new “Freedom Tower” will not have a steel framework at all but one made entirely out of aircraft aluminum instead, because its “stronger” . Makes sense to me !

      I wonder what the structural engineers would say to that idea- after all, it could save $millions in construction costs.”

      Like almost everything you say here, you are wrong – aluminum is much more expensive that steel. It would be millions of dollars more expensive. Plus, you do not understand that tensile strength and load bearing strength are separate things altogether.

      ww

  36. I did receive a reply from Prof Jones today.

    I may or may not discuss that reply here, depending upon whether he approves my sharing it.

    I will say that none of my detractors will like nor approve of what he says. That is a given, as they obviously don’t like real physics getting in the way of their ideas.

    ww

  37. Yeah, that’s the one.

    Oh no, not about Honegger. I’d just like to see if Jones et al know what the hell is happening on the ground. I’m sure they do but I’d like to see some form of reaction. From one of them!

    Or drop it off another day if you want?

    Cheers

    1. Okay OSS,

      Will you do that thingy where you get the numbers of the post in the URL address for me?…post it back to me here and I will forward that, with a short explanation of why you want him to see it.

      ww

      1. OSS

        I got the impression from Prof Jones’ last email that he is not interested in anymore involvement with the disputes between parties in the 9/11 community.

        I certainly don’t blame him after his name being dragged through the mud by the agenteur and crackpots that have been on his ass for these many years. It would be one thing to be confronted by the MSM, but is entirely another…such as when so called friends and colleagues, such as Fetzer stabbed him in the back.

        ww

      2. Thanks Willy.

        I wasn’t really expecting a response.

        It’s just bizarre that the only people defending their work or at least their contribution on subjects they have actually researched, are the “disruptors” and “agent provocateurs” like me! And that the two-faced sycophants that originally refered to them as the “scientific community” until they signed up to the CIT and P4911T bashing bandwagon, are now pissing on them.

        The silence is deafening.

  38. Jim Fetzer Says:”You are obviously here to obfuscate and obscure, confound and confuse, even about maters that have long since been settled. James, onesliceshort, Senor El Once and many more see through you.”

    Ahem! Sorry Jim but both onesliceshort, [or O.S.S. for short, same as the original acronym for the C.I.A.], and Senor El Once are both smoking from the same bong as the head bozo here in the fairytale in la la land of government lies they all bend over backwards to support, like a team of trained monkeys – they believe that aluminum cuts steel and that planes penetrated WTC1 and 2.

    These trained monkeys [ or 3 stooges] are good for a laugh though🙂

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

      The trained monkeys or three stooges with whom I share my bong is none of your business. You are welcome to drink my bong water, though.

      they believe that aluminum cuts steel and that planes penetrated WTC1 and 2.

      I believe that any substance A accelerated to large velocities can do damaging and crippling numbers on just about any other substance B, even as substance A gets decimated into nothingness in the process. This is why debris left in space — even a tiny screw or nut — can be so dangerous. While lead is very heavy and dense, it is also very maluable but can punch through steel when projected as a bullet.

      With your (repeatedly proven) superficial understanding of physics, it is easy to see why you would make an issue of light sheet metal and aluminum of the aircraft seemingly slicing the heavy outer steel of the tower structure. However, I submit to you that velocity of the aircraft [confirmed by multiple independent video angles and radar data] is a key.

      Velocity-squared in the energy equation — as demonstrated by several MythBuster videos with rocket sleds and rocket wedges — can be decimating, with surprising material failure unfathomable at much slower “human” or “car” speeds.

      While speeds of 400-500 mph should introduce some uncertainty to your superficial knowledge of Newtonian collisions with regards to perceiving what would happen to impact points, those velocities are also a smoking gun that disprove the govt contention of “what types of aircraft” were involved, because normal commercial aircraft could not have flown those speeds with such precision (manually by non-professional pilots, no less) at those low-altitudes. The engines alone would have been incapable of producing the necessarily thrust in the thick air.

      Therefore, when the very real prospect of NPCT [no commercial plane conspiracy theory] is entertained that uses suped-up engines and computer guidance to get the velocity and precision targeting, all of your conjecture about “(weak) aluminum (wings) cutting steel (columns)” may be based on a faulty assumption as to what materials were truly in the wings.

      1. Senor, PLEASE CONSULT SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS PHYSICS. Newton’s third law demands that every action had an equal and opposite reaction. This does not depend on the speed of an impact, as you seem to believe. It means that the effects of an aluminum aircraft hitting a stationary 500,000-ton building at 500 mph would be the same as that 500,000-ton building hitting the same plane are rest. It is elementary. If the plane were flying at any other speed, the same principle would still apply. I find it embarrassing that someone as smart as you should be as dumb as this about something that is as simple as Newton’s third law. onesliceshort and I are doing our best to educate you, but you appear to be impervious to our points. So PLEASE FIND SOMEONE YOU TRUST AND DISCUSS THIS. Be sure to tell them the plane would be intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external steel support columns at the other and filled with 4-8″ of concrete. Just ask what would happen if a commercial plane were to impact with JUST ONE OF THOSE FLOORS IN FLIGHT? Ask if a plane could enter its whole length into the building without any loss of velocity or how it could do that without exploding on entry. Tell him the plane was allegedly traveling 500 mph into a building that was 208′ on a side, where even though the plane was 160 feet long, it did not come out the other side. Ask him what’s wrong with that.

      2. So Fetzer reminds us yet again:

        “Newton’s third law demands that every action had an equal and opposite reaction.”

        ……….

        But he neglects mention of the first two laws that set the ‘Frame’ that must be considered before the third law comes to effect.

        > First law: Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.
        ……….
        This first law has to do with inertia or momentum, depending on the original states of the bodies in question.

        As per the event we speak to, the first body is the building. In the frame, ie planet Earth; this body is at rest, an inert state, which has only one property: Mass.

        >Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.
        ……….
        A state of Momentum has three components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction. [*vector] -Velocity is described as mass-times-velocity squared in the energy equation.

        Moment and Point of Impact are both necessary integers in formulating impact physics. At that point and moment the kinetic energy of the mass in movement is transferred into the building AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT – the impact zone.

        It is at this point that we come to the third law; that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And this does certainly depend on the speed of an impact, regardless of what Fetzer claims, as the first two laws clearly state that they are of first and second account before the third proposition can manifest.
        ……….

        I am fairly sure that Senor Once is familiar with these laws, and can reassert what I have just said in his own way.

        ww

      3. Dear Dr. Fetzer, you wrote:

        Senor, PLEASE CONSULT SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS PHYSICS.

        With all due respect, I encourage you to do the same. Although the physics department of your alma matter received honors during the time you were taking classes, did such excellence extend down to the TA’s teaching the entry level “Physics without Calculus” courses that you took?

        Let’s talk about that third law from Newton regarding an equal an opposite reaction.

        From the perspective of the aluminum aircraft, a 500,000 ton mesh steel building was closing at 500 mph. Yes indeed, the velocity squared in the energy equation is very significant, and much greater than the structural energy of the materials in the plane.

        Luckily, for the parts of the aircraft going into the 40 cm wide windows (on 100 cm centers), we expect to see shredding ala a “hard-boiled egg slicer.” Plenty of space for the shreddings to go.

        For Newton’s third law, the parts of the aircraft hitting the 60 cm wide columns (on 100 cm centers) or the eight (8) floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external steel support columns at the other and filled with 4-8″ of concrete, we expect to see energy transfer (recall the velocity-squared term) from the building obstacles which then overwhelm the structural energy of the light aircraft materials resulting in decimation of those aircraft materials, when they aren’t redirected into the empty spaces of the window slits and between floors.

        Think of the bullet hitting a steel plate. The equal and opposite energy coming back at the bullet from the plate splatters that bullet to kingdom come on the forward side of the plate. The equal and opposite energy going into the steel plate breaks the steel and sends a plug of steel out the backside.

        When impact between building and plane happens and energy is being transferred from the building to the plane, lo and behold, Newton’s third law says that an equal an opposite reaction is happening! Thus, those materials of the plane hitting building structure — though getting decimated themselves — transfer energy into the steel which has the effect of breaking and slicing those steel columns.

        Ask if a plane could enter its whole length into the building without any loss of velocity or how it could do that without exploding on entry.

        This without any loss of velocity nonsense is patently false.

        We are not talking about velocities of humans or cars with < ~160 mph closing velocities in a head-on crash, where the velocity-squared term is still about on the order of the structural energy of the vehicle. [However, if we were, it would behoove you to study race car crashes, whereby hitting a wall often leaves the vehicle in pieces hardly recognizable.]

        With the 9/11 NCPT (no commercial plane theory), the velocities are even greater, and the energy exponentially so. Parts of the planing hitting the solid parts of the building STOPPED with such overwhelming force compared to the structural energy of the materials, they were shattered and separated from the aircraft mass, and their momentum carried them into the empty space between floors — path of least resistence. Not being part of the aircraft structure or mass anymore, they could play no more role in slowing down the aircraft’s tail. [Those parts entering the window slit “slicing & dicing” empty space wouldn’t have slowed the tail observably in milli-seconds, either.]

        If you haven’t alienated all of the physics professors at your college, ask them why they aren’t involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement? Surely WTC-7’s 100 feet of free-fall ought to convince them.

        //

        1. Comparing a bullet — which is a solid, dense object — with an aluminum aircraft — which is not — discredits your analysis, Señor. I am sorry, but you have convinced me that, when it comes to physics and collision impacts, you are completely and utterly incompetent.

          A less flawed analogy would be a car traveling very, very fast impacting with an enormous tree. Would you expect the car to effortlessly pass through the tree? Yet that is what you are palming off as a plausible account of this encounter, which is as flaky as they get.

          rogue likes to cite the Sandia test, where a fighter made of synthetic material collides with a huge concrete barrier. Unlike the plane in these videos, it blows apart into millions of tiny pieces and its velocity drops to zero. It does not pass through the barrier! You are twins!

      4. Dear Professor Fetzer,

        You seem to have a hankering for playing the strawman card as exhibited by your message from July 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm:

        Comparing a bullet — which is a solid, dense object — with an aluminum aircraft — which is not — discredits your analysis, Señor.

        No it doesn’t, because your “magna cum laude in philosophy from Princeton,” “four years as a regular officer in the Marine Corps as an artillery officer,” “Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, and “35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning seems to have some gaps when it comes to appreciating physics 101 concepts, energy magnitudes, and energy transfer (ala “equal-and-opposite”.) “Don’t use it [understanding of physics], you lose it.”

        Observing the high-speed films in slow-motion of what a bullet does upon impact with steel is relevant in part. It transmits energy into the steel causing a hole out the backside, while the equal-and-opposite energy splatters and shatters the bullet on the forward side of the plate — it never pierces it.

        What part of the phrase “special plane” alludes you? You are making assumptions that you can’t support regarding “an aluminum aircraft.” What materials were in the “special plane”, we don’t know. But from your harping of what “an aluminum aircraft” cannot do, then via critical thinking and scientific reasoning applied to the observed sliced steel beams in the RoadRunner-esque outline of a plane, maybe we can safely conclude that the “special plane” was not “an aluminum aircraft.” [JOKE] It was made out of lead like a bullet. [/JOKE]

        What we do know is that the plane wasn’t the stated “UA 175 Boeing 767 aluminum aircraft,” because neither engines nor structure of that particular UA 175 could have achieved such velocities at such low-altitudes without breaking apart and for sure without major targeting control issues. We also know that something physical flew the path, else radar data would probably have come up empty or with glaring signs of inconsistencies and having been juked.

        The gaps in your education has you fail to appreciate exponential growth in energy and how large velocities affects it. Case in point:

        A less flawed analogy would be a car traveling very, very fast impacting with an enormous tree. Would you expect the car to effortlessly pass through the tree? Yet that is what you are palming off as a plausible account of this encounter, which is as flaky as they get.

        No, Dr. Fetzer, this is a more flawed analogy. Please give a speed for that “car traveling very, very fast” [and note that it is significantly slower than the 9/11 aircraft.] If you want, I’ll even let you assume it is a race car that has velocities that might approach 200 mph. With m being some arbitrary mass for your vehicle:

        Energy 1=(1/2)*m*(v^2)=(1/2)*(200^2)*m=(20,000)*m

        Nope, I don’t expect it to go effortlessly to pass through the tree that it impacts. I expect the vehicle to be unrecognizable as such and the tree — depending on its truck thickness — to be mortally wounded.

        Now Dr. Fetzer, I want you to take that same tree and put it at the end of a quarter mile track, on the far end of which you’ll launch a Mythbuster rocket sled with your car strapped on. The rockets will give it a velocity of 500 mph. Velocity-squared in the energy equation will make your car even less recognizable while making chopsticks of your tree. [The same mass m as before.]

        Energy 2=(1/2)*m*(v^2)=(1/2)*(400^2)*m=(125,000)*m

        (Energy 2)/(Energy 1)=((125,000)*(m))/((20,000)*(m))=6.25

        Increasing the velocity from 200 mph to 500 mph (by 2.5) increased the energy by 6.25 times.

        Yet a further twist, Dr. Fetzer. Now replace your car on the rocket-sled with a hardened “special car.”

        Oh my goodness! Just like the Mythbuster rocket wedge (e.g., from its “snowplow meets car” episode), you might just see it “effortlessly passing through the tree.” Or more likely, you’ll see the “special car” splatter and decimate, while at the same time making chopsticks for mice out of the tree.

        rogue likes to cite the Sandia test, where a fighter made of synthetic material collides with a huge concrete barrier. Unlike the plane in these videos, it blows apart into millions of tiny pieces and its velocity drops to zero. It does not pass through the barrier!

        The Sandia test was a test of the barrier, not of the plane. The barrier was a sample with which they wanted to fortify nuclear facilities. It was designed so that the whatever they rocketed its direction wouldn’t get through. By barrier design.

        The tower was not the same as the concrete barrier. One of the designers of the WTC said that a plane impact would be like poking a pencil through a mosquito screen. World Trace Center:

        The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers.

        WTC-2 was 1,341 ft tall and had 110 floors, which works out to about ~12 [ft/floor] (or ~3.72 m/foor). Allow me to pull a number out of my a$$ by saying that the fluted steel deck was also 4 inches [this can be tweaked later], so that each floor represented 8 inches [or 0.2 m] of concrete and steel [not including trusses] that would slice the fuselage horizontally.

        767 Fuselage height: 17 ft 9 in (5.41 m)
        767 Fuselage width: 16 ft 6 in (5.03 m)

        The fuselage would be sliced by one or two horizontal 0.2 m concrete and steel floors (not including trusses). Now let’s factor in the vertical columns that were 60 cm wide on 100 cm centers. The fuselage would have hit five or six of these. Horizontally fully 2 m of the 5 m fuselage width and vertically ~5 m of the 5.41 m fuselage height WOULD NOT HAVE ENCOUNTERED ANY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL RESISTANCE and had plenty of path-of-least-resistance office space available to park the sliced fuselage.

        The 156 ft (or 47.6 m) 767 wingspan? [Blatantly ignoring wing tilt] ~40% of this (~19 m) would have been able to enter the window slits without significant resistance, while ~28 m of wingspan would have had 60 cm columns on 100 cm centers to contend with. If the material of the some of the wings was hardened just like we know the engines were suped up, columns and wings mutually get the equal-and-opposite dice-o-matic treatment.

        The point, Dr. Fetzer, is that over the outline of a (special) aircraft and given the “porous” nature of the tower exterior walls, plenty of non-resistive air space existed between floors and between columns for a (special) aircraft to (seemingly) “effortlessly” slice & dice itself into… poking a pencil through a mosquito screen.

        I am sorry, but you have convinced me that, when it comes to physics and collision impacts, you are completely and utterly incompetent.

        Oooh, Dr. Fetzer! You make my feet tingle when you attack me with such ad hominem! I love it. Please write more… So that one day I can tabulate your statistics in this vein that will undoubtedly show how you let your “magna cum laude” ego get in the way of “logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.”

        P.S. I’m the one who posted a version of the Constellation crash. The poles are sliced. The wings are damaged from impact with the poles, but then nose gear collapsing, the propellors hitting the ground, and the engines twisting completes the job of slicing the wings into chunks. I brought up the Constellation video to help prove why the Pentagon poles were staged even if the plane had flown SOC and into the Pentagon [which I’m not saying it did; I’m NOC, baby!] Although made as break-away posts, the aluminum light poles smacking the wings at 500 mph probably would have had the aircraft break apart over the lawn and then tumbled into the Pentagon. The NOC flight path was clearly an instance — like the JFK magic bullet — where the operation screwed up, and one compartmentalized team on the right hand didn’t know what the other compartmentalized team on the left hand was doing.

        1. Well, I had a year-long physics course, when Princeton was ranked #1 in the world in physics. The history of science is dominated by the history of physics. What matters more, however, is your utter incapacity to appreciate Newton’s third law. Have you taken a good look at the exterior of the South Tower? at the number of floors that were intersected by the alleged plane? An effortless entry of the kind displayed there is physically impossible. I hope you took a look at the Constellation hitting a wooden post, which ripped its wing off the plane. Or try some of the images of the damage impacts with birds do to aircraft in flight. I am sorry, Senor, but your position about this is completely indefensible. It’s a pity, because you have an elegant (if somewhat verbose) style of discourse. But your content is absurd. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpYkaoC6LO8

      5. Dear Fetzer,

        Ooooo! I am impressed:

        Well, I had a year-long physics course, when Princeton was ranked #1 in the world in physics.

        Isn’t that a bit like saying: “I attended some Big-8 university when they had the #1 college football team, so naturally I’ll be able to throw a football farther than you!”

        You make quite a strong, logical, and well reasoned scientific argument with that one (NOT), as you pump up your glory days. Amazing how the honors bestowed upon the Princeton Physics Department of that era rubs off onto the credibility of an undergraduate philosophy major at the time, who took the version of physics that had students memorize Newton’s equations rather than using Newton’s Calculus to derive Newton’s physics equations before applying them.

        What matters more, however, is your utter incapacity to appreciate Newton’s third law.

        “For every action (force), there is an equal and opposite re-action.”

        Your “utter incapacity” to imagine a “special plane” traveling at 500 mph with suped up engines, enhanced wings & structure, computer precision, radar signature, video signatures from multiple view points, and carrying an unknown explosive payload (even when the Sandia Crash and several MythBuster videos featuring rocket-sleds and those velocities leave little to the imagination) is why you, Dr. Fetzer, repeatedly enter these discussions armed with nothing but ad hominem and ancient bravado of a ranked Princeton Physics department that you had no hand in and only marginally benefited from in your magna cum laude philosophy efforts.

        Your weak understanding of physics can’t take off the table a “special plane”, despite you throwing holograms at it (that have no radar signatures). Can’t prove that holographic contention in the least, so you have to run me through the mud to build yourself up.

        If the Dr. Fetzer name wasn’t already a brand (not necessarily a reputable one) in the 9/11 movement, Mr. McKee probably would have shown you Albury Smith’s exit door [that I suspect has academic affiliations as well.]

        Have you taken a good look at the exterior of the South Tower? at the number of floors that were intersected by the alleged plane?

        “Alleged plane” hits the nail on the head. How about getting with the correct venacular: “alleged special plane.” A missile with the lipstick of a plane. A plane-looking-missile.

        An effortless entry of the kind displayed there is physically impossible.

        500 mph at 1/2 mile above sea level ain’t so effortless and met with significant air resistance. It took a suped up special plane. A plane-looking-missile.

        I hope you took a look at the Constellation hitting a wooden post, which ripped its wing off the plane. Or try some of the images of the damage impacts with birds do to aircraft in flight.

        Now put the adjective “special” in front of the words “plane” and “aircraft.”

        I am sorry, Senor, but your position about this is completely indefensible. It’s a pity, because you have an elegant (if somewhat verbose) style of discourse. But your content is absurd.

        Oooo. A pity indeed it is. A professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning with a Piled-High-and-Deep Degree in the history and philosophy of science does not a physics professor make, regardless of that Marine Officer chip on his shoulder that bullies others with ad hominem.

        The math and calculus are most strikingly MIA from all your postings. Ergo, your “utter incapacity” to grasp velocity-squared at high velocities.

    2. Myself, Hybridrogue1 and Señor el Once have all put out doots up throughout these blogs. On many points we all either disagree, agree to an extent, agree to disagree.
      Each trying very hard to make sure we back up our claims. AFAIK, nobody here has quoted the OCT. relied on it. Pointed to it.

      Each time you open your peephole on any specific details of your “theory”, such as the WTC7 video, the flaws of which you and Simon Shack haven’t the decency to address (or the “fade to black/nose out” claims), you pretend you can’t see the posts or change the subject.

      This is where your tactics here bother me. As they should everyone else. And no, I’m not going for the “disinfo/govt agent/disruptor” tag. I’m talking about the negative, “if you try to debunk the official story, you’re actually giving it credibility”, “why bother”, “let’s give up” bizarro, wordsmithery that you’re spamming here.

      No, I’m not going for the “whacko” label. Do you actually know what you’re talking about? Do you actually believe that the best way to pick at the MO of these murdering scumbags is to pick at those who are trying to sift through the tons of bullshit that lies under the banner of the “official story”?

      Your two main focuses are “video/image fakery” and the “unreliability of witnesses” which just so happen to be two of the main three independently verifiable sources for everybody to investigate.

      Look at the titles of all of the blogs that you have posted on. They all concern elements of the “official story”.

      So why are you here? Not as in “go away/why are you here”.

      Just why are you here?

      1. Even Anthony Lawson understands that WTC-7 was a classic controlled demolition. What is the point of arguing what has been established? Haven’t you seen “This is an orange”?

      2. Curious that you would bring up Anthony Lawson “doctor” Fetzer…I just happen to have a couple of quotes from him, that read thus:

        “Dr. Fetzer’s claims rest entirely on his personal belief—bolstered by others of a similar persuasion or with an interest in spreading disinformation—that the events depicted in these videos were impossible, because they defied Newton’s Laws of Motion as well as those of more-modern theoretical aerodynamics. Therefore, it is his contention that the videos must have been faked. Which does not even come close to proving that the videos were faked.”~Anthony Lawson

        “Few are as damaging to the 9/11 Truth Movement as Dr. James Fetzer. Because of his academic status as a scholar and professor emeritus, his regular media and conference appearances makes him a perfect target for the mainstream-media lackeys who are hell bent on discrediting any alternative theory about 9/11, and the opportunity to discredit this extraordinary alternative view, about what happened in New York.” ~Anthony Lawson

        One might wonder how it is you sabotage yourself so often.

        ww

    3. Dear Mr onebornfree and friends, The penetration of WTC2 by the aircraft travelling at about 500mph has been addressed by many folks on this blog. Indeed Senor El Once has yet again explained this in a recent post. If you and others have a superficial understanding of physics permit me to make a simpler explanation.

      A modern commercial jet aircraft is made from lightweight, high tensile materials for the purpose of flying, landing and taking off. Unlike an automobile which is built and tested to withstand some minor collision damage with stationary objects and/or other vehicles, an aircraft is not designed to withstand collisions with stationary objects. A Boeing or similar aircraft weighs in at 100 tons+ and can fly which is amazing really. The lightweight, high strength materials are constructed in various shapes to withstand the forces that are in play while flying, taking off and landing. Consider the wing of such an aircraft. It is not just what what can be seen on the outside (smooth aerodynamic lines) there is an ultra strong alloy frame. There is also an ultra strong frame which the sleek body of the aircraft is built around. Then there is miles of wiring, insulation and modern plastics that make up the rest of the aircraft’s construction. This configuration is not designed to impact with solid objects.

      You may have noticed “no step” printed on certain parts of the wings of aircraft. Indeed, some parts of an aircraft cannot withstand the weight of an engineer who might be performing some maintanence on the wing for example. So while the huge 100+ ton aircraft constructed from lightweight, high tensile materials can fly, land and take off, it’s kinda fragile while flying at 500mph and encountering stationary objects such as high rise buildings.

      Note the WTC towers were not solid blocks of concrete. Up until the point of impact the aircraft was still a fully functioning aircraft. When it struck the lattice-like exterior of the WTC at about 500 mph, and this is the point here, 500 mph, It’s mass is going to keep moving and take out whatever is in the way although because of the construction (lightweight but high strength, built for flying) the aircraft will break up as it is going forward but it will take out a few fabricated steel trusses. NOT 10 ton steel beams, OBF. Tamborine man seems to think after the impact there should’ve been an aircraft sitting in there amongst the offices. No. It will have shredded due to it’s construction. It will have shredded because it is/was an aircraft (not a flying tank) travelling at 500+mph.

      1. The ignorance of physics here is simply astounding. Even under the most charitable theory of “shredding”, since the windows were very small to keep from heating up the towers and place demands on their air conditioning systems, far less than 50% of such a plane could have passed into the buildings. Moreover, their fuel tanks–in both their wings–would have exploded on impact. The fuselage would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. There were NO effects of collision, where Flight 175, for example, did not even SLOW DOWN. Instead, it passed through the South Tower at the same speed (in excess of 500 mph) it had entered the building. Since it was 160 feel long and the tower only 208 on a side, WHERE DID IT GO? How could it have passed completely into the building–all 160 feet of it!–at the same speed it entered (over 500 mph) and not come out the other side? Your position is not only ridiculous on its face but is completely absurd from the point of view of physics. AT LEAST SOME CONSIDER-ABLE PORTION OF THAT MASS WOULD HAVE EXITED THE OTHER SIDE, HAD ANY OF THIS HAPPENED AS YOU CONJECTURE. The stupidity here about physics is simply pitiful.

      2. Jim Fetzer says:

        “The ignorance of physics here is simply astounding. Even under the most charitable theory of “shredding”, since the windows were very small to keep from heating up the towers and place demands on their air conditioning systems, far less than 50% of such a plane could have passed into the buildings.”The ignorance of physics here is simply astounding. Even under the most charitable theory of “shredding”, since the windows were very small to keep from heating up the towers and place demands on their air conditioning systems, far less than 50% of such a plane could have passed into the buildings.”

        Fetzer is again utterly wrong, there is nothing at all here that alwhitesands says that is not proper according to the physics of this aircrash.

        So it is Fetzer, once again showing his own utter ignorance of physics. His arbitrary figure of less than 50% of the airplane would have slammed through the facade is arbitrary nonsense he pulled out of his overactive whoopy cushion.

        Anyone who can seriously submit that the wings and tale would have simply “broken off” at a crash of such speed and energy is speaking through their trousers; the portions that didn’t make it through would have burst into fragments just like the jet in the Sandia test. One can see such a spray of fragmented material ejected as the jet fuel ignited on impact, these debris are building and airplane blowing out in our
        reaction to the action which takes place in a matter of a few seconds all along the moment line from facade to the central core, and out the side of the building – as this was an angled hit.

        It should also be mentioned that even standard Boeings of this class have Kevlar fairings on the leading and rear edges of both the wings and stabilizers, as well as at the joins to the body of the aircraft. Considering these were hardened and souped up military craft in commercial colors as camouflage, they were certainly retrofitted specially for the task.

        I would say that Fetzer is the one that should be embarrassed, buy coming around challenging anyone on issues of applied physics. He is utterly clueless.

        ww

        1. If you take a closer look at the cut-out on the facade of the South Tower, you will see that it does not include the steel where the wings would have had to pass, were your theory of the impact correct. The ends of the wings would have had to have broken off. At that speed, parts of the plane would have blown out the opposite side, which also did not happen. The plane, remember, was 160 feet long and the building only 208 feet on a side. Your account is a fantasy anyway you cut it. And of course the Sadia plane blew apart into millions of tiny pieces and its velocity fell to zero, neither of which occurred with this alleged “Flight 175”.

      3. Hi alwhitesands,

        you write:

        Tamborine man seems to think after the impact there should’ve been an aircraft sitting in there amongst the offices. No.

        Actually, as a matter of fact, i don’t believe a plane impacted the WTC tower at all.

        But contrary to what you’re saying above, i wrote that IF a plane had impacted, we should have seen sections of said plane continue on its travel of more than 500 m/h by the very very short distance to the back wall and impact this facade as well, but that’s not what we have seen happening.
        Part of the back wall in question, shows no sign of having been damaged by any kind of heavy parts coming at it with a velocity of more than 500 m/h!

        I’m genuinely puzzled about how and why you could get the wordings in my post so wrong??

        Would i be right or wrong in thinking that you’re the dear wife of mr. Willy Witten, joining us here to give mr. rogue some badly needed “moral support”?

        Cheers

      4. Again Fetzer makes note of information that blows his own argument out of the water:

        1. The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects. `Jim Fetzer – point number {1.}

        As he fails to recall that Frank DeMartini pointed out the planes would simply PUNCTURE the facade of the building like a pencil through mosquito netting, not that the pencil would hit the netting – break off the graphite point and fall back from the netting:

        “The buildings was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it…I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners, becaus this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid – and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting…”Frank DeMartini January 2001 film interview

        And DeMartini described exactly what was seen that day, the jet puncturing the facade like a pencil through screen netting.

        ww

        ww

      5. Tamborine man, you are truly an unobservant twit.

        You write back to Al Whitesands:

        “i wrote that IF a plane had impacted, we should have seen sections of said plane continue on its travel of more than 500 m/h by the very very short distance to the back wall and impact this facade as well, but that’s not what we have seen happening.
        Part of the back wall in question, shows no sign of having been damaged by any kind of heavy parts coming at it with a velocity of more than 500 m/h!”

        When in reality; the plane hit at an angle and DID blow out the right side to the face it hit, not so much any heavy parts, but the fractured parts of plane and building that would be expected.

        Anyone who has allegedly studied the issues and who can follow a travelling thought, should be able to keep such simple and familiar details in mind without tripping over his own tongue.
        ……….

        Your vapid comment about Whitesands being my ‘wife’, as a form of insipid intimidation, is the very thing that gives away your true nature as a vicious little pretender at ‘Zen calm and gentle consciousness’. You are a fraud like all the idiots you champion.

        ww

      6. Fetzer says:

        >”If you take a closer look at the cut-out on the facade of the South Tower…”
        ……….

        You misframe the entire event with this “cut-out” bullshit Fetzer.

        It is not a “cut-out,” it is an impact wound.

        The rest of your current post is the same nonsense that has been reputed too many time over to go through here again.

        You are massaging the lowest common denominator here Fetzer, the dimwits like Tangerbean man and Onebornfree, who are scientifically challenged and think with pretzel logic. Whether you are actually as stupid as you put on is the question.

        Either you’re cops or fruitloops — a disinfo agent or a crackpot.

        Either way, any lucid thinker can see through your obvious bullshit. And no matter how many times you repeat this crap it isn’t going to fly.

        ww

  39. Craig McKee said: “It seems to be their mission to convince all of us that we just don’t know what happened and we probably never will. ”

    No Craig, as Bursill states:” “….we don’t know what happened and there is evidence that a plane did hit there.”

    In other words, we are supposed to first assume the governments story is true because according to Mr Bursill “there is evidence that a plane did hit there.” _Despite_ the fact that : “we don’t know what happened” .

    Talk about a contradiction! : “We don’t know what happened” _therefor_ we should all assume that the government is telling the truth!

    The idea is to get everyone to start from the _wrong_ initial assumption – that the government is telling the truth, and proceed from that important , false assumption [which will inevitably lead to more false assumptions, wherever that initial false assumption is made- be it NYC or PA].

    It’s an issue of investigative methodology.

    Start from a position of trust, or mistrust ,of the governments story? Mr Bursill [like most here] , wants you and I to start from a position of trust. This prevents the real 9/11 truth from getting out [e.g the medias 9/11 media fakery] and up to a point ensures damage control [i.e. ensures false “limited hangout” conclusions ], delaying consensus.

    Craig McKee said: “Legge, Bursill and others in their group seem to think we have to start with absolute proof of what did happen before we begin to question the official version. There’s no requirement for the government to prove that a plane hit, for example.”

    Again, the issue of investigative methodology- should an honest 9/11 investigation start with the premise that the government is telling the truth about any part of its story, or, should it proceed from the initial assumption that the government is probably lying about every part of its story and that therefor it is necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt _every_ single part of its story, and that any/every single piece of evidence it drags up is genuine? [ be it alleged “eyewitness testimony”, alleged “live video footage” or alleged still photos taken by government employees and mysteriously not released until 2007 – for example the blatantly “photoshopped”/manipulated image that heads this very article.]

    According to most here, the answer to my question is: “No , it is not necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every single piece of the governments evidence [including all supportive imagery] is genuine “beyond a reasonable doubt”, before reaching “definitive conclusions” about what happened- the government can be trusted”[ or words to that effect.]

    Craig McKee said: “I thought it was the government’s claims that we were examining and refuting.”

    No. According to most of your posters, that is not a statement of their revealed methodology/ modus operandi , which in fact starts from the exact opposite assumption, [that the government is telling the truth and can be trusted], and is essentially the same as Bursill’s quoted above] .

    Most here have accepted the premise that it is both methodologically correct and “useful” to start with the unquestioned assumption that the government is telling the truth about “something” [insert favorite piece of “evidence” here!] , and that “therefor” there “must” have been a plane crash at the Pentagon, and there “must” have been plane crashes in NYC, and there “must” have been a plane crash in P.A. , instead of proceeding from the exact opposite assumption at the outset of their “investigations” and initially surmising that none of the governments claims or alleged “evidence” can be trusted until proven true “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

    Anyone here [such as yours truly🙂 ] who refuses to start from that important [and entirely wrong] initial assumption of trust is relentlessly attacked by the various “useful idiots” arrayed here.

    Craig McKee said: [Griffin said:] “This testimony, besides throwing into doubt the testimony of Don Mason and the other people who claimed to have seen the light poles clipped, suggests something even more important: that the five light poles were staged to provide evidence for the official story. If so, then we must suspect that other evidence for the official story was also planted. If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story.” “There it is.”

    I infer that by your own statement “there it is”, that you agree with Mr Griffin. His statement: “If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story” , as I have pointed out in a previous post, is really no more than a re-statement of “false in one , false in all” applied specifically to the Pentagon story.

    I submit that if this is the case at the Pentagon, [and if you agree with Griffins statement], then the exact same standard [“false in one , false in all” ] “should” be applied by yourself to all of the other alleged crash sites, and that rational analysis of the events at all of those alleged crash sites _must_ start from the working assumption that the government is lying about every single part of its story.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    P.S ” False in one false in all” does not assume that the governments evidence is unquestionably false. It is merely an initial assumption to be proven wrong in any one instance. The standard for proof is thereby deliberately raised so that _all_ government “evidence” is initially, deliberately, and consistently held to a “higher standard of truth” before it can ever be trusted. This is, of course, the exact opposite of what Mr Bursill and Mr Legge , and most posters here , want to see happen.

    1. Regards onebornfree, You use the term, “rational analysis,” and I submit to you and the forum and all who drop in to read this blog that:

      YOU are the least rational individual commenting here.

      Your pretzel logic is almost unbearable to read through, other than for the giggles.

      It goes further than your obvious lack of understanding of the sciences, it is more like short circuiting in your whole epistemic construct…something deep at the root of your conceptual cognizance that twists in obvious contortions like a worm in a robin’s beak.

      The word “lunatic” doesn’t cover it, it is a constant all month long.

      ww

    2. Making the claim that every single aspect of the government’s story is false is dangerous and not necessary. Sometimes we’re given a mixture of lies and truth to make it more difficult to separate one from the other. If you stake your beliefs on everything being a lie, what happens if one points ends up being proven right?

      Griffin is not saying “false in one, false in all.” He’s saying that it’s reasonable to doubt the official claims until there is proof either way.

      1. Craig McKee said: “Making the claim that every single aspect of the government’s story is false is dangerous and not necessary. Sometimes we’re given a mixture of lies and truth to make it more difficult to separate one from the other. If you stake your beliefs on everything being a lie, what happens if one points ends up being proven right?

        Griffin is not saying “false in one, false in all.” He’s saying that it’s reasonable to doubt the official claims until there is proof either way.”

        Craig, it seems you did not read my “P.S.” [or you read it and misunderstood it].

        regards, onebornfree

        1. You’re right, I missed your P.S. You’re saying that instead of assuming the government’s case is valid unless proven otherwise, we should assume it’s not until proven otherwise. I like the way Griffin says it: we doubt the whole story and all the evidence unless it’s proven valid. That’s the opposite of Legge and Bursill.

      2. Well, virtually everything we have been told by the government about 9/11 IS false:

        1. The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

        2. Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel (unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F), which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

        3. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees F under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 
1200.

        4. Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North Tower to weaken, much less melt.

        5. If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any 
”collapse” sequence.

        6. The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and fell to the side, turning to dust before it reached the horizontal. So it did not even exist to exert any downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

        7. William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the 
ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

        8. Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, ”Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these 
explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

        9. Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab construction” and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

        10. The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible with extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

        11. Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no “pancakes”.

        12. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it”, displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

        13. Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of “pancakes” equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no “pancakes”, there cannot have been any “pancake collapse” of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition.

        14. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44-feet above the ground; the debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, which means that the official account is not true.

        15. The Pentagon’s own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when one was shown on ”The O’Reilly Factor”; at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and easily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence also contradicts the official account.

        16. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory “flying at high speed barely above ground level” physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet of the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible, as Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer, explained to me.

        17. Data from a flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the National Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with a different approach and altitude, which would have precluded its hitting lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, if this data corresponds to a Boeing 757, it would have flown over the Pentagon rather than hit it.

        18. If Flight 93 crashed into an abandoned mine shaft, as the government maintains, then they should have brought out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dug and dug, 24/7, in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might possibly have survived. But nothing like that was done. Even the singed trees and shrubs were trimmed, apparently to make it impossible to subject them to chemical analysis.

        19. There is more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly these planes and their names are not on any original, authenticated passenger manifest. Several have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they were even aboard the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked.

        20. President Bush recently acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The Senate Intelligence Committee has reported that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda. And the FBI has acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” to tie Osama to 9/11. If Saddam did not do it and Osama did not do it, then who is responsible for the death of 3,000 citizens that day?

        “False Flag Terrorism and the Rise of the Global Police State”

      3. This last one you post is interesting Fetzer — all classic original 9/11 Truther points.

        Are you now rejoining the classical form, or is this re-ingratiating prior to more steering to your brand new “Alternative-Alternative 9/11 Truth” with space beams and holograms and whatever off the wall jive you can pull out of your pouty pot?

        I think that the points you just listed are ones we can all agree to. I certainly do.

        The only question is where you have gone from there, since these points were made. Quo Vadis???

        ww

        1. Well, you don’t know enough to even have me right about Judy Wood. I support the study of her work, especially her compilation of evidence about the effects an adequate theory has to explain. I was never quite convinced and, today, I am inclined to believe that mini or micro nukes are more likely to explain the data as opposed to directed energy weapons.

          More and more research on the plane crashes has convinced me that none of the “official crash sites” is genuine and that all four were fabricated. I think you know that by now, but if not, go to http://www.911vancouverhearings.com and click on the link for the title of my talk,
          “Fakery and Fraud in the “Official Account” of 9/11″ for the Powerpoint of my presentation.

      4. Fetzer says:

        “More and more research on the plane crashes has convinced me that none of the “official crash sites” is genuine and that all four were fabricated. I think you know that by now”

        Why yes, I certainly do know that by now…WTF do you think my rebuttals have all spoken to?

        I see clearly that Shanksville and the Pentagon are sets to give the appearance of a plane crash.

        What I have consistently argued to you is that the plane crashes into the towers were real airplanes and the caveat repeatedly made that they were NOT the airliners that the government claims.

        I don’t know where you got the idea that I said you didn’t agree with Judy Wood.
        I agree with what she said on your point number ten. But that has nothing to do with her space beams mumbo jumbo. It simply has to do with the towers had to have been exploded.

        I wouldn’t waste my time watching your presentations other than for shits and giggles Fetzer. I think you are selling a load of bullshit. You should be clear on that by now. Ja?

        ww

      5. Craig, onebornfree’s “PS” is akin to spraying air-freshener on somebody you’ve just urinated on.

        You’re right, I missed your P.S. You’re saying that instead of assuming the government’s case is valid unless proven otherwise, we should assume it’s not until proven otherwise.

        His entire premise is that all posters here are “useful idiots” and “trained monkeys” because he equates those who deny his obviously ridiculous theory as accepting the “official story”.

        According to most here, the answer to my question is: “No , it is not necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every single piece of the governments evidence [including all supportive imagery] is genuine “beyond a reasonable doubt”, before reaching “definitive conclusions” about what happened- the government can be trusted”[ or words to that effect.]

        Onebornfree

        Are the NOC witnesses mentioned anywhere in the “official story”?

        Has he proven any of his claims about the WTC7 footage as being “fake” never mind that it’s all “fake”?

        Are the Shankesville flyover witnesses mentioned anywhere in the “official story”? Or the witness to an unmanned drone just before the explosion there?

        The nerve of he guy demanding “higher standards of truth” when he dodges the truth on this forum.

    3. @mr. rogue,

      When in reality; the plane hit at an angle and DID blow out the right side to the face it hit, not so much any heavy parts, but the fractured parts of plane and building that would be expected.

      All we saw happening at the east facade was first a smoke or dust cloud emerging, followed by explosions. There was no plane parts to be seen.

      Your vapid comment about Whitesands being my ‘wife’, as a form of insipid intimidation, is the very thing that gives away your true nature as a vicious little pretender at ‘Zen calm and gentle consciousness’. You are a fraud like all the idiots you champion.

      It was simply a polite question borne out of natural human curiosity.

      It would have made no difference to me one way or the other, but thanks for answering the question for alwhitesands, in your unusually kind and amiable way, anyway!

      Cheers

      1. Tamborine man lies through his teeth saying:

        “It was simply a polite question borne out of natural human curiosity

        “a polite question” may ass. He is not only stupid, he’s a transparent liar.

        Plus he says:

        “All we saw happening at the east facade was first a smoke or dust cloud emerging, followed by explosions. There was no plane parts to be seen

        Proving himself to have the visual acuity of a bat.

        ww

      2. furioglykeros le mot peut avoir le tambourine yoni?

        Oui, faux glykeros au deuterofacious sans sinceros yoni trench.

        ww

      3. Dear Ms Onebornfree, Tamborine man etc, I was merely reiterating what others here have explained many times but in a simpler language as it appears to me that some folks here are either science challenged or their thinking is irrational. I won’t bite at any unnecessary remarks.

      4. Craig said:

        “I speak French, but that didn’t help in this case.”

        Lol, then you did get the “many shades of meanings’ portion; nuances.

        This is a form of cryptic writing I took from Louis Carol on his writings on cryptography.

        It is a hybrid of French – Ancient Greek -Sanskrit – and Ancient Hebrew, in blended syntax.

        “yoni” is Sanskrit for ‘vagina’

        “furioglykeros” – a blend of ‘furious’ with the Gr., glykeros {sweetness} thus, a furious sweetness.

        “deuterofacious” is a combo of Anc. Heb. “deuter” meaning second or two. And facious, a take on “face” – thus ‘two faced’.

        You can probably glean the rest of it on your own.

        I lot of word games are being played here…I thought I’d up the ante.

        ww

      5. @mr. rogue,

        Tamborine man lies through his teeth saying:

        “It was simply a polite question borne out of natural human curiosity

        “a polite question” may ass. He is not only stupid, he’s a transparent liar.

        Plus he says:

        “All we saw happening at the east facade was first a smoke or dust cloud emerging, followed by explosions. There was no plane parts to be seen

        Proving himself to have the visual acuity of a bat.

        Mr. rogue, except in this case, i might get things wrong from time to time, but i do not lie.

        In my younger days i found out that lying does no good to anyone, and least of all to one self. I found lying to be a pain in the ass because it could also hurt people dearest to you, and i have never lied ever since.

        I’m also a rather lazy person by nature, so i’m of course happy for this decision i made decades ago, as just for the petty sake of protecting oneself, i never have to make an effort to remember what i might have said on previous occasions which may not have been in accordance with the Truth.

        You’re a completely different person to me in this regard, and it shows all too often – like just here above.

        Cheers

      6. Tamborin pleads:

        “Mr. rogue, except in this case, i might get things wrong from time to time, but i do not lie.”

        While the fact of the matter is he is one of the three biggest bullshitters on this thread.

        Most of his bullshit may be because he is scientifically stupid, but he can’t weasel out of the fact that he was being a trite little twat in his comment to Whitesands.

        That is too obvious to miss.

        He has no honorable way out of this but to apologize to Mr. Whitesands.

        ww

      7. Anyone who cares to see the fragmenting debris blowing out both the impact point and the exiting debris on the side of the North Tower, can see this plainly for themselves in the set of videos OSS posted near the bottom of the last thread before this one.

        You can either buy in to the bullshit that this video is fake, ala Shack and Oneborn, or admit that there is indeed fragmented parts of plane and building clearly seen in this shot.

        Those who claim these images from 9/11 are ‘fake’ have one purpose in mind – to erase all visual evidence – which in the case of NY is the BEST EVIDENCE.

        There is no doubt in my mind that the ‘Video Fakery’ and ‘No-planes’ {at NY} assertions are part of the continuing psychological operation began on 9/11.

        ww

  40. Onebornfree asserts this:

    “No. According to most of your posters, that is not a statement of their revealed methodology/ modus operandi , which in fact starts from the exact opposite assumption, [that the government is telling the truth and can be trusted]”

    Which is first and foremost a gross generality. I certainly do not begin with the assumption that the government is telling the truth and can be trusted. And I am almost certain that there is not a single regular commentator on this blog that does.

    I have ZERO faith in the so-called ‘government.

    What Onebornfree does here is set up a dogmatic schemata that does not take into account any of the subtle aspects of what is and is not simply “the government’s account.”
    As such he dismisses the fine tuned and focused scrutiny that is applied to the government account as insufficient because we won’t play his ring around the rosy game with his ‘all fake imagery’ fandango.

    Beyond that, the assertions made by him and his guru Shack have been scrutinized as well, and have been found wanting. The truth is found in not only doubting the government account, but in doubting unreasonable assertions generally. That the government account is unreasonable on a penumbra of issues is without a doubt. However if part of the claims of the government is that events took place on 9/11 in New York City; are we then to discount such claims automatically? If we are to take Onebornfree’s contentions seriously, in the manner that he presents them, such absurdities abound unfettered.

    To say, as a general contention that such dogmatic views as Onebornfree espouses are simply unhinged is not an exaggeration in any form.

    His central message here is that EVERYBODY that doesn’t agree with his lunatic theory about all the imagery being faked is unwittingly working for the government’s account.
    This is an insult to the intelligence of everyone here. And I hope that everyone comprehends this.

    ww

  41. posted by Alfred Lambremont Webre III

    …on Law Enforcement for 9/11 Truth

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/lawenf911truth/

    …and gives a dead end web page here:http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2012/07/CONSPIRACY-THEORISTS-DESERVE-APOLOGY.HTMLSorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.

    Author and Christian theologian David Ray Griffin explained why the belief in the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is religious in nature in his lecture in October 2007 called, “9-11 and Nationalistic Faith.” Griffin was recently interviewed by Jan Frel of AlterNet in an article called, “David Ray Griffin: How a Retired Theologian Became a High-Priest of the 9/11 Truth Movement.” (…………….misleading………………..)Describing Dr. Griffin as a “High-Priest,” suggesting that the 9/11 truth movement is somehow a new age mystery cult, is really aiming low. (…………….misleading………………..)

    9/11 truth has nothing to do with religion or priests.(…………….misleading………………..) Scientific facts are the basis of the movement. Architects, engineers, chemists, scientists, and university professors are the leading spokespeople. Religious figures like Dr. Griffin have contributed great wisdom and understanding but to imply that the 9/11 truth movement is led by “priests” is a lie.(…………….misleading………………..& a lie)

    Priests are nowhere to be found in the 9/11 truth movement and that’s okay because they are not needed.(…………….misleading………………..& a lie) They are too busy defending evil empires on the pulpit and sacrificing moral principles for temporary power. Their days as the rulers of the spiritual life of Western civilization have come and gone.(…….truth……..)

    v911t · Veterans for 911 Truth
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/v911t/?yguid=488545248

    Dr. Robert Bowman Lt. Colonel (Ret) joins Veterans for 911 Truth — More on Dr. Bowman
    http://www.thepatriots.us/

    Stories
    http://www.v911t.org/

    High-Priest of the 9/11 Truth Movement

    High-Priest of the 9/11 Truth Movement

    Thinks they are High-Priest of the 9/11 Truth Movement

    Alex Jones is psy-op and Charlie Sheen gets the highest paid job in the world after exposing 911 truth? dose that make sense to you??????

    Over 90% of the so called 911 truth movement are psyop limited hang-out left gate keepers…for real 911 truth please go to Dr Judy Wood “where did the towers go”

    This is just a very rough break down, if you would like a better draft i would be glad to help you out……most of this article was very accurate..

    Note sure about this guy Alfred Lambremont Webre III????? all he talks about is aliens, moon, mars etc etc. says he is going to issue arrest warrants by the end of the summer for 911?????? to me he is starting to look like Jim Fetzer/ psyop central with a touch of “Project Blue Beam?”

      1. Craig McKee says: And why tell us about a link that doesn’t work? (I was showing possibly more misleading info or misdirection from Alfred Lambremont Webre III)

        First of all your title is accurate, “MORE ABSURD ARGUMENTS ON THE PENTAGON: ‘PROPAGANDA TEAM’ SETS ITS SIGHTS ON GRIFFIN”

        Craig McKee says: What is it you’re trying to say with the “high priest” links?

        My point is that Lt. Col. Robert Bowman truly is a “high priest” in the 911 truth movement. I met him in person at the Scholars Symposium: 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda 24-25 June 2006. Then two days later I met him and his wife at another 911 truth event at a Synagogue were i gave him a book to help with his cancer. He publicly said he had less than six months to live. Presiding Archbishop, United Catholic Church, Lt. Col. Robert Bowman said in the Synagogue that his ancestry is Jewish. He has publicly advised (WE ARE CHANGE) protesting group in NY city to turn 911 truth over to the UN. Veterans for 911 had a good web page but now are directed to his http://www.thepatriots.us/ page. He has heavily influenced other 911 group’s even before starting http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org/. To make a very long story short ……In my opinion he is one of the must powerful and successful Psy-Op limited-hangout left gatekeeper in the 911 truth movement. We will have mass arrests soon and the rest of the over 90% Psy-Op, limited-hangout left gatekeeper’s will be exposed. Personally I admired Bowmen until I realized he is helping heard the entire American population right off the cliff. (have much more info on this topic but enough for now)
        below is the article in full:

        ————————————————
        Alfred Lambremont Webre III
        JULY 19, 2012 Conspiracy Theorists Deserve An Apology
        The world must apologize to 9/11 truth-tellers.

        The reason why there is so much hate and scorn for 9/11 truth activists is because they are right and consistent. The destruction of the 9/11 myth and war on terror ideology is unbearable for the children who are emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically attached to the U.S. government and the Israeli government. They are under the delusion that these evil governments actually care about them, their security, and their future.

        The mature men and women of America and the West are waking up and confronting the lies of 9/11 and 7/7. And this political awakening is not unique to America and Western civilization. There is a global political and spiritual awakening happening. All totalitarian regimes in the world will fail in hijacking history and they will fall into ruin. The state terrorists in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv have already lost the battle for history and the souls of mankind.

        Alternative accounts of history and reality under totalitarian regimes have always been denounced by regime political mouthpieces as crazy and conspiratorial. And they always failed because truth and history were not on their side. The crazy and the conspiratorial were proven right in the end. This is what history shows, and especially the history of the demonic 20th century. So we should have hope and continue to speak the truth about 9/11 to wake up as many people as possible before the U.S. and Israeli governments blow up the whole world.

        II. Unthinking and Regressive: Think Progress Attacks 9/11 Truth, Drudge Report, And Infowars

        The political mouthpiece of the Obama administration called ‘Think Progress’ tried to shame and belittle Drudge Report for highlighting Infowars stories. Paul Joseph Watson writes in his article, “Obama Front Group Attacks Drudge For Linking To Infowars”:
        “Think Progress is a little more than a PR firm for the Obama administration. No wonder they are so terrified that thanks to traffic from Drudge, the likes of Infowars and World Net Daily have grown to become two of the most visible anti-Obama news outlets on the web.

        Think Progress claims it is upset that Drudge is promoting what they call “conspiracy theories,” but in reality the root of the anger is that Drudge is providing a platform for some of the Obama administration’s most ardent critics.”
        Think Progress is not worth talking about. It is an irrelevant thought-control political operation. Their reporters defend myths and fallacies while putting down truth-tellers as conspiracy theorists. What they are doing is not only unjust but just plain stupid. They are embarrassing themselves. It is actually very sad.

        Truth is more powerful than totalitarian propaganda. The mainstreaming of the 9/11 truth movement is unstoppable. 9/11 truth deniers should rejoin reality and admit that it is wrong to defend the official conspiracy theory that was spread by the Bush administration and Israeli government quickly after the traumatic events.

        III. The Religious Nature of The 9/11 Deception and Propaganda

        Author and Christian theologian David Ray Griffin explained why the belief in the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is religious in nature in his lecture in October 2007 called, “9-11 and Nationalistic Faith.” Griffin was recently interviewed by Jan Frel of AlterNet in an article called, “David Ray Griffin: How a Retired Theologian Became a High-Priest of the 9/11 Truth Movement.” Describing Dr. Griffin as a “High-Priest,” suggesting that the 9/11 truth movement is somehow a new age mystery cult, is really aiming low.

        9/11 truth has nothing to do with religion or priests. Scientific facts are the basis of the movement. Architects, engineers, chemists, scientists, and university professors are the leading spokespeople. Religious figures like Dr. Griffin have contributed great wisdom and understanding but to imply that the 9/11 truth movement is led by “priests” is a lie.

        Priests are nowhere to be found in the 9/11 truth movement and that’s okay because they are not needed. They are too busy defending evil empires on the pulpit and sacrificing moral principles for temporary power. Their days as the rulers of the spiritual life of Western civilization have come and gone.

        Dr. Griffin is a noble exception, but, in general, Christianity has proven to be useless, corrupt, stupid, blind, and power-driven. The same is true for every other moronic religion that makes individuals submit their heart and soul to a corrupt clergy. The majority of Christians are too obsessed about the second coming and the holiness of Israel to really understand that 9/11 was an inside job committed by the occult elite in America and Israel. They don’t want to admit that the criminal wars in the Middle East have nothing to do with defending the security of USrael.

        What do priests and religious idiots offer humanity and the world? Nothing. They are absent in the battle for souls and the battle for freedom because they are corrupt, blind, and stupid. Expecting Christians to fight the totalitarian state and liberate America is laughable. I’m generalizing here, but Christians, Muslims, and religious Jews are the most tyrannical, greedy, hypocritical, hateful, soulless, and ungrateful people in the world. They want to have a monopoly on the human soul and human mind. What maniacs! And the totalitarian priests who head the CIA and Mossad are just as crazy and demented because they also want to monopolize the thoughts of citizens and control the growth of society.

        The role of blind religious faith in preventing people from seeing the truth about 9/11 is big. American Christians, who have bought USrael’s propaganda and blindly accept the official 9/11 story, feel no shame in calling for the destruction of Iran and the Muslim world. They make me sick. They don’t realize that they’re bringing destruction upon themselves by calling for the destruction of other nations and civilizations. As they say, what goes around comes around. If warmongering American Christians want death and destruction so much then they will get it in plenty, except the fires of hell won’t burn in the Middle East alone, but in America as well.

        IV. Conspiracy Theorists And 9/11 Truthers Deserve An Apology

        Who is trying to stop World War III and wake the West up from its sleep? Progressives? No. Liberals? No. Conservatives? No. Christians? No. Journalists? No. They all believe in the official 9/11 deception, which is the ideological foundation that justifies USrael’s aggressive wars in the Middle East.

        9/11 truth-tellers, the “conspiracy theorists,” have tried to wake up humanity in order to stop the USraeli government from starting the catastrophe of world war three. And for their efforts they have been slandered and smeared in the press. But the 9/11 truth movement still continues to grow by the day.

        There is a simple reason why the rise of 9/11 truth cannot be contained by the USraeli government, and it is this: the age of slandering and smearing is over. Belittling people by calling them mentally ill conspiracy theorists and truthers is not working anymore. We embrace these terms. We are proud of being called conspiracy theorists because it means we’re thinking.

        Slandering and smearing Infowars and other alternative news websites is futile. It is a waste of time. Censorship, disinformation, and propaganda are failing. The global free market and global civil society have spoken. People want the news, not smears; truth, not lies; facts, not totalitarian propaganda; freedom, not tyranny; peace, not war.

        Related:
        We Are All Conspiracy Theorists Now: The Mainstreaming of 9/11 Truth
        The Evaporation of Darkness: Mass Deprogramming And The End of The 9/11 Consensus
        A Radical Rethinking of Conspiracy Theories Is Underway Globally
        http://DISQUIETRESERVATIONS.BLOGSPOT.COM/2012/07/CONSPIRACY-THEORISTS-DESERVE-APOLOGY.HTML
        http://DISQUIETRESERVATIONS.BLOGSPOT.COM/2012/07/CONSPIRACY-THEORISTS-DESERVE-APOLOGY.HTML
        DISQUIETRESERVATIONS.BLOGSPOT.COM

    1. Frankly Michael John Wegrzyn,

      Your posts are such a jumble of fragmented parts, that I can’ find any impetus to even begin to figure out what it is you are trying to say.

      You saying the world is a madhouse?

      Well yea, I’ve taken that as a given since I was around twelve years old…

      ww

  42. As I have mentioned numerous times, I think it behooves us all to learn how long this “progressive” propaganda has been shoved down the throat of the western populations.

    Each one of these characters, should be looked up and studied in detail;

    George Creel, Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays.

    The following is a good article on the history and current affairs of the Public Relations Regime:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31996

    “Progressive” Journalism’s Legacy of Deceit By Prof. James F. Tracy

    “In April 1917, when Democratic President Woodrow Wilson led America into the war that he promised would “make the world safe for democracy,” he called on some of America’s foremost progressive journalists to “sell” the war to a reluctant American population through the greatest propaganda campaign ever put together. Wilson’s anxiety over securing liberal support for the war effort brought him to recognize how well known “Progressive publicists” exercised credibility in the public mind through their previous work in exposing government and corporate corruption. One such journalist was George Creel, who Wilson tapped to lead the newly formed Committee on Public Information (CPI). New Republic editor Walter Lippmann and “father of public relations” Edward Bernays were also brought on board the elaborate domestic and international campaign to “advertise America.”

    Because of Creel’s wide-ranging connections to Progressive writers throughout the US, Wilson was confident that Creel would be successful in getting such intellectual workers on board the war effort, “to establish a visible link between liberal ideals and pursuit of the war,” Stuart Ewen observes. “On the whole, Wilson’s assumption was justified. When the war was declared, an impassioned generation of Progressive publicists fell into line, surrounding the war effort with a veil of much-needed liberal-democratic rhetoric.”
    ~Tracy
    ……
    ww

  43. …for toughs with an open mind only this is…

    hybridrogue1 says: You saying the world is a madhouse?
    hybridrogue1 please watch, it doesn’t get any better than this:

    The “Name” Is The Mark Of The Beast The Strawman Identifying Your Slave Status In “The System”

    The Dream Of Life Part 6 – Under The Spell Of Intellectual Property – Arthur Cristian

    …learn much you will…

    1. Okay Wegrzyn,

      Maybe it’s just me – I haven’t the slightest interest in the epistemic construct of a remote veiwing spacebeam ridin’ buckaroo from Tooneville.

      Maybe someone else is totally fascinated – so be it union.

      But all these videos are going to bung up the thread and we’ll all be treading molasses scrolling down.

      ww

  44. Craig McKee says: “You’re right, I missed your P.S. You’re saying that instead of assuming the government’s case is valid unless proven otherwise, we should assume it’s not until proven otherwise. I like the way Griffin says it: we doubt the whole story and all the evidence unless it’s proven valid. That’s the opposite of Legge and Bursill.”

    Yes, plus I’m saying that a real researcher interested in truth should/would consistently hold absolutely every part of the governments story to much a “higher standard of truth” than is generally being employed, and which “should” at least privately attempt to emulate the rules of evidence specifically laid out for all federal criminal trials in the Bill of Rights.

    Specifically, there is to be no “level playing field” for _any_ “evidence” that supports the governments story, in any way shape or form, meaning all witness testimony, all network video and still photos that support the governments case must first be proven genuine, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, to a “higher standard of truth”.

    In court, it is supposed to be an uphill battle for _all_ government evidence- that’s the way the system was originally designed to work.

    Instead, what we mostly have at the current time is “researchers” drawing erroneous conclusions from “evidence” that has in no way, shape or form being subjected to a [private] government “smell test”- said “researchers” just automatically assume the veracity of [for example] the network videos , derived stills [including the one heading this article] , and the alleged “amateur” videos of flight 175’s miraculous and magical entry into the South tower, and then draw “scientific conclusions” based on evidence that has never been closely scrutinized to any level replicating the evidence rules that govern federal trials.

    And even when said “researchers” have been , day in and day out, subjected to one lie after another by the government regarding 9/11, instead of taking Griffin’s approach of : “If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story.” , they all, almost to a man, will _still_ carry on giving other government “evidence” the benefit of the doubt , when in fact, from the very beginning of their “investigations” they should have been doing the exact opposite, if attempting to replicate criminal court rules of evidence, and if genuinely interested in a search for truth.

    And by the way, Craig, I fail to see how Griffin’s “If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story.” is _not_ a simple rewording of the phrase “false in one false in all” , as you appear to believe.

    Other than lightpoles, there is plenty of other so-called “evidence” that appears to have been planted, at the Pentagon, at NYC, and at Shanksville PA [ as you well know].

    [By the way I am no fan of Mr Griffin – he appears to be another “limited hangout” gatekeeper to me. It will be “interesting” to see if he is ever willing to expand the application of his statement beyond the Pentagon evidence and apply the exact same rationale to the alleged events of NYC and PA. I kind of doubt it – in fact , at this time I kind of doubt that he is really even prepared to do that with regards to the Pentagon] .

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. CORRECTION: onebornfree said:’“researchers” just automatically assume the veracity of [for example] the network videos , derived stills [including the one heading this article] ..”

      My mistake.The still that heads this article is _not_ a still that was derived from any original 9/11video footage. It is an alleged still photo released to the public by the DoD in 2007 and has nothing to do with the original imagery released on 9/11.[ In my opinion the photo is a blatant forgery, but thats a whole other story].

      Regards, onebornfree

    2. Originally posted to Craig. Seeing as how this troll OBF is still ducking and diving..

      Are the NOC witnesses mentioned anywhere in the “official story”?

      Has onebornfree proven any of his claims about the WTC7 footage as being “fake” never mind that it’s all “fake”?

      Are the Shanksville flyover witnesses mentioned anywhere in the “official story”? Or the witness to an unmanned drone just before the explosion there?

  45. @mr. rogue,

    As far as you Tamborine man – I am dead serious, I think you are too ignorant to discuss any science in any fashion whatsoever, and I don’t give a flying fuck what you think about anything. We are clear on this. Right?

    Right!!

    …..
    Of course the plane that hit the towers shredded as it went through the facade.
    …..

    Right!!

    …..
    The actual full through entry of the wings were only about half wing out from the engine.
    …..

    Right!!

    You’re a blatant fool mr. rogue.

    And your ridiculous self-worship and conceit is an ugly stain, and a disgrace to this blog.

    Cheers

  46. Aw gee, did I tweak the diaper-dumpers dangling sensibilities here??? Lol

    Yes Tangerbean man, the plane that hit the tower shredded as it went through the facade, and the actual full through entry of the wings were only about half wing out beyond the engines. Picture perfect in any clear shot of the gash.

    Ta ta doodah.

    ww

    1. @Mr. rogue,

      who write:

      Aw gee, did I tweak the diaper-dumpers dangling sensibilities here??? Lol

      Yes Tangerbean man, the plane that hit the tower shredded as it went through the facade, and the actual full through entry of the wings were only about half wing out beyond the engines. Picture perfect in any clear shot of the gash.

      Ta ta doodah.

      So what happened to the missing steel columns after they were finished with their business of shredding the plane?

      And what happened to the part of the wings that went “full through entry” of the facade, obviously without being shredded – since they went right through?

      Cheers

      1. The physics of this have been explained here over and again Tangerbean man,

        If you haven’t gotten it yet, you lack the lucidity to ever get it.

        ww

      2. @mr. rogue,

        The physics of this have been explained here over and again Tangerbean man,

        If you haven’t gotten it yet, you lack the lucidity to ever get it.

        Have often noticed that this is your standard response every time you’re unable to answer a simple question.

        You obviously realized that in whatever way you answered you would get ‘caught’, hence your repeated evasiveness.

        But that’s OK.

        I’ve heard it said, that some people suffering chronic pains can get so used to this, that they hardly notice it anymore.
        Analogically speaking, kind of, i’m sure other ‘long-suffering’ readers of your posts are by now also getting used to your evasiveness, so it’s really no longer a big deal!

        Cheers

      3. Tangerbean whines:

        Have often noticed that this is your standard response every time you’re unable to answer a simple question.
        You obviously realized that in whatever way you answered you would get ‘caught’, hence your repeated evasiveness.

        As I said the physics of this event are described over and again here.

        For just a few see:

        >alwhitesands July 23, 2012 at 12:00 am
        >Señor El Once July 23, 2012 at 11:14 am
        >hybridrogue1 July 22, 2012 at 10:25 pm

        But you aren’t arguing physics Tangerbean because you don’t know anything about it – you are playing rhetorical games and creating ‘cognitive dissonance’ and sowing discordance where ever you can manage.

        You can’t even grasp that in any collision both objects in the impact have effect on one another – that is why your taunting questions are TOO STUPID to answer.

        ww

  47. Jim Fetzer says: “Well, virtually everything we have been told by the government about 9/11 IS false..”

    So why would any honest researcher who agrees with your sentiment at this stage of the game continue to give the benefit of the doubt to any single piece of “pro-government story” “evidence” [e.g. alleged “eyewitness testimony” , or alleged “live video footage”] other than the fact that it conveniently happens to fit their own fanciful theory of what “really happened” on 9/11?

    Shouldn’t they be prepared to just start over and admit to themselves that none of what they still think of as reliable evidence can really be trusted until subjected to much higher levels of scrutiny by the individual researcher? [For example , ALL of the alleged “live” MSM 9/11 broadcasts].

    Or will intellectual laziness,dishonesty, and an unwillingness to start over because it threatens their own already well developed, pet 9/11 “how it happened” theory, continue to rule the day?

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Because some of the data from government sources contradicts the official account! This is known in the law as “admissions contrary to interest” and have special weight because the source would not have been expected to admit them (rather like confessions, when they are sincere and unforced).

      During my investigation of the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone, for example, I discovered that the NTSB had tracked down a simulator (with a weaker engine, no less), programmed it with the weather and flight conditions of the Wellstone plane, and had it flown abnormally show. Nevertheless, they could not cause it to crash, contradicting their own account of that event.

  48. Craig McKee said: “To believers in the 9/11 official story: If the top of the South Tower is tipping like this, what is providing the symmetrical force downwards? And why didn’t the top of the building topple to the ground? And where did the energy come from to crush the building AND turn all the concrete to powder?”

    And why does this photo of a WTC tower [located at the very bottom left of Craig’s current blog page] show an almost perfectly symmetrical equilateral triangle of smoke sitting, pyramid like, astride the top of the upper section of the WTC tower in this alleged “genuine” photo? I know… silly question right, the photo couldn’t possibly be fake, could it?🙂

    regards, onebornfree.

  49. Jim Fetzer says: “WTC-7 was a classic controlled demolition. What is the point of arguing what has been established? ”

    Jim, the WTC7 collapse videos are all CGI fakes [i.e. computer generated digital composites].

    Just like the rest of the collapse sequences [i.e. WTC1 and 2]] broadcast that day. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg .

    As are all of the subsequently released [mostly 2007-12] “higher definition” versions of WTC7’s collapse that allegedly show different perspectives.

    All fakes, pre-manufactured with computer software and then broadcast as “live” video.

    So yes, logically, since WTC7 was never hit by a plane , it had to have been demolished [as were all the other WTC buildings]. But as with the twin towers, the videos showing its [WTC7’s] alleged collapse are all fakes, so nothing about the speed, or pattern of collapse can be deduced from watching fake videos of its collapse. The real demolition of WTC7 evidently took place entirely off camera.

    Regards, onebornfree

  50. Jim Fetzer says: “The ignorance of physics here is simply astounding.”

    More like virtually none- existent🙂 . Now repeat after me: “aluminum cuts steel!, aluminum cuts steel!, aluminum cuts steel! – and, once more with feeling :”ALUMINUM CUTS STEEL!”

    See, now doesn’t that make you feel better? WTF did that Newton guy know anyhow?

    Regards, onebornfree.

  51. OBF

    So yes, logically, since WTC7 was never hit by a plane , it had to have been demolished [as were all the other WTC buildings]. But as with the twin towers, the videos showing its [WTC7’s] alleged collapse are all fakes, so nothing about the speed, or pattern of collapse can be deduced from watching fake videos of its collapse. The real demolition of WTC7 evidently took place entirely off camera.

    OR…

    A) Building 7 wasn’t there on 9/11 to not be “hit by a plane” in the first place.

    How can you be sure of “the real demolition of WTC7”?

    1) All images that day, including those taken up until that [alleged] day from [insert date ___] until [insert date ___] cannot be verified to the higher standard of truth. 

    All images, videos, witnesses, alleged occupants and documentation of WTC7 (if it ever existed) are not deemed as evidence of existence of said structure until verified beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    The court of law is also deemed untrustworthy because it is part and parcel of the same structure which enabled the 9/11 operations to take place. 

    The question then arises, who is deemed fit to actually verify any evidence whatsoever? Ever?

    The same standards should also apply to the [alleged] existence of the twin towers and the entire WTC complex. 

    The Pentagon’s [alleged] existence and whether there was damage caused there at all [if it ever existed] should also come under the same scrutiny.

    OR…

    B) Building 7 still stood [if it ever existed in the first place] on 9/11 after the alleged OCT collapse time of 5:20pm, anywhere from 5:20pm until [insert date ___] as all images, video and witness testimony from before, during and after 9/11 must fall under the same scrutiny as listed above.

    All video, images and witness testimony to “Ground Zero” are null and void until [insert method of verification that will satisfy all parties, especially onebornfree ___]

    We can do this [whatever it is] onebornfree!

    To all…

    Is anything I just said in this post contradicting anything onebornfree has been spamming here for weeks?

    1. OSS,

      Yes, One Born Free’to-Spam paints himself in a ludicrous corner of never-never-land prophylaxis from logic and reason. Only the dimmest of wankiroos will miss that.

      It is the repetition-repetition that grinds on the sensibilities – which is I think, his aim.
      A perpetual barefoot stroll through the weeds and sticker-patch…a bloody sole makes a bloody soul.

      Purposeful anti-cognizance, gray matter blastmaster, that’s his trade.

      Try ignoring him – it won’t work – he won’t go away…he has latched upon us like a leach.

      ww

      1. Cheers Willy

        I was actually expecting more input from other posters too but it seemed to kill the thread(?).

    2. @OSS,

      To all…

      Is anything I just said in this post contradicting anything onebornfree has been spamming here for weeks?

      Yes OSS, virtually all of it. you’re starting a “war of aggression” that’s totally unnecessary because you’re in fact agreeing with the main tenet of OBF’s argument, namely, that it’s better and wiser to believe that anything coming out from official sources regarding 9/11 to be probable falsehood, rather than should be taken as ‘reliable information’ and on ‘face value’. I think all sensible “truthers” worldwide would agree with this.

      I remember that in another forum you ‘applaud’ me when i said that, “i take everything ‘they’ say with a grand dose of salt”!

      So OBF comes out with both barrels blazing, claiming it should be a whooping 100%, whereas you can probable only at this point concede a modest 5 – 10%, and i perhaps a mere 10 – 15%, but so what!
      Could it not be contemplated that OBF maybe is simply being very provocative in order to hammer his point across? And that he’s quite prepared to admit ‘defeat’ if new information comes forward that conclusively proves to him personally that his “100%” turned out to be wrong?
      At least i can!

      Simon Shack has lately admitted defeat to ‘furbar’ on a point of false perspective, and gave thanks to him for his better observations and corrections in this case.

      I have no doubt that SS and all the other researchers on Cluesforum are quite prepared for the eventuality, that more occasions will arise where they have to discard other ‘research’ that has been found wanting. That’s just par for the course of doing research. Sometimes you find ‘nuggets of gold’ and sometimes you find just pure crap. The ‘pure crap’ will most likely far outweigh the ‘gold’. That’s just how the ‘cookie’ crumble, and we all know this.

      And that’s why i never visit Cluesforum or Letsrollforum for the sake of finding ‘faults’ with their research, for there’s plenty of that, but solely to check out if there’s new and exciting material worth taking a look at; for there has been plenty of that as well, in both forums over the years!

      Cheers

      1. TM,

        I stand by my breakdown of OBF’s “stance”. And to compare any genuine 9/11 researcher’s rightful approach to take everything with a grain of salt that’s excreted from government sources to OBF’s dumbass impossible demands to fit his personal ridiculous “theory” or used as a stick to beat that person when it’s taken to the extreme, is an example of the circling the wagons mentality of NPTers no matter who they attack. It’s fucking childish, aggressive and negative. To the point that even named sources of every piece of visual evidence should be put in the crapper. Along with all eyewitness testimony, even if they are independently identified, verified, interviewed and that they corroborate.

        The court of law is also deemed untrustworthy because it is part and parcel of the same structure which enabled the 9/11 operations to take place. 

        The question then arises, who is deemed fit to actually verify any evidence whatsoever? Ever?

        at what point would OBF or yourself acknowledge whether evidence is deemed “acceptable” TM? And how?

        You found it insulting being labelled a “disinformationist” at P4T. I’m really pissed off that a troll like OBF can mass label everybody here shills even though some of us have very different outlooks but all agree that 9/11 was carried out by nefarious entities.

        So what’s different about what I posted and what OBF demands?

      2. TM

        So OBF comes out with both barrels blazing, claiming it should be a whooping 100%, whereas you can probable only at this point concede a modest 5 – 10%, and i perhaps a mere 10 – 15%, but so what!
        Could it not be contemplated that OBF maybe is simply being very provocative in order to hammer his point across? And that he’s quite prepared to admit ‘defeat’ if new information comes forward that conclusively proves to him personally that his “100%” turned out to be wrong?
        At least i can!

        that’s what I’m waiting to hear from him. Under what circumstances and/or conditions does visual and eyewitness testimony become “acceptable”?

        And I’d also like you to point out where I’ve quoted or blindly accepted the official story here or on any forum.

      3. OSS,

        I don’t see how anyone with the lucidity above that of a gnat would put any credence to anything either of those two twits say {Unbornfree and Tangerbeans}

        They are both either cognitively challenged, or are part of Fetzer’s disinfo team.
        Any differences arising between them then would be simply theater.

        I think they are a unit of Sunsteinian COINTEL. Their “spats” are pretense. I think Shack is another cut-out for this team. Their whole gameplan is whackaloo.

        ww

      4. OSS,

        I stand by my breakdown of OBF’s “stance”. And to compare any genuine 9/11 researcher’s rightful approach to take everything with a grain of salt that’s excreted from government sources to OBF’s dumbass impossible demands to fit his personal ridiculous “theory” or used as a stick to beat that person when it’s taken to the extreme, is an example of the circling the wagons mentality of NPTers no matter who they attack. It’s fucking childish, aggressive and negative. To the point that even named sources of every piece of visual evidence should be put in the crapper. Along with all eyewitness testimony, even if they are independently identified, verified, interviewed and that they corroborate.

        Do you really have to take OBF’s ‘outbursts’ THAT serious and THAT personal? What if all you end up with in return is a bloody “ulcer”??

        I’ve never heard OBF dismissing the pentagon NOC witnesses!(??)

        And let me also ask you: Do you believe that ALL Ingersoll’s photos are genuine?
        Do you believe that the photo Lloyde England’s neighbour showed to CIT is “genuine”? Do you believe that this neighbour just happened to be at the bridge and by sheer coincidence took virtually the same photo of the taxi as Ingersoll did? Or could you join me in thinking that there’s perhaps something very ‘dubious’ about that whole thing ….so staged it looked?

        at what point would OBF or yourself acknowledge whether evidence is deemed “acceptable” TM? And how?

        Well, i personally would simply use my ‘nous’ while at the same time listen to the faint inner voice of my conscience – which i often communicate with! ;o)

        You found it insulting being labelled a “disinformationist” at P4T. I’m really pissed off that a troll like OBF can mass label everybody here shills even though some of us have very different outlooks but all agree that 9/11 was carried out by nefarious entities.

        No, i didn’t find it “insulting”! I found it ‘weird’, as there was no basis for his remark at all.

        And contrary to you i didn’t take OBF’s ‘shill’ remark serious, and i don’t think you should have done either, but that’s your own business of course, how you decide to react to things!

        To your last question:
        I don’t get the understanding that OBF is “demanding” anything from anyone! And i would be very surprised if he thought that there was ‘no WTC complex in existence ……ever’!!

        Cheers and peace

        “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.” ― William Blake

  52. Somewhere rogue1 cites Frank DeMartini about the impact of a plane on one of the towers being analogous to a pencil stuck through mosquito netting. The specific circumstances of the purported hit on the South Tower involved intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete. No plane–no REAL plane–could have penetrated that massive horizontal resistance like a pencil through mosquito netting. In citing him, this guy rogue1 commits an obvious blunder; what DeMartini was contemplating has to have been on the horizontal hitting between floors. The actual cases was completely different.

    1. This guy Fetzer claims:

      “..what DeMartini was contemplating has to have been on the horizontal hitting between floors. The actual cases was completely different.”

      You are so full of bullshit Fetzer, DeMartini gave no such qualifiers.

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

      You’re a total jackass.

      ww

      1. A real plane entering the building as shown is physically impossible. I have explained this many times. Either you know better or you do not. If you know better, then you are doing what you are doing because your mission is to sow confusion, which you have been doing from the start. If you know no better, then you are either massively ignorant of physics or cognitively impaired. You do not appear to be cognitively impaired. Therefore, you are either massively ignorant of physics or your mission here is to sow confusion, as I believe.

      2. Fetzer again asserts:

        A real plane entering the building as shown is physically impossible. I have explained this many times.

        Yea, you have “explained this many times” in your special Fetzerian Newspeak “physics”, which is Humpty Dumpty “because I say so” bullshit – not real Newtonian physics.

        Like I said Fetzer, the only ones that are going to buy your bullshit are the dim bulbs you aim to. Anyone with the slightest grasp of physics knows you are a charlatan.

        \\][//

  53. Tamborine man said: “Simon Shack has lately admitted defeat to ‘furbar’ on a point of false perspective, and gave thanks to him for his better observations and corrections in this case. ”

    To who, or what, [“furbar”] are you referring to?

    Tamborine man said: “And that he’s quite prepared to admit ‘defeat’ if new information comes forward that conclusively proves to him personally that his “100%” turned out to be wrong?”

    Holy crap! Somebody here [ besides Craig McKee], can actually read?

    Regards, onebornfree.

  54. Yes, I ‘d also like to know how Simon Shack acknowledged this “fubar” given onebornfree’s stringent guidelines as to how evidence should be deemed fit for acceptance.

  55. Jim Fetzer says: ..”you are either massively ignorant of physics or your mission here is to sow confusion, as I believe.”

    I’d give him the benefit of the doubt and say he’s “massively ignorant of physics”, personally.

    The perps must be laughing their collective asses off over this. Obviously they counted on fooling the regular “Joe Six-Pack” and friends who have been brainwashed since birth with “Roadrunner” style, impossible cartoon physics, but I’ll bet they never expected the added bonus of people who claim to be “literate” or “scientific”, and even regularly pepper their posts with pseudo-intellectual scientific jargon and antiquated 19th century english terms [in order to sound more educated?] , and who presumably took at least high school level physics [where Newton’s 3 laws of motion are taught] ,to be as dumbed down as the Joe six Packs of the world. Quite a bonus for them, I’d say.

    Still, as they say “empty vessels make the most noise”.🙂

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. It’s simply staggering that this guy (rogue1) should display such arrogance at this point in the discussion. He feigns knowledge he does not possess and continues to deny proof after proof that no real plane could have done what we see in those videos, which includes:

      (1) a vanishing left wing, no strobe lights, no shadows cast;

      (2) entering the building with no collision effects whatsoever;

      (3) entering the building with no loss in velocity–none at all;

      (4) entering the building also without exploding upon impact;

      (5) entering at 500 mph but not exiting the other side, even
      though the plane was 160′ long and the building 208′ wide;

      (6) where the only engine component alleged to have come
      from the plane was planted at Church & Murray by agents in
      FBI vests, who unloaded it from a white van and which was
      found under steel scaffolding, sitting on an undamaged side-
      walk, where that part did not even come from a Boeing 767!

      Pilots have shown that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time this was occurring, but they seem to believe it was some kind of “special plane”. Well, THAT’S RIGHT: it was something that appeared to be a plane but was performing feats no real plane could perform.

      You can’t get much more “special” than that. Even Senor El Once, who is not dumb, seems to believe in miracles on 9/11, since he, too, apparently agrees with rogue1. I don’t get it, OBF. How can any sincere seeker of 9/11 Truth be bamboozled by such an obvious fraud?

      1. Dear Dr. Fetzer, you wrote:

        You can’t get much more “special” than that. Even Senor El Once, who is not dumb, seems to believe in miracles on 9/11, since he, too, apparently agrees with rogue1.

        Why thank you for that compliment! Miracles, though? Hardly. Special planes and velocity-squared, I can believe in.

        You also wrote:

        Pilots have shown that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time this was occurring, but they seem to believe it was some kind of “special plane.”

        We are in agreement that the model of aircraft designated Flight 175 did not hit a tower.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but your theory involves (A) holograms and/or (B) video manipulation to explain most of the unusual and uncommon features, some downright physics-defying if the aircraft were truly the aircraft of Flight 175.

        You lack substantiation for your hologram claims [except for what we’ve seen on Star Trek: The Next Generation.] I’ve given you lots of leeway here, and even did extensive legwork of my own [as did Mr. OneSliceShort]. Your links were the weakest and worst, but it all came up way short. Nothing I’ve learned suggests that it can be “projected.” And suspending belief about holographic projections, they lack physical attributes that would allow them to be picked up by radar, whose data corresponds rather well with the various “amateur” video footage that 3D modeling has proven [to me at least] represents a singular flight path.

        I guess you maybe need to get your head around the word special in the phrase special plane. First and foremost, this enabled the aircraft to obtain its closing speed and target the tower with unwavering precision. You copied & pasted:

        (2) entering the building with no collision effects whatsoever;

        (3) entering the building with no loss in velocity–none at all;

        (4) entering the building also without exploding upon impact;

        (5) entering at 500 mph but not exiting the other side, even though the plane was 160′ long and the building 208′ wide;

        Perhaps Mr. OneSliceShort will post links to his videos on bunker-busting bombs. They are pretty good about getting penetration before exploding, which then negates much of momentum’s efforts to continue traveling and exiting the other side.

        All of the above points fit neatly under the phrase special plane.

        (1) a vanishing left wing, no strobe lights, no shadows cast;

        The instance of the vanishing left wing [in how many clips? One?] can best be explained by video glitches and anomalies coming from the frame rate versus object velocity with respect to the frame. No strobe lights fits in with the moniker of the phrase special plane. No shadows? I saw shadows as it neared the building, and so did you when you were promoting “pods on planes” and the laser flash prior to impact.

        (6) where the only engine component alleged to have come from the plane was planted at Church & Murray by agents in FBI vests, who unloaded it from a white van and which was found under steel scaffolding, sitting on an undamaged side-walk, where that part did not even come from a Boeing 767!

        Professor Fezter, dude, ah, like… if we’re saying the phrase special plane again and again, that could also account for aircraft part that did not come from a Boeing 767. Not a mystery.

        With regards to what was planted and what wasn’t, the videos consistently show something fairly massive being ejected through the tower and landing about that location [probably after impacting somewhere else and bouncing to where it was found.] Planting a passport, I can believe. Planting a wheel assembly, not quite so much. I prefer to connect the dot that the smoking aircraft piece that flew out of the towers was the same that was discovered there. [Otherwise, what do you think happened to the “item” and what was the “item” that multiple videos captured being ejected from the towers after “impact”?]

        I know you didn’t get to be a PhD, a professor, and a Marine Corps Officer by being dumb, so some other factor must be at play [that might relate to your military affiliations.]

        The piddly amount of evidence that you [and your radio guests] have thrust forth [here, on Veteran’s Today, and in your radio program] to promote the viability of projected holograms would barely suffice for a college sophomore research paper.

        Shore that up, and maybe I’ll flip-flop and believe in your miracles.

      2. So yet again Fetzer makes these spurious claims:

        (1) a vanishing left wing, no strobe lights, no shadows cast;

        (2) entering the building with no collision effects whatsoever;

        (3) entering the building with no loss in velocity–none at all;

        (4) entering the building also without exploding upon impact;

        (5) entering at 500 mph but not exiting the other side, even
        though the plane was 160′ long and the building 208′ wide

        ……….

        (1) “a vanishing left wing’ All due to pixelation as shown and proven time and again.
        There ARE strobelights, as OSS’s video on the last page shows plainly. There are shadows if one looks closely as the plane is close up to the building.

        (2) Simply untrue – all of the images of the South Tower strike show plainly these collision effects and blowing out of shattered debris.

        (3) Again simply untrue. The loss in velocity is simply not perceptible to human vision; a matter of micro-seconds.

        (4) Now this one is REALLY screwy – of course the plane explodes on impact, everyone can see the explosion…impact is the entire impact, not the instant the nose touches the building, but when the engines and wings hit with the engines on and hot, and the fuel in the wings…again but a 0.2 seconds after the nose enters.

        (5) The plane hit at an angle so the momentum took it to the right, and the explosion did indeed blow out from that side. The plane may have been 160′ long when it approached the building, but when impacting it became essentially confetti with great kinetic energy.
        ………..

        Now, as these counters have been made, and shown to the ‘professor’ time and again, and he has not acknowledged them a single time, but only to assert his errors time after time, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that he is being purposely disingenuous.

        His assertion that “Pilots have shown that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time this was occurring,” is immaterial as no one is claiming this plane was Flight 175. And Fetzer posts this again simply because it is part of his mindless mantra roll.

        Fetzer ends with these words:

        “How can any sincere seeker of 9/11 Truth be bamboozled by such an obvious fraud?”

        Yes indeed “Doctor.”

        That is a question worthy of considering in the face of his own obvious fraud, as has been highlighted over and again here.

        ww

        1. ………. (1) “a vanishing left wing’ All due to pixelation as shown and proven time and again. There ARE strobelights, as OSS’s video on the last page shows plainly. There are shadows if one looks closely as the plane is close up to the building.

          HOLOGRAMS LOOK DIFFERENT FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. REAL WINGS ON REAL PLANES DO NOT “DISAPPEAR”.

          (2) Simply untrue – all of the images of the South Tower strike show plainly these collision effects and blowing out of shattered debris.

          EVEN ON A SHREDDING HYPOTHESIS, AT LEAST HALF THE PLANE WOULD HAVE FALLEN TO THE GROUN. NONE DID.

          (3) Again simply untrue. The loss in velocity is simply not perceptible to human vision; a matter of micro-seconds.

          WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUBT SUBTLE EFFECTS. A REAL PLANE’S VELOCITY WOULD HAVE DROPPED TO ZERO–ZERO!

          (4) Now this one is REALLY screwy – of course the plane explodes on impact, everyone can see the explosion…impact is the entire impact, not the instant the nose touches the building, but when the engines and wings hit with the engines on and hot, and the fuel in the wings…again but a 0.2 seconds after the nose enters.

          EVEN SHREDDING, ITS FUEL WOULD HAVE EXPLODED AS IT ENTERED THE BUILDING, NOT AFTER IT WAS ALL THE WAY INTO IT.

          (5) The plane hit at an angle so the momentum took it to the right, and the explosion did indeed blow out from that side. The plane may have been 160′ long when it approached the building, but when impacting it became essentially confetti with great kinetic energy. ………..

          ON THIS FANTASY SCENARIO, NOT EVEN THE PARTS OF THE PLANE THAT WOULD HAVE REMAINED EXTERNAL TO IT ARE DISCERNABLE.

          Now, as these counters have been made, and shown to the ‘professor’ time and again, and he has not acknowledged them a single time, but only to assert his errors time after time, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that he is being purposely disingenuous. His assertion that “Pilots have shown that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time this was occurring,” is immaterial as no one is claiming this plane was Flight 175. And Fetzer posts this again simply because it is part of his mindless mantra roll. Fetzer ends with these words: “How can any sincere seeker of 9/11 Truth be bamboozled by such an obvious fraud?” Yes indeed “Doctor.” That is a question worthy of considering in the face of his own obvious fraud, as has been highlighted over and again here. ww

          (6) AND, OF COURSE, THE ONLY ENGINE PART WAS NOT ONLY NOT FROM A 767 BUT WAS OBVIOUSLY PLANTED AT CHURCH & MURRAY.

          WHERE DID THE ENGINES, WHICH ARE VIRTUALY INDESTRUCTABLE, GO ON THIS ‘SHREDDING’ THEORY? WERE THEY SHREDDED, TOO?

          THE ONLY HYPOTHESIS THAT CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE EVIDENCE–INCLUDING THE EYEWITNESS REPORTS–IS THE USE OF A HOLOGRAM.

          I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS MANY TIMES, BUT SOME OPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF LAWS OF PHYSICS AND OTHERS OFFER FANTASY SCENARIOS.

          ONE OF US MAY BE ON A ‘MINDLESS MANTRA ROLL’, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE ME. I REALLY CAN’T ABIDE PHONYS, FAKERS AND FRAUDS.

      3. Lol…the “Professor’s” caps key seems to have stuck.

        And I do believe he has made these empty assertions before…and been successfully countered with real physics.

        ww

  56. I think it should be pointed out that this whole flame war began by Fetzer steering us away from a discussion of the Pentagon with these remarks:

    >Jim Fetzer say,:July 17, 2012 at 6:01 pm:
    “Not only did not Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, but all four of the crash sites were fabricated:”
    ……….

    By posting this he invited appropriate reprimands. His continual pigheaded insistence on his special “Fetzerian physics and logic” is the fuel for this flambe.

    That he has suckered in two of the most scientifically ignorant posters on this page, Tangerbeans and Unbornfree, has turned this page into a battle ground between logic and illogic.

    The Newtonian physics has been attended to well enough, but this is denied by their simpleton assertions having no scientific basis.

    To consider this a PSYOP on the part of Fetzer and his whackjob comrades is a most reasonable conclusion. They are all part of Fetzer’s ‘Steering Committee’.

    Having studied psychological operations for more than 40 years, the profile and MO is clear and obvious to me.

    ww

  57. At what point would OBF acknowledge whether evidence is deemed “acceptable”? And how? And by whom?

    This question is central to everything being continually spammed by this guy on this forum. And all other blogs posted by Craig.

    One thing is for him to ignore me or any rational question put to him but if absolutely everything he personally deems as falling under the label of “official story” or how he defines evidence as being acceptable isn’t discussed, nobody will ever see just how irrational his position is.

    Every blog will be bogged down to rants and insults. It’s worked so far hasn’t it?

    1. OSS,

      Check out Fetzers latest commentary: July 24, 2012 at 1:15 pm.

      Os it not so that your set of videos on the last page over effectively blows everyone of these assertions out of the water?

      Regardless of the physics involved and Fetzers utter ignorance of them, these visuals prove how disingenuous his commentary is.

      Denying what anyone can see with their own eyes is an insult to all of our intelligence.

      Is this type of insult to be overlooked while tepid little things, such as calling the ridiculous such by some colorful phrase is to be dealt with for the sake of “civility”? What about rationality and reason in discourse?

      ww

      1. Craig asks:

        >”How would you suggest I deal with failings in rationality?”

        I think your last post here says it all:

        >”Crowd: “WE MUST ALL THINK FOR OURSELVES!”

        Let us battle it out as we are, and let a candid world decide.

        If you yourself were to take a serious look at the videos posted by OSS next door in the thread before this, you would see how disingenuous those points by Fetzer are.

        If Fetzer himself hasn’t seen them it is just a matter of “see no evil.”
        But I suspect he has seen them and is denying what they plainly show anyway.

        Let the nuts make their cases Craig, let us rebut them in with our strongest arguments. And do remember, ridicule of the ridiculous is not ‘Ad Hominem’, there is nothing in the classical rules of argumentum that excuse ridiculous argumentation.

        ww

        1. I’m just getting tired of hearing people described as crazy, stupid or agents. If we want people to think for themselves, why can’t we let people decide for themselves whether someone’s argument is crazy based on the substance of the it?

          And do we always have to respond to someone when they say something they’ve said many times before? Sometimes I feel like I’m living in Groundhog Day, reading the same debate over and over.

          I don’t want the comment threads here to resemble the nasty exchanges on sites like truthaction.org or 911blogger. This doesn’t advance the cause, in my view. My current post shows that the absurdity of certain arguments can be shown clearly without the necessity of resorting to name-calling.

      2. Craig, you say”

        “I’m just getting tired of hearing people described as crazy, stupid or agents. If we want people to think for themselves, why can’t we let people decide for themselves whether someone’s argument is crazy based on the substance of the it?”

        I appreciate that Craig, but you will notice if you scan this thread, that Fetzer is the worst offender in making these spurious assertions.
        I would have no problem with toning down my own dialog, if others would do the same. But this also gets into the realm of nuance, wherein someone can make the most vindictive statement while putting on the veneer of tacky sweetness. And this has been pointed out before.

        I certainly did not begin posting here with the intent on joining in on flame wars. But to be taunted, and harangued is certainly a cause to defend from an equally strong position.

        The final call is alas to be yours Craig, choose wisely.

        ww

      3. Willy,

        Craig is a gentleman and is running a one man show with noble intentions. I don’t envy his job here one bit. But yes, I see where you’re coming from when already proven flaws (or at least highly suspect claims) are brushed over and repeated.
        My last question to onebornfree, which I should expand to everyone, as to the method by which evidence is deemed to be “valid” is very relevant as a lot of theories revolve around the issue (particularly onebornfree’s), has been ignored.

        If people here would stick to one claim or issue at a time, discuss it, come to a conclusion or possible conclusions, there would be much less aggro and ranting (I think!)

        For me personally, if that question isn’t answered (on validity), this will never end.

  58. I’m getting really tired of the insults and name-calling in general. I’m thinking about imposing some rules to improve the level of civility among other things.

  59. Jim Fetzer said: “Even Senor El Once, who is not dumb, seems to believe in miracles on 9/11, since he, too, apparently agrees with rogue1. I don’t get it, OBF. How can any sincere seeker of 9/11 Truth be bamboozled by such an obvious fraud?”

    As is everyone else here [“bamboozled”] except for you, me and possibly Tamborine Man as far as I can tell – so you’d better get used to it !

    I’d love to tell you my tentative “bamboozlement” theory here Jim, but I’m afraid it would probably be judged as “spam” by our 2 resident self-styled moderators who appear to think that the Batman Shootings are much more relevant, because, [obviously!], _they_ brought up that particular issue, in the previous thread, which makes it OK, of course, whereas video fakery is not OK [and therefor just “spam”], because they don’t like it/believe in it etc. etc. yadda, yadda, yadda. 🙂 https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/media-and-the-911-cover-up-bbc-accused-of-breaking-its-own-fairness-rules/

    regards, onebornfree

  60. Craig McKee says: “I’m getting really tired of the insults and name-calling in general. I’m thinking about imposing some rules to improve the level of civility among other things.”

    “Who threw that stone”?

    Regards, onebornfree

  61. An example from another site:

    “Registration to this forum is free. We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed on our site which can be found here, Site Guidelines.”

    “All members are encouraged to express their opinions, exchange information, and pose solutions. But we must always do so with dignity and with respect toward fellow members. We encourage a variety of opinions, perspectives, and interpretations of the material presented on this website, but we must again insist that you respect all other members of our community”.

    “All others are encouraged to speak on issues that are of concern to them from their own unique perspectives, but we will not tolerate any hostile infighting and conflicts. This will only distract us from our mission and result in digression from the issues at hand”.

    “By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, hateful, threatening, or could otherwise violate any laws”.

    1. It seems there’s some distance between “hostile infighting and conflicts” from the 2nd last paragraph and the “obscene, hateful, threatening” and law-breaking of the last paragraph.

      1. Yes, because this came from a site whose focus is on specifically identifying the tribe of the Zionist criminals responsible for 9/11, and numerous other mass crimes. The rules were necessitated by the (common) emotional reactions and emotional objections to assertions made on the site, a type of non-productive argument often used by those with none.

    2. What is “obscene”?

      Is the word “bullshit” obscene? A professor of philosophy and sociology wrote a book titled: ON BULLSHIT.

      What is “hateful”? Is an intense argument necessarily deemed “hateful”?

      What is the mess garnered against the First Amendment by the statutory laws now on the books against “Hate Speech”? Primarily the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nest of Zionists.

      Is the word “Fuck” hateful or obscene” OR would you consider it both?

      Where is a society that supposedly cherishes the rights to free speech draw the line on such issues?

      Is it supposed that underage children are visiting this site? That is a longshot. Are there children on this site well beyond the legal age limit? I can certainly count a few, but that is not how a ‘child’ is determined by law, that is how a child is determined by a person’s jejune mindset.

      I have been on ‘conservative/right wing’ sites that wouldn’t even allow the letters WTF? to be posted. And yet these people were the most vicious of antagonists for any ideas that didn’t fit their agenda.

      An insult is in the eye of the beholder. I have certainly noted the ‘thin skinned’ attitude of the poster who has suggested these rules. And I for one would not want to be involved with a site that has such restrictions to protect the ultra sensitivities of such touchy, easily offended, easily upset or hurt wussies.

      This should be an arena capable of sorting out some very serious issues without the worry of hurting some pansies feelings. There is this kitchen, there is this heat, if such heat melts ones timid soul, one should find refreshment in a cooler spot, turning off the oven will simply ruin the cake.

      ww

      1. Crag,

        I know that this isn’t all addressed to me personally.

        But perhaps you can make the distinction for me, between calling a person a pansy and a person calling someone a “petulant and an aggressive dog” along with some other unpleasant characterizations.

        Perhaps none of this is “called for”…perhaps you can make your own distinctions as you moderate. Don’t you already do this?

        I have never pleaded with you to slap down another poster for attempting to insult me. I would rather be left to care for myself in such circumstance.

        If Sherif feels he should be able to dish it out, and yet be shielded from getting any back on himself, he doesn’t understand “action and reaction” nor human nature.

        ww

      2. If indeed hybridrogue1 ever chose not to be involved here (assuming he has a choice), I, for one would not miss his brand of antagonistic insults; apparently a vital tool in his arsenal. I think this Blog, the Truth movement, and the World would get over it – and the sun would still rise and set.

      3. And this none too subtle innuendo Sharif,

        “If indeed hybridrogue1 ever chose not to be involved here (assuming he has a choice)”

        “assuming” I have “a choice”…is it because it is passive aggressive, that you believe you should be able to get away with such comments? Covert aggression is aggression none the less.

        Your particular “brand of antagonistic insults,” might be labelled false advertising, as you make these attempts to shade your aggression by such innuendo. Who do you think you are fooling here Sharif?

        It is obvious to me that the ONLY time you sustain a conversation, beyond complimenting Craig on his writing is to play these covert aggressive games with me.

        So let me, with obvious in-your-face aggression grab you by the scruff of the neck and yank you back to our very first exchange here; where you were lobbying Craig to ban me for ‘being nasty’, when it was in fact your none too subtle innuendos that taunted me in the first place. Shall we take that stroll down memory lane together.

        And what if I recall for you my impression that it seemed very suspicious that you suddenly popped up here on this blog, and within just a few posts were trying to talk Craig into banning me. Is that your real mission here Sharif?

        Do you see how it’s done when you have a pair? You stand face to face and you say it clear and up-front, like I just have.

        Are you on a mission here Sharif? Were you sent as back-up to help get me tossed? James sort of went overboard in the other direction didn’t he. Oh I’m sure you don’t know James from Adam.

        So why don’t you ever speak to the issues here Sharif? Because your afraid of the big bad “aggressive dog”? Or because you really have no other agenda than to kiss up to the host and lobby for my dismissal?

        ww

      4. 10 signs for spotting a Sociopath

        #1) Sociopaths are charming. Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following just because people want to be around them. They have a “glow” about them that attracts people who typically seek guidance or direction.

        #2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn’t do. They are unbound by normal social contracts.

        #3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others.

        #4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. They wildly exaggerate things to the point of absurdity, but when they describe it to you in a storytelling format, for some reason it sounds believable at the time.

        #5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and “win” at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

        #6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them. Their high IQs often makes them dangerous.

        #7) Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving. They may feign love or compassion in order to get what they want, but they don’t actually FEEL love in the way that you or I do.

        #8) Sociopaths speak poetically. They are master wordsmiths, able to deliver a running “stream of consciousness” monologue that is both intriguing and hypnotic. They are expert storytellers and even poets.

        #9) Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.

        #10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!

      5. ‘On Bullshit’, is an essay by philosopher Harry Frankfurt. Originally published in the journal Raritan in 1986, the essay was republished as a separate volume in 2005 …”One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit,” ~Harry G. Frankfurt

        ww

  62. Perhaps Mr. OneSliceShort will post links to his videos on bunker-busting bombs. They are pretty good about getting penetration before exploding, which then negates much of momentum’s efforts to continue traveling and exiting the other side.

    1. Hi OSS,

      so what do you think personally!

      Was it a laser-guided “bunker buster” bomb, or are you of the opinion that it was a modified 757 or 767 or something similar?

      I’m genuinely interested, as it’s my intention to ask Señor El Once if he would like to participate with me in a mature, grown-up, super intelligent (obviously only to the extent we’re actually capable of), absolutely honest sincere desire to come to an understanding; where reason, logic, rationality and common sense will rule supreme, and where any kind of ‘ridicule’ will be considered uncouth, beneath contempt and totally counter-productive to our aims of at least appear to be individuals who are capable of ‘thinking for themselves’, and are desperately trying to reach what is Truth, and first of with the help of the above mentioned “tools”!

      If Señor happens to read this, perhaps he could reply to me directly from here, to save me from doing another post addressed especially to Señor, repeating the same above!

      Should Señor’s reply turn out positive, and you OSS would like to participate, then,
      by all means feel Free.

      Cheers

      1. Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,

        Count me in to participate in your discussion. What I lack in posting frequency, I’ll compensate with verbosity when I do get around to the few postings I can muster. Don’t expect rapid-fire response, response, response. I do R-E-S-P-O-N-S-E and then go away. [Bare in mind that I’m trying to have a real life, which means curbing some of my T&S addiction.]

        You asked Mr. OneSliceShort:

        Was it a laser-guided “bunker buster” bomb, or are you of the opinion that it was a modified 757 or 767 or something similar?

        If we trust the multiple “amateur” videos…
        If we trust radar data…

        THEN it was not the standard 767 associated with Flight 175 from the speed & precision at low-altitude alone.

        Once deep-pockets get into modifying an aircraft, the enhancements can change its nature from being less of a (passenger) plane and more of a missile in terms of its intended functionality and targeting technology. Could even account for Secretary Rumsfeld’s slip-of-the-tongue, even though the profile of this missile would resemble a commercial aircraft.

        I was going to include in the “If…” clauses:

        If we trust eye-witness accounts before television really began jerking with our perceptions…

        I don’t think we can.

        1. The radar data, in this case, refutes the official account and confirms the use of a hologram on the South Tower and also the North. This kind of proof is called “testimony (or evidence) contrary to interests” because it goes against what the government wants to peddle. That is why other proofs based upon official government documents–BTS and FAA data, for example, is so important and powerful. If you missed it before, take another look at this:

          Part 1
          http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

          Part 2
          http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

      2. Dear Señor,

        I will be quite interested in reading this discussion. I have no opinion on that matter at this time.

        But of course it will matter as to how the discussion goes, whether or not I will make any commentary as to.

        I would say however, that at the speed involved in this crash, it seems to me unnecessary to have included such a device. But let the proofs fall where they may as the discussion goes forward.

        ww

      3. Dear Dr. Fetzer,

        I’m glad that you posted the links to your videos. I’m also sorry that I am not going to watch them [in the very near future], and this response is made in ignorance as to what they contain.

        With them being each at 58:00 minutes, they are somewhat of a bandwidth-suck and a time-suck in order for me to watch them and find the nuggets of truth that might prove your assertion:

        The radar data, in this case, refutes the official account and confirms the use of a hologram on the South Tower and also the North.

        Assuming that you got the highlighted passage from something that could be referenced and read on the internet and that this is the basis for your two-hour talk in Seattle at University Temple United Methodist Church (and with special guest Dr. Nick Kollerstrom), I’m hoping you could provide references.

        I’ve heard that the FAA radar data and the military radar data disagree — by like 1400 lateral feet. Richard D. Hall makes hay of this in his video, by essentially saying (paraphrased):

        One set of radar data is faked. The other (off by 1400 feet) represents radar pings to a cloaked advanced technology aircraft, which then used holographic projection to display the aircraft.

        I’m not saying that this is your position or thinking, so maybe you could clarify how you agree or disagree with that and provide links.

        Also, when PilotsFor9/11Truth analyzed the radar data, they concluded that it represented velocities that the OCT model of the aircraft (Boeing 767) could not have achieved. This refutes the official account, but — if the radar data has any validity — this does not refute a physical aircraft BY DEFINITION of how radar works.

        Meanwhile in my own quickly googling, I find this:

        These delusional fantasists claim that they have radar evidence which PROVES that the towers were hit by a holographic plane! Using 3D “analysis” to support this theory. You may need large wellies to wade through this one:

        richplanet part=1

        richplanet part=2

        richplanet part=3

        Followed by this:

        Debunked already…

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

        Yep, I know the debunking is on JREF, but it seems reasonable; a nugget of truth, as it were, from the bowels of a disinformation source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Hmmm…

        To the above, we have the fact that NOTHING Dr. Fetzer has ever linked/posted confirms the SCIENCE of being able to project a hologram.

  63. Craig McKee says: “Does “sorting out some serious issues” go with calling people pansies? That remark seems really uncalled for.”

    Craig, this issue has _nothing_ to do with free speech issues and the 1st amendment whatsoever. That argument by that particular “person” is entirely disingenuous [as usual].

    It’s your blog, you may impose any speech restrictions that you deem appropriate.

    Regards, onebornfree

  64. sherifshaalan says: ” I, for one would not miss his brand of antagonistic insults; apparently a vital tool in his arsenal. I think this Blog, the Truth movement, and the World would get over it – and the sun would still rise and set.”

    You do realize that you are free to completely ignore/not respond to any posts here by anyone you wish,for whatever reason you wish, don’t you?

    You do not have to read, or respond to any poster you have problems with [for whatever reason you have those problems]. Simple!

    Look at it this way, by so doing under any one particular blog entry by Craig, you’d have around 50% less posts to read- saving you a lot of time, time you could use to concentrate on reading other posts, perhaps. Just use your mental “ignore” button.

    Perhaps one more point: isn’t it better for a poster, via their consistent “unacceptable” [by whatever personal standard] internet behavior to be able to repeatedly “hoist him/herself by his own petard” in full view of everyone else, thus repeatedly discrediting themselves and all of their posts?

    Could this perhaps be yet another useful application of the “false in one false in all” principle?

    In other words, if this person talks to everyone here in a manner you disapprove of day in and day out, why would you want to believe, or want to be associated him/her or with _any_ of his/her views/beliefs about, _anything_ [9/11 or otherwise], let alone try to respond or have a meaningful conversation here with them ?

    Perhaps a question for you and others here to ponder.

    Regards, onebornfree.

  65. Would it really be proper to label it “internecine” – that is a ‘battle between “truthers,” if those presenting themselves as such are in fact posers, impostors, and agents in the ongoing psychological operation called 9/11?

    How does one distinguish a “real Truther” from one of these operatives? Is it really just a count and tally of posts one makes? Is it the passion of one demanding rational dialog?

    Does this mean that one is clearly an “agent” because one is insistent on pointing out and dismissing obvious bullshit? Is the telling hallmark, that one uses “crass language” or ridicules the ridiculous?

    For myself, I have never simply called something ridiculous without a clear explanation of why I consider it ridiculous. I have however made the point that one who continues a ridiculous proposition without a proper defense, or giving a rational answer to my inquiries, must make a lucid presentation rather than simply hand-waving such reasonable criticisms.
    I put it to this forum, that those who are disgruntled at my presence here, are discontented not because I am ‘too aggressive’ or use crass language – but are displeased that I am effective in pointing out their outlandish errors which they cannot defend. They therefore combine to attack like a pack of jackals to shut me up. It should not be hard to notice that there was a ‘dog-pile’ directed at me specifically in the exchange here late last night.

    I further put it to this forum, that none of their arguments against me had merit, beyond the trite accusation that they had been “insulted” – if one is insulted because they have been proven wrong, it is not the fault of the prosecutor for presenting such proofs. The denial that such proofs have been put, without – again, a reasonable argument to show why, simply becomes a circle of bitching and whining.

    I will also note, that I have never disputed Craig McKee’s proper authority to run this forum in any way that he sees fit.

    But I have made no secret that the suggestions of some to remake this forum into some tepid ‘academic’ round table of “my dear dear So-and-So,” saccharine patty-cake, would ruin what this place has going for it.

    In closing I must say that I do believe there are posters here making absurd arguments that are clearly so, and that these are meant to create cognitive dissonance, that this is their purpose. That some are more subtle than others, that some will posture as arguing with each other when they are in fact aligned behind the scenes. This is just one man’s opinion to be sure, but I am stating it clearly without resort to these disingenuous innuendos that have been laid at my feet by those I consider to be working this site for nefarious purpose.

    I will now leave this subject. Craig should take whatever measures he may find necessary, or leave this all as the tempest in a teapot that it truly is.

    ww

    1. With regards to the conventions or rules of this forum, Mr. Rogue wrote on July 24, 2012 at 9:00 pm:

      Let us battle it out as we are, and let a candid world decide.

      I disagree. Without guidelines, not just a discussion thread but the whole article forum and the blog itself quickly dissolves into flame wars that may even reach the limits specified by Godwin’s Law:

      As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one (1).

      Haven’t heard us calling each other Nazi’s, but today’s 9/11 equivalent is probably “agent” and “Q-bot”. [Yep, these I’ve flung more than once, albeit generally with a list of specific character examples to substantiate my opinion-du-jour. I would have found “Sashadik” much harder to substantiate had I flung that though.]

      The thing is, a candid world doesn’t get to decide until after having vicariously experienced the distasteful battle tactics [and may reward or side with the underdog soley for this reason.] This experience with negative tactics can distract and sour readers to the truths & errors of what the battle was really about. At which point, the distraction becomes evidence of the disinfo game and its purpose; the salient arguments on the subject are swept aside [by design] by squibbles and squabbles; the worthiness of the entire blog suffers in esteem and certainly in lasting value to latter-day lurker readers.

      And do remember, ridicule of the ridiculous is not ‘Ad Hominem’, there is nothing in the classical rules of argumentum that excuse ridiculous argumentation.

      – EXCEPT when ridicule is the core and the first and only argument.

      – EXCEPT when ridicule is all that is repeated with nary even a lowly link to substantiation.

      – EXCEPT when the claims of ridiculousness are shallow veneers for ad hominem aimed at the individual.

      Think about it. For over 10 years, the perception management in media labeled & ridiculed everyone with alternative theories on 9/11 as “nutty, looney, and crazy” [conspiracy theorists.] Their very eye-rolls and smirks provided the on-the-spot overlay commentary that such-and-such was ridiculous.

      The ridiculousness wasn’t proven, because to attempt such necessitated taking the premise seriously. And worse for the ridiculer, it often validated the premise and invalidated the perception of ridiculousness. [Best for the ridiculer not to go there unless they can show the “error” line-by-line.]

      Mr. OneSliceShort on July 25, 2012 at 12:25 am wrote:

      … when already proven flaws (or at least highly suspect claims) are brushed over and repeated.

      Not really an issue, particularly for those with words worthy of preservation. With preservation comes re-use, re-purpose, and links. Assuming no disingenous games are being played with the destination link, then what can go a long way in a response to another spin on the carousel is a short concise less is more style:

      Yeah, yeah, yeah. I went through that with you at this link [to a specific comment.]

      Without the link, then it is just talk.

      Sometimes no response at all is merited. Turn the other cheek and Don’t feed the trolls. If the smashing board isn’t playing, isn’t giving fodder and opportunities for responses, then the conversation becomes boring and stale, if it can even hobble along mostly one-side. Most likely, it can’t (or shouldn’t). And it stands out like a sour statistic when it does.

      Mr. Rogue writes on July 25, 2012 at 11:34 am

      I put it to this forum, that those who are disgruntled at my presence here, are discontented not because I am ‘too aggressive’ or use crass language – but are displeased that I am effective in pointing out their outlandish errors which they cannot defend.

      From another perspective, when your outlandish errors which you couldn’t defend were pointed out, that’s when you became aggressive and used (clever) crass language and carousel analogies, and tried to dismiss by saying “we already did a spin on that carousel where I debunked it” [when you didn’t really, hence the missing link.]

      I further put it to this forum, that none of their arguments against me had merit…

      That is rather narcissistic.

      But I have made no secret that the suggestions of some to remake this forum into some tepid ‘academic’ round table of “my dear dear So-and-So,” saccharine patty-cake, would ruin what this place has going for it.

      I disagree. It takes a lot of discipline & thought to address consistently an opponent in a formal, respectful manner. Emphasis is on thought. When all that can be hoped for is that the “dear Mr. so-and-so” is read aloud with a sarcastic voice, the writer must focus on the subject, its arguments, and its merits, because discipline & thought should excise the insults and clever ad hominem in the pre-publication editing pass.

      In some ways, I sense that you are trying to counter my online demeanor [which helped set the tone of T&S and has a longer precedence here] and to turn this forum into a back-shanking free-for-all. [If that is the case, you are welcome to re-start you blog(s), establish its battle rules, and occassionally post links here to fish for new opponents.]

      Maybe it is narcissistic of me, dear Mr. Rogue, but I tend to think that by taking the high-road and using wordsmithy jujitsu to note [and even embrace] the insults that you directed at me was far more damaging to you in a reflective, kharma way. Slippery you called me, and indeed such “my dear dear So-and-So” saccharine patty-cake tactics were.

      BTW, I have never advocated publicly or privately for your banishment.

      What does all of this agency suspicion mean for Truth & Shadows? I’m not saying [Mr. Rogue] should be booted… NO, no, no!!! Better the devil that you know than the one you don’t. [Mr. Rogue] writes well and makes many good points (when they aren’t dubious), which helps refine my own thinking and waffle-y position.

      Mr. Rogue wrote once:

      It is obvious [Señor El Once] cannot make a positive argument to his hypotheticals, without using me as a slamming board.

      To which I responded:

      I have been using you as a slamming board. I have been bouncing ideas off of you. Without you and the errors found in your stilted arguments, my points would not have nearly the traction. You’re the ying to my yang. You’re the Laurel to my Hardy. You’re the Mutt to my Jeff. “You complete me, baby…”

      1. As I said,

        Craig should take whatever measures he finds necessary, or leave this all as the tempest in a teapot that it truly is.

        ww

      2. I substantially agree with Señor El Once with regard to the tone of discussion on this site. He actually laid out the disadvantages of a free-for-all approach better than I could have. Obviously, if any rules are put in place, then great care has to be taken to keep the discussion as free as it possibly can be. But when that freedom starts to kill the discussion and drive people away from the site, then some kind of balance needs to be found.

      3. Frankly I don’t think that Señor El Once has proven anything as per an alternative theory to explosive demolition of the towers by chemical energetics. He certainly thinks he has, and that is fine with me. I see no reason to snarl at the impasse.

        ww

      4. Frankly I don’t think that Señor El Once has proven anything as per an alternative theory to explosive demolition of the towers by chemical energetics.

        Correct, Mr. Rogue. But just because I haven’t proven it was nuclear DEW or other exotic weapons (to your satisfaction), doesn’t mean that your theory of explosive demolition by chemical energetics is proven or valid either.

        Played a role? No problem.

        Primary mechanism? No way. Ain’t logistically Occam Razor and don’t account for all the evidence. (And doesn’t fit in with the mentality of those who would attempt this when they have such deep arsenals that the public can only imagine and wouldn’t be the wiser.)

        Pick any number between 1 and 500. Put “000,000 kg” to the right of it.

        For just one tower, this is the estimated quantities of chemical energetic materials (e.g., nano-thermite) that the perps slipped into the towers in the several days that bomb-sniffing dogs took a pre-9/11 holiday.

        And it still can’t account for under-rubble hot-spot duration, tritium, and vehicle damage in the car park and West Broadway.

        So, whereas I’m still searching for a reasonable explanation (and being duped left-and-right), Mr. Rogue wants to park our research at known inadequate and deficient theories that even NIST poo-poo’s with decibels.

      5. Senor Once,
        You have a quote from Dr. Sunder from a press conference as per decibels.

        What instrumentation was used by NIST to measure Db?

        ww

      6. Dearest Señor El Once, you say:

        >“Without you and the errors found in your stilted arguments, my points would not have nearly the traction.”

        To which I reply:

        Your “traction” Señor, is mere hallucination.
        ……….

        Also; as per Sunder, NIST and dB….never mind it was actually more of a rhetorical question, as I already know the answer.

        I just wanted to see what you might spin up for us.

        ww

      7. Señor,

        You have 1,040 lbs of explosives.

        If you have determined you need 10 times this much for an upcoming demolition job, how many tons of this explosives do you need to add to your inventory?

        ww

      8. 4.68 tons need to be added to inventory.

        1 Ton = 2000 lbs
        Present Inventory = P = 1,040 lbs = 0.52 Tons
        Required Inventory = R = (10)*(P)
        Additional Inventory = A = R – P

        A = (10)*(P) – P
        A = (9)*(P) = (9)*(0.52 [Tons])
        A = 4.68 Tons

  66. alwhitesands says: “Dear Ms Onebornfree, Tamborine man etc, I was merely reiterating what others here have explained many times but in a simpler language as it appears to me that some folks here are either science challenged or their thinking is irrational.”

    Sorry I missed your posts till now, sometimes they appear out of sequence for whatever reason.

    You, myself and anyone else here are free to assert whatever they want about the events of 9/11.

    You assert that fl 175 could fly into/through WTC2 in the manner depicted in this video:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html .

    Fair enough, I have no problem with your assertion- I just don’t agree with it – in other words I assert the exact opposite, that it could not so do in the manner depicted because so doing violates a fundamental immutable law of nature and principle of Newtonian physics. [Therefor the video is a fake , in my opinion, given the “sum of all the evidence” concerning it, its creator, and other various technical issues that I will not elaborate on here].

    However,I have absolutely no desire at this time to try to change your point of view to mine on this matter, so if it is some sort of “debate” that you are looking for here from me, I’m afraid you are out of luck.

    Given the nature of this blog [many er, “interruptions”, posts appearing out of date sequence etc.], I am not prepared to discuss with you, nor anyone else here,[even those few I am still on speaking terms with🙂 ], my assertions versus your own, in anything other than the most generalized manner.[ For a clue as to what I think in general about this particular issue please check my posts in this thread dated:July 20 2012 at 8:14 am , July 21 2012 at 2:10 pm , and July 22 2012 at 12:09 pm .

    If you wish for a more in depth discussion then I am only prepared to so do via private email.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    P.S. Just so you know in advance what you’d be getting into if you opted to communicate with me via email, here are some more of the “crazy” 9/11assertions I make that I am likewise unwilling to discuss in anything other than the most generalized manner here, given the nature of the blog post format:

    OBF Assertion [1] : All of the various networks alleged “live” footage of the events of 9/11 [Fox, CNN,ABC, NBC, CBS etc.], including all tower collapse sequences [e.g. WTC1,2 and 7] , were 100% prefabricated digital fakes, _not _live broadcasts; in other words there were no live broadcasts from Manhattan that day, nor from the Pentagon [I’m not sure about PA].

    OBF Assertion [2]: All of the alleged “amateur” videos of either Fl. 11 entering WTC1, or Fl.175 entering WTC2 , including those allegedly authored by the Naudet Bros., E. Fairbanks,[linked above] M. Herzekhani, Tina Cart, Scott Meyers, Luc Courchesne etc. etc. , are also 100% prefabricated digital fakes [i.e pre-made on computer prior to the alleged events of 9/11].

    OBF Assertion [3] : 99.9 % of the alleged 9/11 still photographs, [including the one that heads this article of the Pentagon scene, and the one of the start of the collapse of WTC2 that is at bottom left of the front page of Mr McKee’s blog] , are likewise 100% digital fakes and not true depictions of real world events that occurred on 9/11.

    OBF Assertion [4]: most, [possibly 99%] of the 3,000 odd alleged victims, like the faked “live” videos and photo stills of the events listed in [1] ,[2] and [3], are also 100% digital fakes, in other words most of the persons officially listed as dead by the US government as 9/11 victims never existed in the real world, but were/are digitally manufactured fake personalities, created via “photoshopping” and “morphing” technology/software etc.

    1. Hello Onebornfree, Although I have posted only a couple of comments here recently, I have been reading with much interest almost daily, this blog for about 9 months as I wrote in my original comment in the previous thread. I am very familiar with the views of all who post here. I digest all the information whether I agree with it or not. Early this year I spent many hours on Simon Shack’s site and my conclusion is that there maybe some cropping in a select few of the images and perhaps some manipulation in the post-editing of some video footage but generally speaking I don’t buy into the wholesale “everything is fake” story. You postings on this subject are regular and repetitive so I am fully aware of your opinions. Thanks for the invite to a general discussion but I will decline.

      On a completely different note … A friend text me from earthquake-ravaged Christchurch, New Zealand saying a still standing but deemed unsafe 14 story office building will be demolished August 5th by Controlled Demolition Co (US). News reports say 60kg of explosives will be used and the debris pile is expected to be 15-20 metres high. My ears are always tuned to such news.

      Another story on RT news recently when they showed footage of the aftermath of bomb-blasted vehicles in Syria. I just noted that a couple of the cars were severly torched in the front but from midway along the body to the rear it was all shiny paint. Just a couple of observations.

      1. Mr Whitesands observes:

        Another story on RT news recently when they showed footage of the aftermath of bomb-blasted vehicles in Syria. I just noted that a couple of the cars were severly torched in the front but from midway along the body to the rear it was all shiny paint. Just a couple of observations.

        Which I find of quite a bit of relevance as, it is not asserted that there are any ‘directed energy beams’ being used by NATO nor the Syrian army, as far as we are aware of.

        Thank you for your observations Mr Whitesands [do you go by Al?]

        ww

  67. Craig,

    I approve anything you do to keep people on topic, rather than let the same people have the same discussions on the same topic over every thread.

    Cheers,
    KP

  68. Jim Fetzer says: “The radar data, in this case, refutes the official account and confirms the use of a hologram on the South Tower and also the North. This kind of proof is called “testimony (or evidence) contrary to interests” because it goes against what the government wants to peddle. That is why other proofs based upon official government documents–BTS and FAA data, for example, is so important and powerful.”

    Mr Fetzer, please explain to me why on earth, at this point in time, are you still willing to swallow whole,”hook line and sinker” _any_ government supplied “evidence” [i.e. “official government documents”] concerning the events of 9/11?

    You are joking ,right?

    Regards, onebornfree

  69. Thank you very much for your positive reply dear mr. Señor.

    (I’ll call you ‘Señor’ if you don’t mind, as i think it sound much nicer than SEO, especially as i’m using the Spanish pronunciation like “Zorro” would have done it. Cf.: The last post a couple of threads back)! ;o)

    As you know i don’t believe a plane of any kind entered the tower, so obviously for that reason alone, there’ll be no need for any “physics” coming from my side – thank God.
    I’ll simply deal with what we observe and what not, and keeping in mind that the simpler the word, the more clearly it will convey the ‘Thought’ – the source of all that IS.

    I’ll start by asking you to imagine, and to pretend, that there exist absolutely no plane in any of the many videos we have watched, and no persons whatsoever have ever mentioned anything about any plane.
    All we then see, is that huge explosions all of a sudden appear out from the WTC2. We see these explosions appearing from various viewpoints and distances and from different directions. You and i would have no idea what caused those explosions. The media would interview a military ‘expert’ who would give his ‘expert’ opinion the next day. We would trust his ‘judgement’ and think no more of it. predictable event would take place, but Life would move on.

    Please keep this ‘image’ in your mind, while we reintroduce the plane.
    This changes everything, because now everybody ‘knows’ exactly what caused the explosions: it was the bloody plane of course – right!
    Well, not ‘everybody’ Thought that!
    Some people noticed something that didn’t ‘look’ quite ‘right’, and fortunately started to look and dig deeper, and that’s why this blog of Craig’s exist, and why we now have this conversation. So let’s keep ‘digging’.

    When we looked at the explosions in more details, and without the presence of any plane, we saw “uniformity”. We saw this, in the sense that all 3 explosions on the South, East and North facade showed exactly the same pattern namely, that each explosion was preceded first with the appearance of ‘puff’s of smoke’ (for lack of a better term), followed straight after by the balls of fire.
    That means of course that we get the impression, these ‘puff’s of smoke’ on all three facades were the result of what happened “internally” inside the tower.

    Bringing back the plane this ‘uniformity’ changes dramatically, as it now appear that the ‘puff’s of smoke’ on the South facade is caused by the alleged plane on entering the building. We even see ‘puff’s of smoke appear on the right side above, where no part of this plane enter.
    So by introducing the plane into the picture, we go from ‘uniformity’ in appearance, back to a contradictory pattern which cannot be logically explained from what we’re observing!
    On the South side facade, the ‘puff’s’ now comes from a external source, whereas on the East and North side, the ‘puff’s’ come from an internal source!!

    Further observation:
    On the East wall we only see one little heavier object coming out with a tail of smoke, and the rest looks mostly like ‘fluttering’ pieces of aluminium cladding.
    From the North facade we again first see a little heavier objects coming out with smoke tails,
    following thereafter again with an object, this time having a tail of fire.
    We cannot see what these objects are.
    They do not appear to be shooting out with the velocity of more than 500 m/h.

    Please consider this the ‘prologue’ only mr. Señor.

    Will welcome your comment.

    I’ll talk a little about the ‘engine’, as found at Murray & Chursh streets, in the next post.

    Cheers

    1. Tamborine man says:

      “I’ll start by asking you to imagine, and to pretend, that there exist absolutely no plane in any of the many videos we have watched”

      ……….

      I think this is a very good example of Tamborine man’s whole game here, he wants us to pretend. And so here he finally puts it out here upfront and center.

      While I agree with RuffAdam in that I also “think NPT is a load of crap based on pure speculation and ridiculous arguments”

      But I would note that the policy of “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS” simply falls short.
      ……….

      It seems to be a 21st Century Schizoid World where…

      >Where logic and proportion seem to be some great mystery,

      >Where what is and is not reasonable is so elusive,

      >Where those like Onebornfree, Tamborine are free to be TOTALLY and UTTERLY unreasonable,

      >Where utter frauds such as Fetzer are simply accepted unchallenged,

      >And all opinions are deemed equal regardless of the comparative rationality thereof….
      ……….

      It is a Brave New World indeed.

      ww

      1. Hi mr. rogue,

        I do love you, you know!

        I love your total dishonesty, and i love your deviousness.

        Without you, i would never have learned that i’m in fact a ‘good’ person.

        I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

        Cheers

    2. Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,

      I know where you are going with the “imagine no plane” thought process, because I was fully there not all that long ago. I radically changed my tune from “no planes” at all (at the towers) to “no commercial planes” (for any of the 9/11 four.)

      To your points or the points you might make:

      – The single helicopter shot producing four different versions, one of them without a plane helped dupe me into NPT and still dupes me as blatant evidence of imagery manipulation.

      – I was all over the many “miraculous” shots of the plane thereby being an indication of “No way! They faked it!” Upon deeper reflection based on my new premise of NCPT, all of those people filming needed a cue to tell them where to focus. Billowing smoke alone would be boring after the first couple of minutes. A true flying object was that cue, although a nugget of truth is that several of the clips indicate significant foreknowledge with regards to the “miraculous” multi-stage zoom-in’s and panning and focus.

      – September Clues pointed out that the many different versions of the 2nd plane seemed to depict different flight paths, and I was all over that big time, too. Until the video with overlayed 3D modeling that showed how the different videos really did depict a singular flight path (that was also consistent with radar data.) Being the video experts that they are, September Clues should have known this. In fact, they probably did know it, but true to their nature in promoting clever disinformation, they hyped these seeming flight discrepencies and duped me.

      – Certainly radar data can be faked. But to fake two sources of radar data (FAA and military) and have these be in agreement with 44 some video perspectives and validated with 3D modeling, makes it less likely to be faked. Hell, they couldn’t even fake the flight data recorder at the Pentagon correctly [e.g., discrepancies between two altimeters, no indication of pilot door ever being open in flight, etc.] and they had years to perfect this, while the multiple videos trickled out over the course of a week (or month).

      – I could see such videos being edited to “clean” them up from things that we shouldn’t see; I could see them being down-sampled several times to remove “clarity.” But I can’t see them being created from scratch in that time frame.

      – The little puffs of smoke, etc.? I agree, it looks a bit weird, and very out-of-place for what we expect of a standard 767. But it wasn’t a standard 767, on which we agree [although I say it was a “special plane” and you say it was fakery.] The nature of the puff’s of smoke becomes more understandable when thinking the “special plane” was really a “special missile.”

      – Pentration was important to the ruse. Couldn’t have a standard 767 — flying much slower and with weaker materials — splattering on the building’s face like a bug on a windshield. Can’t have it bouncing off or getting stuck part-way in, because these very realistic scenarios would not substantiate the ruse of significant structural damage to cause building decimation. In fact, some of these could leave portions of the aircraft for study before the towers came down, and might be lacking in terms of bodies, luggage, etc.

      You wrote:

      On the East wall we only see one little heavier object coming out with a tail of smoke, and the rest looks mostly like ‘fluttering’ pieces of aluminium cladding. From the North facade we again first see a little heavier objects coming out with smoke tails, following thereafter again with an object, this time having a tail of fire. We cannot see what these objects are. They do not appear to be shooting out with the velocity of more than 500 m/h.

      Of course not. The distance from the action help make it appear not that fast. Beyond that, crashing into the South face, the core of the tower, and then the North face would have contributed to slowing the velocity of the object that broke away from the flying contraption.

      Even when I was championing September Clues, I could smell from its “polish and shine” that much of it was too good to be true. I was a very formidable champion of it. Maybe it was because I support the under-dog. Mostly it was because it was not given sufficient analysis beyond ridicule to rule it out. I wanted each nugget validated or not, because dispensing with the whole thing in one go (which really is a massive smoking gun to media complicity) would have been according to the disinfo game plan. It took awhile for major premises of September Clues (and its NPT) to be disproven.

      1. Hi dear Señor,

        thanks for your reply.

        To my comment here,
        “They do not appear to be shooting out with the velocity of more than 500 m/h.”

        You wrote:

        Of course not. The distance from the action help make it appear not that fast. Beyond that, crashing into the South face, the core of the tower, and then the North face would have contributed to slowing the velocity of the object that broke away from the flying contraption.

        You could be right about the ‘distance’ of course, but that was not quite what i was referring to. It was more the ‘drop’ that i thought happened a bit to quickly considering the alleged ‘object’s’ very high velocity of more than 500 m/h. But there are more oddities that stands out rather markedly. Let us ‘assume’ this object is the engine found at Murray street.
        By the direction of the alleged plane and the point of impact, it appears that the fuselage and right wing would have missed ‘the core of the tower’. As the whole plane disappears inside the building, that would indicate that this engine only had to cover another 30 meters or so before reaching the back wall.
        With the speed of over 500 m/h, this short distance would have been covered in 1/8 of a second, or a blink of an eye. The engine would have had to hit the 2 feet wide window opening with absolute precision, as no steel column seems to be damaged in any significant way where the engine would have come through. Think that the odds of this ‘fluke’ to happen would be pretty high!

        Keeping the 1/8 of a second in mind, then have a look at this video:

        You’ll first see ‘the nose-out’ shape coming out, then followed by the fire balls, and only thereafter do we see the ‘object’ emerge from the explosion. So a sequence of events took place here that doesn’t really make any sense, as the ‘object’ should probably have emerged before the ‘nose-out’ shape!

        If you go to 0:31 and 0:32 in this video, the ‘object’ seems to receive an extra ‘boost’ and leave a strange black smoke trail behind.
        At 0:39 the ‘object’ mysteriously and suddenly completely disappears from sight.
        Very ‘spooky’ indeed!

        Look forward to your comment Señor,

        Cheers

        PS!
        To you, Craig McKee.

        I think the topic got changed because the ‘pentagon’ subject slowed down considerably.
        I envisage to only make one more post regarding this subject Señor and i have going at the moment, where i will explain why i think no plane impacted, and my reason for choosing to believe the plane was a 3D projection.
        Hope you’ll bear with us just a little longer!

      2. Mr. Tamborine Man wrote:

        It was more the ‘drop’ that i thought happened a bit to quickly considering the alleged ‘object’s’ very high velocity of more than 500 m/h.

        The 500 mph figure represents velocity before it hit the tower with engines still pushing it through the air. Upon entering the towers and velocity-squared term in the collision energy totally overwhelming the structural energy of the aircraft, the mass was shredded and no longer had engines to push individual pieces. The pieces flying out of the building could have been slowed by any number of object within the structure.

        Maybe not with this video but certainly with others, you can calculate how fast it was going. The lateral speed (x-vector) would be representitive of the final push from the engines. The vertical speed (y-vector) would be from the force of gravity acting on it. The two vectors combined make up the overall velocity and probably increased.

        This discussion including your details about plane wings and columns inside the building (yada, yada, yada) are to me, inconsequential. Why?

        Because both you and I agree that the aircraft wasn’t the stated plane. More importantly, my case really supes up the plane to make it more of a bunker-busting missile with a commercial plane’s profile. I could very easily be duped into believing that it had other explosive features above and beyond jet fuel that were initiated once penetration occurred. Such added energy could change vectors of all components and could then very well be the impulse propulsion of pieces flying out the backside.

        You should probably broaden your set of videos when trying to analyze this anomaly, and they should include some at near real-speed. Look for Mr. OneSliceShort’s videos in various recent articles, as I’m sure he posted them.

        I don’t make anything of the object seemingly disappearing at 0:39, because (a) it was already hokey slow and (b) at 0:42 the clock stops and the music jam continues for a time longer than the stated 0:42 seconds, such is the extent of the imagery and YouTube manipulation.

        i will explain why i think no plane impacted, and my reason for choosing to believe the plane was a 3D projection.

        Let us hope that it is substantial and substantially more than Dr. Fetzer ever provided on hologram (which is a type of 3D projection.) I’ve stated before that Dr. Fetzers hologram links were wimpy-ass. Exploring them and expanding my own research never yielded anything that suggests the technology supports any form of 3D projection akin to what would be required.

        1. So now Senor shows himself to be a graduate of the Anthony Lawson School of Fantasy Physics and “Special” Planes! I really thought he had more intelligence and understanding of physics to fall for anything like this. If the plane hit the tower at more than 500mph with the kind of steel-cutting capacities he claims for it, then–since it wa160′ long and the width of the tower was only 208′–surely it would have cut through the entire building and come out the other side. Does he want us to believe that a plane that could enter this building even though it was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ concrete could come to a screeching halt INSIDE THE BUILDING? How dumb is that? I really can’t abide displays of ignorance of physics on this scale. It is not merely physically impossible but presumes that the members of this forum are WILLING TO BELIEVE ANYTHING. I no longer have any faith in this man, who has demonstrated his incompetence with theissues.

      3. Dear readers of Truth & Shadows,

        Using our imaginations, let’s water the seed that a hybrid planted that Dr. Fetzer is a deep mole. Would a deep mole write such ad hominem attack as his opening two sentences (from July 28, 2012 at 10:53 am)?

        So now Senor shows himself to be a graduate of the Anthony Lawson School of Fantasy Physics and “Special” Planes! I really thought he had more intelligence and understanding of physics to fall for anything like this.

        Would a deep mole conclude his short missive filled with depth and understanding with this ad hominem attack?

        How dumb is that? I really can’t abide displays of ignorance of physics on this scale. It is not merely physically impossible but presumes that the members of this forum are WILLING TO BELIEVE ANYTHING. I no longer have any faith in this man, who has demonstrated his incompetence with the issues.

        Or more imporantly, would a college professor (and former Marine Corps military officer) worthy of respect write such… filibuster?

        If the plane hit the tower at more than 500 mph with the kind of steel-cutting capacities he claims for it, then–since it was 160′ long and the width of the tower was only 208’–surely it would have cut through the entire building and come out the other side.

        Oooh, Dr. Fetzer! Guess his old bones still got it for building strawmen.

        He and I agree that the alleged UA 175 (Boeing 767) was involved in name only. The only condition imposed was that its outline resemble that of a commercial plane. From there, even he would probably say (and I would agree) that the photon interference creating the illusion of a visible boundry or “skin” hides a dastardly lie!

        Where he and I deviate is what is under that skin. Photons and air in the case of holograms, no?

        In the case of my special plane, well… it is really a missile with the lipstick of a plane, and beneath the lying skin could have been many wonders of military bunker-busting bomb marvels.

        As seen by videos of many other bunker-busting bombs, coming out the other side would not have been the design intent of this plane-looking missile.

        Does he want us to believe that a plane that could enter this building even though it was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8′ concrete could come to a screeching halt INSIDE THE BUILDING?

        Nope, not at all.

        I want us to believe that “a missile made-up to look like a plane” did all that.

  70. Off topic posts can simply be moved to another thread which the particular comment belongs in. I will not read posts at all from some individuals here because they are rarely if ever related to the topic, not to mention the fact that most of their posts don’t make any sense. I think NPT is a load of crap based on pure speculation and ridiculous arguments. I for one would appreciate it if those comments related to that topic were moved to a thread devoted to that stuff. Then I could ignore that thread and spend my time reading comments that are related to the topic. Derailing topics over and over is troll behavior. It is not censorship to move off topic comments to where they belong so they do not destroy the on topic discussion. It is a pain in the ass for Craig though that some individuals seem to be totally unable to stay on topic and insist on ruining each and every discussion.

    1. Dear ruffadam,

      I think that absolutely everybody in this thread, even mr. rogue, can support every word Craig McKee wrote in his introduction to this his thread.

      If you have anything new and exciting to add, i for one would be more than eager and excited to hear everything to have to contribute more, in this regard.

      I would actually “drop everything” for a while!

      Cheers

    2. RuffAdam,

      I do appreciate your sentiments to a great deal, and yet this issue of “staying on topic” is not as cut and dry as you seem to imply.

      Yes, the main headline refers to the Pentagon, which I understand is your topic of main interest, but it is also about a ‘Propaganda team’, and this particular team is certainly not the only one directed at the Truth Movement. The movement is being cornered by a vast array of angles to bring it to a halt.

      So I think you should recognize that the sub-topic of propaganda teams and the agents thereof is in fact ‘on topic’. I think you should also see that all aspects of the 9/11 case are intertwined, and it is very difficult to address one strand and not acknowledge how that one connects to the others.

      I ask you to reconsider simply bowing out of such conversations as explode onto these threads. I think your participation in highlighting the absurdities of certain arguments made ad infinitum by a certain group would be most beneficial, and might serve to dampen such absurdities once and for all if more of the membership here were to stay involved – regardless of how distasteful it is to their sensibilities.

      As I observed before, the tactic of not feeding the trolls simply doesn’t work, unchallenged they will take over any thread, and leave this blog appearing a madhouse.

      ww

      1. I agree with aspects of what you’re both saying. As Hybridrogue1 points out, different people can define the topic more or less narrowly. But I take Adam’s point that we can’t let each thread turn into the same discussion, namely about video fakery and no planes. I’m not afraid of those discussions (this is a clue to the article I’m now working on), but it’s not fair that these dominate. For the next thread they can be mentioned in the context of the discussion but going into the evidence related to those topics will be off limits. I’ll try to make this clearer when I put the post up.

        This does not mean I’m censoring these subjects; the discussion can continue on this thread if people wish. But I’m not interested in yet another rehashing of what we’ve all read on past threads. This is not a long-term solution to people’s concerns, but it will give me an opportunity to see how the discussion is affected.

      2. Thanks for this comment Craig,

        I am most curious to see how this all pans out. As I don’t really ‘enjoy’ the NPT and Video Fakery ride…I’d like to see the topics either focused on and sorted out once and for all, or simply nipped in the bud.

        As nipping in the bud seems less than totally fair, I’d like to see if they can be dealt with fairly yet firmly.

        There is reason and there is fantasy – there are fact based opinions, and there are emotionally based opinions. These distinctions are not that difficult to discern if dealt with directly.

        ww

      3. Craig,

        A suggestion?

        If any future topics are regarding “fakery” and NPT, do you think that you could word it somehow to contain this (vital) question(s)…

        At what point is evidence deemed as “valid”? How? And by whom?

        Cheers

        OSS

    3. Hi Señor,

      Thanks for your reply, and the way you so nicely formulated the ‘problematics’ down to the basics. Hopefully now everyone can clearly see that everything in fact simply boils down to the power of “imagination”only, and that alone.(Neither you or i would ‘know’ what took place inside the tower after the alleged impact).

      So apparently you got no problems whatsoever ‘imagining’ a plane (however much it had been modified for your purposes), entering the tower as shown in the various videos.
      Having accepted this as a ‘fait accompli’, first then do you use your ‘scientific method’ trying to piece together what must have taken place straight after the entry of the alleged plane.
      You come up with a (for you) plausible explanation you think you can live with, and sticking to this, forgetting completely that it was simply your ‘imagination’ which were the real and True driving force behind what you’re now trying to work out with the help of your ‘science’ and ‘physics’!

      With this typical MO firmly established within certain quarters, we see the strangest things happening in various forums, blogs, and also in this thread.
      We see people with a propensity for ‘the scientific method’ taking the high road, displaying a “superiority complex” out of all proportions and frankly beyond comprehension:
      As if ‘their power of imagination’ fantastically surpasses every others not possessing ‘their’ scientific approach, or even surpass other ‘science’ minded, who might have adopted a different viewpoint. – What utter inane vanity and arrogance from these ‘types’, while simultaneously having to endure their immature ridicule, taunts, scorns and scoffs on top of it all!

      So by all means, let the “rogue’s and the Legge’s” of this world have their self-conceit to themselves. Let them remain deeply ignorant and unsympathetic to the fact, that if you truly desire to approach and to find the Truth, they can only do this with ‘sentiments’ that the Truth itself is agreeable to and favourable toward.
      By using conceit and superior attitudes, the only result these self-appointed ‘experts’ can ever expect, is a degeneration and degradation of their minds, as they are removing themselves from the Light, instead of being drawn to this force by showing a bit of humility, goodwill, open-mindedness, unbias and tolerance!

      My own “imagination” is completely contrary to yours in this particular case, Señor.

      All it can see is fraud, falsehood, things making no sense, unnatural jerky flying movements, unnatural looking approaches by the alleged ‘real’ plane, and a totally unimaginable image and unbelievable bad effects of a plane colliding with a steel tower of this nature.

      As my ‘imagination’ could not imagine such an event occurring as shown, i never had the need to imagine what happened within the tower at that moment, except of course in my vain attempts at times, of trying to imagine what you and others are able to imagine!
      As i could not imagine any real plane being present there on that day, i was ‘forced’ to look for another explanation elsewhere, that better suited my imagination to the events as they unfolded.

      Again contrary to your assertions of a “Star Trek” connection, i was fortunate enough back in 2007 to read excerpts from DARPA’s budget papers 2000 – 2007, which were then available on the net.

      I only saved 1 page, as at that time it was all that really interested me. I found it to be “the final straw that broke the camel’s back”, and which finally could tie all loose ends nicely together for me personally. (The ‘camel’ being the ‘impact scenario’ in this case)!

      Here is the page i’m talking about:

      Part of DARPA’s budget papers from the years 2000 to 2007:

      From page 123:

      “…..
      These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century.”

      I therefore suggest we should instead choose to respect each others “power of imagination”, and leave all kinds of ridicule far behind with the ‘silly people’, keeping in mind that this would benefit us all far more in the end that anything negative ever would.
      This way we would give immense help to each other, in our serious attempts to finally “Give this World a Mind”!

      Cheers

      1. “…and leave all kinds of ridicule far behind with the ‘silly people’”

        Says one of the silliest people commenting on this blog.

        That is precious Tamberine, your entire rant on “imagination” trumping physics and science give it all away.

        And your desperate and disingenuous attempt to equate me with Legge is scurrilous defamation, not to mention an utterly stupid form of ridicule.

        You attempt, through your “imagination” to equate this:

        “microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges.
        ~ DARPA”:

        As if it could conceivably have any connection to ‘projecting holograms’.

        Your ignorance is without bounds.

        ww

      2. Dear Mr. Tamborine Man, you wrote on July 28, 2012 at 2:43 pm

        So apparently you got no problems whatsoever ‘imagining’ a plane (however much it had been modified for your purposes), entering the tower as shown in the various videos.

        Actually, my imagination is now imagining a missile with the lipstick of a plane.

        (Neither you or i would ‘know’ what took place inside the tower after the alleged impact).

        Correct, but a missile with the outline of a plane is explaining the speed, the precision, the wing-slicing, the penetration, explosion before exit, …

        All I can see is fraud, falsehood, things making no sense, unnatural jerky flying movements, unnatural looking approaches by the alleged ‘real’ plane, and a totally unimaginable image and unbelievable bad effects of a plane colliding with a steel tower of this nature.

        I was totally with you right up until you dropped “unbelievable bad effects.” Maybe the key for you rests in the phrase that follows: “of a plane colliding with a steel tower.”

        If it was a missile with the lipstick of a plane, would you still be complaining? Can you imagination not ponder that?

        You brought a page from DARPA’s budget papers 2000 – 2007 from page 123:

        These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century.

        I highlighted what I thought you were driving at. You think that these items spell out: “H-o-l-o-g-r-a-m-s” or other things that can project 3D images.

        They don’t. They spell out “secure communication up-links”, “imaging and targeting” for weapons systems, and “high speed electronics.”

        “Imaging” is a type of modeling or mapping. To this end, my research has demonstrated that holographs and other 3D laser interference mapping are employed and do a fine job. But this is a different application and technology than anything that would project a 3D image a distance (to be picked up by many different angles on video recorders and by two radar systems.)

      3. Señor El Once // says

        Actually, my imagination is now imagining a missile with the lipstick of a plane.

        Let’s back up here for a moment Señor. Can you be more specific with what you are “imagining” here?

        What do you mean by a “missile”? Do you actually mean another form of craft entirely, or a souped up Boeing? The outline of this craft is clearly that of a large jet plane. Obviously not a cruise missile of any kind.

        So where are you going now?

        ww

      4. The reason I disagree with the idea that the craft that impacted the towers was a “missile with the lipstick of a plane” is that any significant explosive payload would have caused much too much damage, likely collapsing the upper portion of the towers prematurely.

        A standard Boeing could have entered the facade, IF it could achieve the speeds necessary [SEE: DeMartini again]

        While it is my opinion that this Boeing was extra hardened, I think it is the special engines, especially customized fans that was the ticket to adding the ability to achieve such speeds in the denser lower {sea level} atmosphere.

        ww

      5. Correct about what the payloads of a missile can bring and them being in excess to what was required.

        When I say “missile with the lipstick of a plane”, I’m really just arguing symmantics to get imagination beyond “commercial planes”.

        Once you take a human pilot out of the cockpit, supe up the engines, fortify the wings & fuselage, etc. it ain’t very far removed from what imagination conceives of a missile.

      6. Señor El Once // says:

        “Once you take a human pilot out of the cockpit, supe up the engines, fortify the wings & fuselage, etc. it ain’t very far removed from what imagination conceives of a missile.”

        Got it, and I agree. Thanks for your clarification.

        ww

  71. onebornfree says :” Mr Fetzer, please explain to me why on earth, at this point in time, are you still willing to swallow whole,”hook line and sinker” _any_ government supplied “evidence” [i.e. “official government documents”] concerning the events of 9/11?You are joking ,right?”

    To expand a little more on my own posted comment to Mr Fetzer [July 26, 2012 at 12:12 am ] , Jim Fetzer had earlier said in his very own post here, 4 days ago [July 22, 2012 at 7:31 pm] :

    “Well, virtually everything we have been told by the government about 9/11 IS false” .

    So my question for Mr Fetzer is :

    So why would you believe any of the BTS/FAA data is genuine? Why is _it_ somehow trustworthy, according to you, and yet at the same time, for the long list of items you listed in your July 22, 2012 at 7:31 pm post it [the government] is untrustworthy?

    This appears to be a large contradiction, or inconsistency in your thinking, Mr Fetzer.

    You relate that you have been repeatedly lied to by the government about everything that happened on 9/11 that you previously listed, and yet you still choose to trust/cherry pick some of its “information” as somehow being “trustworthy” and genuine? Just sayin’ 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. When government documents provide evidence that refutes or substantially undermines the government’s own account, it qualifies as “admissions contrary to interest” and carry special weight under the law. The BTS documents show that Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air that day. The FAA Registration records show that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were in the air but over Champaign-Urbana, IL, in the case of Flight 93, after it had reportedly “crashed” in Shanksville, PA; and that Flight 175 was in the air over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had allegedly hit the South Tower. How anyone could want to deny NPT–which asserts that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower, that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower–once they understand these simple, documented points I beyond me. And of course what we find at the “crash scenes” reinforces that all four of them were fabricated.

      1. So tell us Fetzer, how is your standing in the JFK Assassination Research community?

        What do Doug Weldon, Anthony Marsh, Clint Bradford, and scores of other dedicated researchers think of your ‘work’?

        Isn’t it very similar to the 9/11 Research community? That most of us think you are a crackpot or “glory-seeking con-artist,” as one of the named mentioned above put it.

        “By 1996, I had lost all faith in [Fetzer’s] integrity. He is a parasite, not a researcher. He tried to ride the medical evidence to fame, but was frustrated by his inability to use Harrison Livingstone. He went on to find others more easily manipulated, and picked Zapruder alteration as his new “cause.” – from Clint Bradford, posting an email from another researcher wishing to remain anonymous.

        http://www.jfk-info.com/feedback.htm

        ww

      2. James H. Fetzer
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Jump to: navigation, search

        This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (February 2009)

        This article may be an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject. Please help edit it to conform to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view, in line with the discussion on the talk page. (February 2009)

        This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources, where they are used inappropriately. (February 2009)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer
        . . . . . . . . . .

        ww

        1. Surely you know that notices like those are what subjects like me receive as public psy ops to make rather gullible readers think there is something wrong with my work when the only problem is that it exposes the government’s complicity in JFK, 9/11 and the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone.

          It’s a common practice for one op to post something and for another come along and approve it, just as you are doing here. If you need an education, which I doubt, see “Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-as-911-disinformation-op.html

      3. Jim Fetzer says July 29, 2012 at 6:12 pm:

        Surely you know that notices like those are what subjects like me receive as public psy ops to make rather gullible readers think there is something wrong with my work…

        Surely Fetzer, you don’t think I need something like Wikipedia to show me that there is something wrong with your work. You must be joking.

        So, you are saying that those notices are “public psyops”? Just what exactly does that mean? The ‘public’ is running a psychological operation against you? {grin}

        No, don’t tell me to read your fricking articles anymore. I’ll take your explanations here…those are silly enough.

        I was there to see what era you were in the Marines…did you serve in Nam?

        ww

      4. WAIT….

        Fetzer,

        Are you seriously proposing that I, came along and pulled some levers or something on your wiki page???

        Hahahahahaha…I can’t even make THIS page work right a good deal of the time, let alone putz around with wiki.

        Like, I could swear I put the slash – / – in my ending block-quote…{???} but it still turned out wanked.

        ww

  72. Craig,I have enjoyed very much reading your article and will have a look at all the 265 comments over the next few nights.

    I wonder if any of the disinfo crew have commented?

    Ya know it wasn’t until the Pentagon was hit that “War” was declared.
    1: The first hit was originally deemed pilot error
    2: The second hit was a terrorist attack.
    3 The third hit was “war”

    That’s why the Pentagon attack is so very important.

    I suppose when they cleaned up the site at the Pentagon and removed the 5 downed light poles I don’t suppose they picked up any pieces of wing material that would have been ripped from the wings and found close by.

    I wonder if Legge even knows what material the light poles were made of. It’s possible that they were made of a material much thicker and much tougher that aircraft aluminum.

    Regarding “Informing the Public” to quote legge,
    I wonder how many people have read his article who have yet to be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job?
    I mean did he write it to inform the public or did Legge write it to suggest to the 9/11 truth movement that we have some kooks in our ranks who believe that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

    1. Socrates,

      I haven’t heard from any of the “team” I referred to since I wrote this. But I did get responses from Chris Sarns and Gregg Roberts (sent through a third party) as well as a really nasty attack on me from Michael Wolsey on Facebook. As I have noted, none of these comments refuted my central claims: that they represent only a tiny minority of the movement and that they are working together. I also received a number of comments from John Bursill, but those came before I criticized him in this current article.

    2. Socrates asks:

      “I mean did he write it to inform the public or did Legge write it to suggest to the 9/11 truth movement that we have some kooks in our ranks who believe that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.”

      Having had a long email discussion on these matters, and this very paper we speak to here, I can say definitively that Legge wrote it specifically to the 9/11 Truth movement, and that he does more than simply imply that those who think that no plane hit the Pentagon are ‘kooks’.

      I was privy to 5 or 6 versions of the paper that had several different titles, as he reworked them. The first title was, ‘Debunking the Pentagon No-Plane Theory’,
      another was, ‘NOC Refutation’, and another working title was ‘NOC TechPaper’.
      Other working titles were numbered versions of these.

      As this email exchange went on, I went from thinking he was simply in error, to grasping that he was being disingenuous, or delusional. There were several times when he ‘broke off’ the conversation, only to come back a day or two later, either with an hysterical attitude and very aggressive, or sometimes trying to mollify and persuade me to see some “error in my ways”.

      Well, the whole thing ended badly of course. I was frank with Frank and let him know I considered him a mole who had infiltrated the movement early on by ingratiating himself, by writing honest analysis – only waiting for an opportunity to poison the arena with small doses, and finally to the point of these final total ‘official story’ agreements.

      I had intended to go more into this on this thread, but a ‘steering committee’ arrived and sent the thread into hyper cognitive dissonance. And one of these guys just told me he “loves” me for proving to himself that he is a “good person”. Strange crew, this group…

      ww

      PS, I remember you from COTO2, do you remember me? I was Albury Smith’s arch nemesis on many a 9/11 thread there.

      1. hybridrogue1

        Thanks for putting what I wrote into a fine looking well presented quote.

        “PS, I remember you from COTO2, do you remember me? I was Albury Smith’s arch nemesis on many a 9/11 thread there.”

        I wish I knew what you are talking about here, I think you may have me mixed up with someone else.

        However I do look forward to working with you defending the truth when information important to the 9/11 truth movement has become a clear case of disinformation.

        Regards
        Socrates

      2. Socrates,

        Thank you for your response. If you don’t know Rady Ananda’s COTO2, then I must have you mixed up with another Socrates.

        In that case, nice to meet you.

        ww

  73. Craig McKee says: “… we can’t let each thread turn into the same discussion, namely about video fakery and no planes. I’m not afraid of those discussions (this is a clue to the article I’m now working on), but it’s not fair that these dominate.”

    I hate to say it Craig, but _you_ are the person responsible for letting anything, or anyone “dominate” here, or make a discussion “fair” or unfair. Not me, or anyone else.

    You appear to have a couple of regular posters here who, despite pretensions to literacy and intelligence, appear to have the overall sensibilities of 5 year olds.

    Through trial and error they quickly have learned what the limits on their behavior are here [virtually none], and yet like prototypical 5 year olds ask for a moderators interference when things are posted that raise issues that they object to, while at the same time you have graciously and repeatedly allowed one of the most prolific [and most child-like] to repeatedly post insults, ad hominems and even posts about the Batman shootings in a post about the BBC, when such have even less to do with 9/11 than does the subject of video fakery [seeing as how the videos broadcast by the BBC of WTC7’s collapse were all 100% fake, digital creations].

    That, and posters such as those [i.e.child like], are the everyday reality for forums etc., and only you can decide what to do about it/them- not the posters themselves, who will carry on posting whatever they can get away with regardless of protestations from others regarding frequency, length, or inflammatory name-calling.

    And of course, if someone attempts to give them a “dose of their own medicine” out of frustration,or in a quest for amusement, then of course they repeatedly whine/complain to their other childish supporters , or to you directly.

    It’s like a frickin’ kindergarten round here a lot of the time.

    Despite your graciousness and unwillingness to censor, such child like persons are wholly incapable of ever understanding that if _they_ get to post the stuff they want to post,[ like the crap about the Batman shootings, or direct ad hominems and name-calling]] then the same applies to others regardless or not of their own [child like] personal preference that others should be censured while they [of course!] should somehow not.

    And regarding video and photographic fakery, I fail to see how the discussion of it or of the potential for other falsified evidence [e.g. faked Pentagon photos and FAA radar records, as raised by yours truly in this thread], _can_ be kept out of the discussions here.

    The released video and photographic imagery for 9/11 makes up the majority of the governments alleged “evidence” about what happened. Personally, I believe it was practically all faked. I will keep posting my beliefs regarding that issue when I consider it relevant regardless of what all “the kids” out there “think” .

    As a matter of fact, the more it pisses them off, the better, as far as I am concerned. If you choose to repeatedly censure those posts then I’ll be out of here.

    Regards,onebornfree

    1. Regards onebornfree,

      There seems a tension here in this post, like you may be worried about some personal impending doom.

      Let me get this straight.

      Do you think that all or practically all of the imagery from 9/11 is faked?

      Did I read that right?

      ww

      1. Willy

        “99%” he previously said.
        As with “99%” of the victims.

        I’d personally like to see the “1%” that are not “fake” and to know how he deemed that they weren’t.

  74. Craig McKee said: “Legge and Bursill think it’s likely that this picture shows the scene of a plane crash.”

    Onebornfree says: Back on topic! If you look closely at the strange foreshortened perspective, the unlikely green foreground, the overall blueish coloration, and inconsistent sizes of the figures in it, plus all of the weird smoke and fire at right, this photo of the scene at the Pentagon smells strongly of fake! 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Onebornfree says: “Back on topic!”

      Yes, that’s your trick top hat isn’t it?

      ALL of the sub topics of 9/11 have visuals and imagery.

      So you can pop up and spuriously claim to be “on topic” on just about any conceivable 9/11 discussion, while in reality you are making one single argument about one single topic over and over and over and over…..

      Further you can use that argument as a medium to call anyone who disagrees with you, or complains about the broken record repetition-repetition, childish…of course never directly…because you “have them on ignore” – which is another load of bullshit, because if you were actually ignoring MY commentary {for example} you couldn’t possibly make any complaints about whatever it is I might say.

      And then the real kicker is, you seem to think that this forum is too stupid to catch on to this rhetorical bob’n’weave shuck’n’jive bullshit that you play as a theme song on a slow bus to the Hell of Redundancy.

      ww

  75. The released video and photographic imagery for 9/11 makes up the majority of the governments alleged “evidence” about what happened. Personally, I believe it was practically all faked. I will keep posting my beliefs regarding that issue when I consider it relevant regardless of what all “the kids” out there “think” .

    this and onebornfree’s earlier assertions that everything including the victims and collapses are “fake” is the main reason the question should be asked…

    At what point should evidence be deemed “valid”? How? And by whom?

    I wrote a tongue-in-cheek (but valid) post not so long ago which pointed out the fallacies and manufactured safety net of onebornfree’s “arguments”

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/more-absurd-arguments-on-the-pentagon-propaganda-team-sets-its-sights-on-griffin/#comment-9209

    Have I hit the nail on the head with this guy or not?

    1. Regards onebornfree says:

      “The released video and photographic imagery for 9/11 makes up the majority of the governments alleged “evidence” about what happened.

      But he fails to note that much of this photographic imagery directly contradicts the Official Story. Such as the clearly exploding towers. The utter impossibly of jet impacts or jet fuel fires to cause total global failure that is shown in this imagery.

      If the ‘government’ in league with the MSM were to have used ‘digital fakery’ to present the ‘collapses’ of the towers, they would have made it look like a ‘collapse’ rather than an exploding volcano.

      This single aspect is the crux of the matter – the imagery DOES NOT support the official story.

      Now, I made this point as far back as the ’36 Truthers’ thread, when Mr Shack first made his appearance and started into his rhetorical routine. And it has been ignored by the Shack faction ever since.

      ww

  76. OSS query’s:

    >”Have I hit the nail on the head with this guy or not?”

    Yes indeed, I do believe several hammers have. He should be firmly driven into the board at this point…which leads one to suspect that he himself might be some form of digital fake.

    Is he REALLY this classic James Bond film-villain that he poses as?

    Could all be psychomarketing, like the Shackeracareliac bimbo vacuum.

    ww

      1. You know Al,

        That totally slipped my mind…

        Maybe Onebornfree should get Shack on that to see what he can spin up for us.

        I understand that someone tried to shoot up a convoy in Israel that supposedly had Hilarity Clinton aboard — turned out the whole convoy was a hologram when the Citron tried to ram the lead car and just passed through it effortlessly like thin air.

        Veterans Today is carrying that story, so I’m sure Fetzer’s on top of getting to goods on that one.

        I’d add a “Lol” here, but someone might get mad and think I’m being sarcastic, and petulantly vicious…bow wow wow.

        ww

  77. Jim Fetzer says: July 27, 2012 at 9:40 am
    “When government documents provide evidence that refutes or substantially undermines the government’s own account, it qualifies as “admissions contrary to interest” and carry special weight under the law. The BTS documents show that Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air that day. The FAA Registration records show that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were in the air but over Champaign-Urbana, IL, in the case of Flight 93, after it had reportedly “crashed” in Shanksville, PA; and that Flight 175 was in the air over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had allegedly hit the South Tower. …”

    But surely, Mr Fetzer, if someone tells you to your face that at a certain time/place they were at “so and so’s” place/location, and then later on you happen to overhear that same person swearing up and down that they were at an entirely different location at that particular time, it does not mean that they were necessarily at _either_ location – couldn’t they have really been at a 3rd, as yet undisclosed location? Or maybe they never even left the house that day?

    I submit that the government making two entirely contradictory claims about the whereabouts of those flights does _not_ mean that either of those claims are necessarily true, and that it is far more reasonable to assume “false in one false in all” as a working investigatory assumption, especially when you yourself have been lied to repeatedly by the Federal government in all matters 9/11 , and as you yourself briefly listed in this very thread.

    A question you might wish to consider, based on your personal experience in this affair [nobody else can answer this for you, including myself- it’s a question for each individual to consider entirely as an autonomous, unique individual] :

    When do you personally draw the line and say “enough is enough” , and stop yourself from automatically assuming that _any_ of the governments “evidence” is actually genuine, and instead automatically assume that most likely it is false, or compromised in some way, until proven genuine “beyond a reasonable doubt” , “to a higher standard of truth”, in your own mind, and proceed from that working assumption in your ongoing 9/11 investigations?

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. It may make no difference, but a sentence or two was lost in translation. Here is the complete point I was making, which somehow did not make it into the post:

      “When government documents provide evidence that refutes or substantially undermines the government’s own account, it qualifies as “admissions contrary to interest” and carry special weight under the law. The BTS documents show that Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air that day. The FAA Registration records show that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005.

      “So how can planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11 and how can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later? New studies by Pilots has shown that Flight 93 was in the air but over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had reportedly “crashed” in Shanksville, PA; and that Flight 175 was in the air over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had allegedly hit the South Tower. So we already know that:

      (1) Fight 11 did not hit the North Tower (it was not even on the air);
      (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon (it, too, was not even in the air);
      (3) Flight 93 was in the air but over Champaign-Urbana, IL, which means
      that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, PA; and,
      (4) Flight 175 was in the air but over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long
      after it had allegedly hit the South Tower, which means that Flight 175 did
      not hit the South Tower.

      But those are precisely the four propositions that define “No Plane Theory” (or, as I have observed, “No Big Boeing Crash Theory” or “No Official Plane Crash Theory”) where these conclusions are supported by witness reports, photographs and films from the crash sites, which show that each of them was fabricated in different ways.

  78. Jim Fetzer says: July 28, 2012 at 10:53 am”

    “So now Senor shows himself to be a graduate of the Anthony Lawson School of Fantasy Physics and “Special” Planes! I really thought he had more intelligence and understanding of physics to fall for anything like this. If the plane hit the tower at more than 500mph with the kind of steel-cutting capacities he claims for it, then–since it wa160′ long and the width of the tower was only 208′–surely it would have cut through the entire building and come out the other side. Does he want us to believe that a plane that could enter this building even though it was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ concrete could come to a screeching halt INSIDE THE BUILDING? How dumb is that? I really can’t abide displays of ignorance of physics on this scale. It is not merely physically impossible but presumes that the members of this forum are WILLING TO BELIEVE ANYTHING. I no longer have any faith in this man, who has demonstrated his incompetence with the issues.”

    Hah! What took you so long , Jim? On the pure Newtonian physics aspect of it, I’m afraid it’s just you, me and perhaps Tambourine Man.

    Regards, onebornfree.

  79. Regards onebornfree remarks to Fetzer:

    On the pure Newtonian physics aspect of it, I’m afraid it’s just you, me and perhaps Tambourine Man.

    Actually it is; pure ‘Fetzerian physics’, that is the fantasy bullshit physics of the F-Troop* here; The Three Stooges.

    [* Fetzer Troop]

    ww

  80. When do you personally draw the line and say “enough is enough” , and stop yourself from automatically assuming that _any_ of the governments “evidence” is actually genuine, and instead automatically assume that most likely it is false, or compromised in some way, until proven genuine “beyond a reasonable doubt” , “to a higher standard of truth”, in your own mind, and proceed from that working assumption in your ongoing 9/11 investigations?

    don’t know if I’ve asked this before (^^) but at what point should evidence be deemed “valid”? How? And by whom?

    1. Also OSS,

      Let me refer you to my post of July 27, 2012 at 2:50 pm

      The videos of the towers destruction actually contradicts the government’s “collapse” scenario.

      If they were going to fake the videos, they would have made it appear that the towers collapsed – not that they erupted like a volcano.

      As I said, this is the crux that dooms the whole ‘video fakery’ argument; the videos clearly show the towers exploding – not “collapsing”.

      This is the central point the F-Troop misses in their loopy video burlesque, to say nothing about their blithering mad “Fetzerian physics”.

      ww

    2. OK, OSS,

      i’ll give it a try!

      don’t know if I’ve asked this before (^^) but at what point should evidence be deemed “valid”? How? And by whom?

      Remember the O.J. Simpson trail. Perhaps even up to 90% of the American people believed he was guilty.

      It later turned out, that in fact all of the ‘evidence’ pointed instead to O.J.’s son, as being the one “really” responsible for this crime.

      “How”?

      Preferably not until the ‘perpetrator’ admits his or her guilt, and shows sign of shame and remorse.

      “And by whom”?

      In the case you’re referring to – this can only be done by your ‘good’ self, and nobody else OSS!

      Cheers

      1. Hi TM,

        I don’t know how your analogy would be applied to the two areas in question.

        Imagery and eyewitness testimony (that onebornfree rejects outright)

        Onebornfree claims that “99%” of images are “fake”, for example.
        The authors of most of these images/videos have been named.

        How does one validate the authenticity of the author?

        At what point can one say for sure one way or another that the method used to validate the author’s claim will satisfy those who challenge its authenticity?

        Who or what body will judge the authenticity of both the imagery and author?

        Finally, at what point does imagery and eyewitness testimony get labelled as “supporting the government story”?

        Cheers

        @Willy

        Excellent point.

      2. To everyone!

        “It later turned out, that in fact all of the ‘evidence’ pointed instead to O.J.’s son, as being the one “really” responsible for this crime.”

        The above was a reply to OSS as an example of how up to 90% of people can be manipulated into believing something to be truth, while somebody digging deeper, can come up with something else clearly showing that their ‘assumptions’ could be in error.
        (Some times ago i watched William C. Dear’s presentation on TV here down in OZ, and found his findings absolutely compelling).

        Later i found mr. rogue “butting in” to our discussion with the following remark:

        Where do you come up with this lunatic bullshit? What a crank shaft.

        As a result of his comment above, i replied thus:

        “Why don’t you Google it, you silly silly boy!”
        (By the way, an obvious reference to “Dads Army”, and ‘Cpt. Mainwaring’ of course – for those of you in the ‘know’)!

        Had mr. rogue ‘Google’d’ it, he would have found what i have just done here to save him the trouble:

        https://www.google.com.au/search?q=son+of+oj+simpson&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&
        rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

        Dear reader please note the over “6 million” search results!

        Mr. rogue decided to reply thus:

        Tangerbeans,

        There is no statute of limitation on murder. If there were compelling evidence against Jason Simpson, why hasn’t he been charged?

        I will tell you why the case will NEVER be revisited. It is because the killings were done by the Japanese Yakuza mafia – Dope gang #2 are the Yakuza who, like the Herreras, are tight as well with the CIA. (See the book, “Yakuza” by David E. Kaplan and Alec Dubro.) ALSO: (See the book, “The Underground Empire,” by James Mills.)

        The DEA had Nichole’s house under surveillance, and actually filmed the murders.
        It is power politics that buried the truth of this case.

        Why don’t you Google THAT, you silly silly boy!

        WW

        His inane replies has of course nothing whatsoever to do with my “analogy” to OSS, so for one reason or other he choose to totally miss the point, and decided instead to come across like an “aping” ape, too immature to think for himself.

        I must admit that i have never come across a so-called “truther” displaying again and again so much dishonesty and duplicity, while simultaneously making so strenuous efforts to also show how disingenuous he is.

        One has to seriously wonder about this persons ‘agenda’ – in my humble opinion!

        Cheers

  81. Tamborine man says:

    “It later turned out, that in fact all of the ‘evidence’ pointed instead to O.J.’s son, as being the one “really” responsible for this crime.”

    Where do you come up with this lunatic bullshit? What a crank shaft.

    ww

    1. Where do you come up with this lunatic bullshit? What a crank shaft.

      Why don’t you Google it, you silly silly boy!

      1. Tangerbeans,

        There is no statute of limitation on murder. If there were compelling evidence against Jason Simpson, why hasn’t he been charged?

        I will tell you why the case will NEVER be revisited. It is because the killings were done by the Japanese Yakuza mafia – Dope gang #2 are the Yakuza who, like the Herreras, are tight as well with the CIA. (See the book, “Yakuza” by David E. Kaplan and Alec Dubro.) ALSO: (See the book, “The Underground Empire,” by James Mills.)

        The DEA had Nichole’s house under surveillance, and actually filmed the murders.
        It is power politics that buried the truth of this case.

        Why don’t you Google THAT, you silly silly boy!

        WW

  82. Hi OSS,

    you wrote:

    Actually, my imagination is now imagining a missile with the lipstick of a plane.
    ……

    Correct, but a missile with the outline of a plane is explaining the speed, the precision, the wing-slicing, the penetration, explosion before exit, …

    Yes i understand that, But there’s still the undeniable fact to contend with, that this “missile with the lipstick of a plane” ( :o) ) enter, in full length, into the building before ‘strange’ explosions are seen, that in my humble opinion doesn’t seem to add much credibility to this ostensible scenario!

    I was totally with you right up until you dropped “unbelievable bad effects.” Maybe the key for you rests in the phrase that follows: “of a plane colliding with a steel tower.”

    If it was a missile with the lipstick of a plane, would you still be complaining? Can you imagination not ponder that?

    Yes i would still be ‘complaining’, and my ‘imagination’ would still be unable to ‘ponder’ this ‘picture’, as your good self can do it! (See above).

    You brought a page from DARPA’s budget papers 2000 – 2007 from page 123:

    These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century.

    I highlighted what I thought you were driving at. You think that these items spell out: “H-o-l-o-g-r-a-m-s” or other things that can project 3D images.

    They don’t. They spell out “secure communication up-links”, “imaging and targeting” for weapons systems, and “high speed electronics.”

    “Imaging” is a type of modeling or mapping. To this end, my research has demonstrated that holographs and other 3D laser interference mapping are employed and do a fine job. But this is a different application and technology than anything that would project a 3D image a distance (to be picked up by many different angles on video recorders and by two radar systems.)

    Well, it was really only the word “combination” together with this sentence:

    “aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers).”

    that i would have liked you to concentrate on!

    I witnessed the first hologram ever to be shown in public. This happened at ‘the World Expo’ in Brisbane, Qld. Australia, in 1988. I had to stand in queue for an hour at least before getting inside the Japanese Pavilion. It was well worth it. Very very impressive, even in those days!

    Knowing how the Americans always want to be the best in the world with just about everything, i can easily imagine what efforts they would have put into ‘beating’ the Japanese in this regard, and the amount of $ they would have spend!

    I can of course with ease form a ‘mental picture’ seeing you Señor, being invited into the “inner sanctum” of Darpa and other parts of the “military Industrial Complex”, being shown around, led by ‘spectacled’ important people in white coats explaining to you their latest ‘inventions’. (Almost like in a Bond movie perhaps)!!

    But can i imagine this ‘mental picture’ ever to become a reality? No, not really. I would ‘also’ find this to be too difficult to contemplate!

    Cheers

    1. Tamborine says:

      I witnessed the first hologram ever to be shown in public. This happened at ‘the World Expo’ in Brisbane, Qld. Australia, in 1988.

      Well then you are actually living in an alternate universe, as many or you comments seem to indicate.

      The first book to feature a hologram on the front cover was The Skook (Warner Books, 1984) That same year, “Telstar” by Ad Infinitum became the first record with a hologram cover and National Geographic published the first magazine with a hologram cover.

      ww

      1. To everyone!

        This time i had a discussion with Señor El Once were i, among other things, wrote the following:

        I witnessed the first hologram ever to be shown in public. This happened at ‘the World Expo’ in Brisbane, Qld. Australia, in 1988. I had to stand in queue for an hour
        at least before getting inside the Japanese Pavilion. It was well worth it. Very very impressive, even in those days!

        Again – (see my other recent post a little further up here!) mr. rogue “butted in” with this comment:

        “Tamborine says:

        I witnessed the first hologram ever to be shown in public. This happened at ‘the
        World Expo’ in Brisbane, Qld. Australia, in 1988.”

        Well then you are actually living in an alternate universe, as many or you comments seem to indicate.

        The first book to feature a hologram on the front cover was The Skook (Warner Books, 1984) That same year, “Telstar” by Ad Infinitum became the first record with a hologram cover and National Geographic published the first magazine with a hologram cover.

        Obviously mr. rogue must think that a huge crowd would stand in queue for over an hour just to get in to view “a bloody book cover”!!!

        Well, no.

        It was the first ‘real’ hologram!

        It was a man approximately 1 foot high, standing on a little stage speaking to us, the audience, and standing no more than 4 feet away from the front row of the visitors.
        He was standing in 3-D space with no curtains behind, and illuminated with the natural light already present in the pavilion. He looked and behaved as real as us the audience, except he had a faint bluish tint enveloping him like a mantel.

        I honestly think mr. rogue got a mental problem – in my humble opinion – and i do sincerely feel for him.

        Cheers

        PS!
        I wrongly addressed my post in question to OSS instead of SEO, but as we got no ‘edit’ button (an the post clearly being a reply to Señor), i decided to wait for SEO’s reply to apologize for my error.
        As SEO has not yet replied, i hope he reads this post at least, and see my apology here!

    2. Dear Mr. Tamborine Man wrote on July 30, 2012 at 2:04 am:

      There’s still the undeniable fact to contend with, that this “missile with the lipstick of a plane” enter, in full length, into the building before ‘strange’ explosions are seen, that in my humble opinion doesn’t seem to add much credibility to this ostensible scenario!

      Perhaps more study of Mr. OneSliceShort’s posted videos of bunk buster bombs in slow motion.

      If we’re talking a plane-looking-missile, I perceive no strangeness at all to its behavior.

      I witnessed the first hologram ever to be shown in public. This happened at ‘the World Expo’ in Brisbane, Qld. Australia, in 1988. … It was a man approximately 1 foot high, standing on a little stage speaking to us, the audience, and standing no more than 4 feet away from the front row of the visitors. He was standing in 3-D space with no curtains behind, and illuminated with the natural light already present in the pavilion. He looked and behaved as real as us the audience, except he had a faint bluish tint enveloping him like a mantel.

      I can only take your word for it.

      “Behaved” as in he interacted? Or “behaved” as in a repeated sequence? Could you walk around the hologram and did the hologram change as you walked (and not change if you didn’t)? Was the hologram rotated while the audience remained stationary? If you couldn’t walk around the hologram, was there “glass” separating the hologram on the stage from the audience?

      What was on the floor/stage directly under the hologram? If it was on a stage, what additional light might have been directed at it?

      When you research holograms today, one example that comes up is a French Airport Clerk. If you are one one side of clear plastic piece, the angle is appropriate to see an animated holographic image (with voice through a speaker) directing passangers where they need to go. This was way more recent than 1988.

      I suspect that your 1988 version had limitations that you were not aware of, like the positioning of a holographic medium. Otherwise, the world would have be treated to many “commercial” examples of such in the ensuing twenty some years.

      I can of course with ease form a ‘mental picture’ seeing you Señor, being invited into the “inner sanctum” of Darpa and other parts of the “military Industrial Complex”, being shown around, led by ‘spectacled’ important people in white coats explaining to you their latest ‘inventions’. (Almost like in a Bond movie perhaps)!!

      What your mental picture leaves out is that I’m probably in an orange jump suit and hobble-chains. The important people in white coats from these “inner sanctums of DARPA” have so little opportunity to speak to outsiders and real people of their top-secret work, they get what little boosts to their ego that they can by explaining their work to a captive audience… before turning on their equipment and aiming it at the same captive prisioners to demonstrate its effects.

      And Mr. Bond… James Bond… I am not.

      //

      1. Dear Señor,

        you wrote:

        Perhaps more study of Mr. OneSliceShort’s posted videos of bunk buster bombs in slow motion.

        If we’re talking a plane-looking-missile, I perceive no strangeness at all to its behavior.

        No, no more study of ‘bunk busters’ for me, Señor.

        I would like you to know that i got no real interest in “winning” this ‘contest’ between us. For me, it was just an opportunity to voice some of the reasons why i can’t accept a ‘real’ plane entered this steel tower, and that the only alternative i can come up with because of that, is a 3-D projection of a plane …..as the one we’re seeing on all the videos available.

        If it turns out in the end (when all is revealed) that your ‘power of perception and power of imagination’ far overshadowed mine, none shall be more pleased than me on your behalf.

        I can only take your word for it.

        I wouldn’t want you to do that, as you’ll undoubtedly still end up only with “doubt”!

        Much better it would be if you simply contacted the leading newspaper in Brisbane, the ‘Courier Mail’, and got them to confirm this for you. They might even have an article and photos of the occasion they could supply to you!

        “Behaved” as in he interacted? Or “behaved” as in a repeated sequence? Could you walk around the hologram and did the hologram change as you walked (and not change if you didn’t)? Was the hologram rotated while the audience remained stationary? If you couldn’t walk around the hologram, was there “glass” separating the hologram on the stage from the audience?

        What was on the floor/stage directly under the hologram? If it was on a stage, what additional light might have been directed at it?

        When you research holograms today, one example that comes up is a French Airport Clerk. If you are one one side of clear plastic piece, the angle is appropriate to see an animated holographic image (with voice through a speaker) directing passangers where they need to go. This was way more recent than 1988.

        I suspect that your 1988 version had limitations that you were not aware of, like the positioning of a holographic medium. Otherwise, the world would have be treated to many “commercial” examples of such in the ensuing twenty some years.

        He behaved as a ‘live 5′-6′ person’ would behave in his place.

        I can’t recall if one could walk all around him, but one could definitely go round the corner and see him side on and see his back.

        No he didn’t rotate, and yes, he stood behind a glass panel so nobody could reach over and touch.
        I can’t remember what the ‘stage’ looked like, and can’t recall any additional light!
        Remember it was 24 years ago, and memory fade with time!

        If you should check out ‘youtube’, you’ll find a considerable amount of videos portraying different hologram technology, some more advanced and more sophisticated than others!

        What your mental picture leaves out is that I’m probably in an orange jump suit and hobble-chains. The important people in white coats from these “inner sanctums of DARPA” have so little opportunity to speak to outsiders and real people of their top-secret work, they get what little boosts to their ego that they can by explaining their work to a captive audience… before turning on their equipment and aiming it at the same captive prisioners to demonstrate its effects.

        And Mr. Bond… James Bond… I am not.

        No, sorry mate! My ‘mental picture’ saw nothing of the sort. Instead i saw a rather handsome man, bearded to some extend, casually dressed showing good taste, and showing at the same time to have no particular enthusiasm for ‘pomp and circumstance’.
        There was a glimpse in his eye, also showing him to possess a healthy sense of humour, which made it for many a pleasure to be in his company.
        There was other things in same vein, but let that remain unsaid for the moment!

        If it should now turn out that my ‘mental picture’ was nothing more than ‘impressions’ from a “delusional” mind, or the ‘imaginations’ of a “useful idiot”, then i must admit to become rather disappointed, this time around!

        Cheers

      2. Dear Mr. Tamborine Man, you wrote on August 1, 2012 at 10:16 am:

        … [I]t was just an opportunity to voice some of the reasons i can’t accept a ‘real’ plane entered this steel tower…

        I could not accept the “real plane” (a commercial Boeing 767 known as UA 175), because it flew at low altitudes velocities in excess of its maximum speed at high altitudes. At low altitudes, the engines of the alleged Boeing 767 would not have been able to put out sufficient thrust to overcome the massive drag of heavy air to keep such velocities. The wings and other structural elements of the alleged Boeing 767 were not designed for such resistive dynamic stresses, and could have likely failed. As given in many simulations, the aircraft would have broken up over Manhattan before it could hit its desired target.

        Another reason for me not accepting the alleged Boeing 767 was the precision of its targeting at >500 mph by the alleged hijackers. Only when the velocities in the simulations were slowed to landing speeds could experienced pilots come close to mirroring the WTC target hits.

        These physics-defying reasons [and some Shack videos that misrepresented things] had me searching for another explanation in the form of “imagery manipulation.” Until the seeming different flight paths from the various videos could be confirmed to represent a singular flight path (and in agreement with two sets of radar), could I be pushed from NPT at WTC to NCPT (where “C” = commercial.)

        the only alternative i can come up with because of that, is a 3-D projection of a plane.

        If 3D projection is the “only alternative” that you could come up with, then your imagination was lacking. I’d put money on “imagery manipulation” before I’d put it on 3D projections or holograms. Even “pods-on-planes” represents a significant “break-through” [pun-intended], but it implies “plane-swap” at a time in our thought process when few would accept it because it left all sorts of open questions regarding the fate of the (alleged) passengers, crew, and hijackers. Who would we light candles for a deify if they weren’t on the plane that did the smacking.

        And of course, a plane-looking-missile is an alternative being proposed now that addresses all of the data points: speed, precision, appropriate rendering in videos, etc. It could even have its wings made out of steel.

        To assist with your imagination into other alternatives like what a “special plane” could accomplish, study this video.

        MythBuster Rocket Snowplow

        What they’ve constructed for the “snowplow” or “the wedge” built onto a rocket sled would be a wing of the 9/11 special plane. Think of the engine block of the car-to-be-sliced as a steel beam of the tower.

        It ought to help you grasp what a “real”, real-suped-up (special) plane-looking-missile could do if part of its souping was “wings of steel.”

        When writing about the 3D projection you saw in 1988:

        No he didn’t rotate, and yes, he stood behind a glass panel so nobody could reach over and touch.

        That “glass panel” was key to the hologram. Without it, you wouldn’t have seen it. Just like in these more contemporary examples, look for the glass panel. (In some cases, the camera caught lights reflecting off of it.)

        Airport employs holographic staff

        Holographic announcers at Luton airport

        Now extrapolate to 9/11. For a hologram to show the image of a plane, the “holographic plate (or glass panel)” needs to work its way into the view of all onlookers and cameras.

        [ridiculous speculation]
        Similar to Richard D. Halls assertion that the hologram was projected by a cloaked aircraft causing the discrepency in radar points, maybe such a cloaked aircraft towed the “holographic plate (or glass panel)” with a cable, otherwise it has nothing on which to render the “plane”.
        [/ ridiculous speculation]

        Nevermind. Don’t go into my “ridiculous speculation.”

        As for your mental picture:

        I can of course with ease form a ‘mental picture’ seeing you Señor, being invited into the “inner sanctum” of Darpa and other parts of the “military Industrial Complex”, being shown around, led by ‘spectacled’ important people in white coats explaining to you their latest ‘inventions’. (Almost like in a Bond movie perhaps)!!

        i saw a rather handsome man, bearded to some extend, casually dressed showing good taste, and showing at the same time to have no particular enthusiasm for ‘pomp and circumstance’. There was a glimpse in his eye, also showing him to possess a healthy sense of humour, which made it for many a pleasure to be in his company.

        You were so-ooo accurate in the flattery of your mental picture of me, it is uncanning! Alas, limitations in my imagination fail to provide rational on why I’d ever be able to pass a security clearance [given my public writings on 9/11 implicating the govt] that might allow the guards at the gate into honoring the invitation into the “inner sanctum” of Darpa and other parts of the “military Industrial Complex” … to discuss their latest “inventions.”

      3. Hi dear Señor,

        you wrote:

        I could not accept the “real plane” (a commercial Boeing 767 known as UA 175),
        because it flew at low altitudes velocities in excess of its maximum speed at high altitudes. At low altitudes, the engines of the alleged Boeing 767 would not have been able to put out sufficient thrust to overcome the massive drag of heavy air to keep such velocities. The wings and other structural elements of the alleged Boeing 767 were not designed for such resistive dynamic stresses, and could have likely failed. As given in many simulations, the aircraft would have broken up over Manhattan before it could hit its desired target.

        Another reason for me not accepting the alleged Boeing 767 was the precision of its targeting at >500 mph by the alleged hijackers. Only when the velocities in the simulations were slowed to landing speeds could experienced pilots come close to mirroring the WTC target hits.

        These physics-defying reasons [and some Shack videos that misrepresented things] had me searching for another explanation in the form of “imagery manipulation.” Until the seeming different flight paths from the various videos could be confirmed to represent a singular flight path (and in agreement with two sets of radar), could I be pushed from NPT at WTC to NCPT (where “C” = commercial.)

        I agree with you of course. Pilotsfor9/11truth’ proved what you said above to be the truth ‘hundred years ago’, so yes, all honest people are with you here.

        If 3D projection is the “only alternative” that you could come up with, then your imagination was lacking. I’d put money on “imagery manipulation” before I’d put it on 3D projections or holograms. Even “pods-on-planes” represents a significant “break-through” [pun-intended], but it implies “plane-swap” at a time in our thought process when few would accept it because it left all sorts of open questions regarding the fate of the (alleged) passengers, crew, and hijackers. Who would we light candles for a deify if they weren’t on the plane that did the smacking.

        Hey! i also believe in “imagery manipulation”, but only to “some” extent.

        F. ex., i still got problems with the “dive bomber image” contra the “straight level horizontal 7 – 8 second approach” image, which to me seems incompatible!!

        There’s a few more images of the approach plane that to me looks “odd”.

        If we compare the 45 (iirc!) of the various approach shoots of the alleged plane, then i personally think we should separate the ‘odd ones out’ as those being of the ” imagery manipulation” types, while the ‘straight approach’ paths, to be the ones likely to be the 3-D projections. (But that’s only me Señor, so don’t take any notice)!

        And of course, a plane-looking-missile is an alternative being proposed now that addresses all of the data points: speed, precision, appropriate rendering in videos, etc. It could even have its wings made out of steel.

        To assist with your imagination into other alternatives like what a “special plane” could accomplish, study this video.

        – MythBuster Rocket Snowplow

        What they’ve constructed for the “snowplow” or “the wedge” built onto a rocket sled would be a wing of the 9/11 special plane. Think of the engine block of the car-to-be-sliced as a steel beam of the tower.

        It ought to help you grasp what a “real”, real-suped-up (special) plane-looking-missile could do if part of its souping was “wings of steel.”

        I’ve seen this ‘Mythbuster’ video before, and to be honest here, i must say that these two guys from ‘mythbusters’ gives me ‘the pain in the bum’.
        (Their ‘self-gloating’ is beyond belief!)

        And i think that their video is as pertinent to our discussion as ‘rain’ would be to our discussion about the nature on the north- and south pole!

        You mention ‘wings of steel’, but no mention of the front of the fuselage!
        Here you could as well have told me that in your opinion the front of the fuselage was actually dressed with “diamonds”! Should i believe you? ….I don’t know, but i doubt it!

        That “glass panel” was key to the hologram. Without it, you wouldn’t have seen it. Just like in these more contemporary examples, look for the glass panel. (In some cases, the camera caught lights reflecting off of it.)

        – Airport employs holographic staff

        – Holographic announcers at Luton airport

        Now extrapolate to 9/11. For a hologram to show the image of a plane, the “holographic plate (or glass panel)” needs to work its way into the view of all onlookers and cameras.

        [ridiculous speculation]
        Similar to Richard D. Halls assertion that the hologram was projected by a cloaked aircraft causing the discrepency in radar points, maybe such a cloaked aircraft towed the “holographic plate (or glass panel)” with a cable, otherwise it has nothing on which to render the “plane”.
        [/ ridiculous speculation]

        Nevermind. Don’t go into my “ridiculous speculation.”

        But Señor, the two videos you’re referring to above, only shows a ‘hologram’ as a 2- dimensional ‘flat’ image!

        As i told you, what i saw was a ‘hologram’ in full 3-D. That means that the image had “depth” as well.
        There’s obviously an infinite difference between what you “think” i saw, to what i “actually” saw, so i’ll repeat again: The man looked as ‘alive’ as you and i, even though he was only about a foot high. To look ‘alive’ you have to have the appearance of looking “solid”, in “every” department!

        You were so-ooo accurate in the flattery of your mental picture of me, it is uncanning! Alas, limitations in my imagination fail to provide rational on why I’d ever be able to pass a security clearance [given my public writings on 9/11 implicating the govt] that might allow the guards at the gate into honoring the invitation into the “inner sanctum” of Darpa and other parts of the “military Industrial Complex” … to discuss their latest “inventions.”

        As i told you, neither could i imagine that my ‘mental picture’ would ever become a ‘reality’!

        As my ‘mental picture’ turned out to be “so-ooo accurate”, obviously it can never be termed as being mere “flattery”, but must, to the chagrin of only a very few, now be considered to be a matter of fact, and i was but speaking the simple Truth!

        Cheers

      4. Dear Mr. Tamborine Man, you wrote on August 2, 2012 at 7:26 am:

        And i think that [the MythBuster Snowplow] video is as pertinent to our discussion as ‘rain’ would be to our discussion about the nature on the north- and south pole! You mention ‘wings of steel’, but no mention of the front of the fuselage!

        Au contraire! The MythBuster Rocket Snowplow video has lots of applicability to 9/11 and understanding the physics, particularly trying to fatham how the energy increases at velocity-squared and what sort of effects this can have on “common materials” when velocity is very large.

        On the one hand, we can liken the rocket wedge to the hardened wings of a special aircraft and the engine block to a WTC tower column. [If the wings can be hardened, so can the fuselage.]

        On the other hand, we can liken the steel wedge to a tower column and the car to be a common commercial aircraft.

        Regarding the hologram you saw in 1988, because you were, and still are, not well versed in the technology of holography, what materials are required, and what placement they must be in, you probably didn’t notice things that made it happen, and even if you did, the haze of time and memory has done their numbers.

        But Señor, the two videos you’re referring to above, only shows a ‘hologram’ as a 2- dimensional ‘flat’ image! As i told you, what i saw was a ‘hologram’ in full 3-D. That means that the image had “depth” as well. The man looked as ‘alive’ as you and i, even though he was only about a foot high. To look ‘alive’ you have to have the appearance of looking “solid”, in “every” department!

        Not true. Although the flat two-dimensional panel is required, the effect to those viewing it (from front angles) is entirely 3D. The image has “depth.” In filming this, the camera stumbles across artifacts that betray it, like when the viewing angle goes from perpendicular to parallel as well as the reflections of lights off the glass.

        You’re right, though. What I “think” you saw is probably vastly different from what you “remember” seeing. Still, in making the case for 9/11 holography, you need more substantiation of the proof of concept than what you “remember” from 1988. In the intervening decades, someone would have capitalized on it and commercialized it to the point of “Holo Santa Claus”, “Holo Halloween,” etc. The lack of this highlights the state of the technology.

        //

        1. It saddens me to see a man as intelligent as SEO maintaining a position as indefensible as that a “special plane” hit the South Tower. John Lear debunked that idea in his affidavit for the Morgan Reynolds’ lawsuit, which make it clear that not even a “special plane” could have done such feats: http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-on-the

          We have an impossible speed, an impossible entry, no diminution in velocity and no debris: how much proof does SEO require? Plus we have witnesses whose reports make what we have here inconsistent with CGIs or video compositing, which leaves only a sophisticated hologram capable of explaining the data, as Richard Hall has oh so exquisitely explained.

          And SEO appears oblivious of the enormous horizontal resistance posed by those eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and external steel support columns at the other, each filled with 4-8″ of concrete. When we consider the small birds’ effects on planes, http://preciseflight.com/commercial/ his scenario is a fantasy.

      5. Dr. Fetzer writes:

        We have an impossible speed, an impossible entry, no diminution in velocity and no debris.

        Nothing that a “special” plane-looking-missile can’t account for.

        Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious to the fact that John Lear’s affidafit takes a commercial Boeing 767 and all of the pomp & circumstance of box-cutter wielding hijackers as per the OCT out of contention. Mr. Lear is repeatedly very specific on the point of a Boeing 767.

        It is rather disingenous of Dr. Fetzer to extract Mr. Lear’s repeated statements about a Boeing 767 and misapply them to a “special” plane-looking-missile.

        How much proof does SEO require [of a sophisticated hologram capable of explaining the data, as Richard Hall has oh so exquisitely explained.]?

        Much more than Dr. Fetzer’s “C-” sophomoric research efforts’ footnotes. I want links to research papers from academic institutions that provide details on the technology. I want to see holo-Santa (or equivalent) this Christmas at my local mall or cineplex. If holograms can be weaponized in 2001, they can also be commercialized by 2012.

        Directed Energy Weapons? They’ve been commercialized already: active denial systems coming to a (campus) police department near you.

        Why not holograms? Because Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious that his holographic scenario is a fantasy.

        And SEO appears oblivious of the enormous horizontal resistance posed by those eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and external steel support columns at the other, each filled with 4-8″ of concrete.

        Such a pity that I have to refer Dr. Fetzer to my July 30, 2012 at 4:07 pm posting above so soon. Obviously the math still alludes him. From World Trace Center:

        The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers.

        Before boasting of the damage that the steel trusses can accomplish, Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious to reviewing their spacing particularly with respect to the width of a plane-looking-missile’s fuselage. Compared to the concrete floors, a fluted steel deck, and 60 cm box columns on 100 cm centers, the stopping contribution of the spaced out trusses would have been small whether end-on or horizontally.

        Before boasting of the damage that the end-on width of the concrete slab (4″) and fluted steel desk can accomplish, Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious to reviewing floor spacing (~12 ft/floor) with respect to the height (17 ft 9 in) & width (16 ft 6 in) of a plane-looking-missile’s fuselage.

        The plane-looking-missile’s fuselage would have been sliced by one or two horizontal floors [not 8]. I recall a certain level of impact damage to the exposed end-on floors, but the fact that they could be seen in the gash indicates they resisted and probably did some slicing. Plenty of “air” space between floors for plane-looking-missile’s fuselage to get sliced into.

        The hardened wings of this special plane-looking-missile would have encountered the other six floors. I do not recall the damage to floor slabs by wings as being that significant. The metal columns took the brunt of the force.

        Dr. Fetzer was a major promoter of pods-on-planes a few years ago. Indeed, a flash is visible from multiple angles just as the fuselage of the plane-looking-missile touches the towers. Hmmm… Nothing rules out the plane-looking-missile having its own little DEW device in that pod to help soften the entry point for its fuselage. Seems to me Mr. Hall and Mr. Johnson suggest “DEW from afar” to soften that entry point. [DEW on the planes seems more likely to hit the spot where the fuselage would enter, IMHO.]

        Here’s what is ironic. I’ve given no end of annoyance to Mr. Rogue by dancing around with various wild-ass and bat-shit crazy theories, as is fitting of my duped useful idiot standing. But as was proven with NPT (pods-on-planes, etc.), when appropriate substantiation is presented, I’m more than happy to get duped into a completely different premise that necessitates me posting an apology and changing my tune.

        The ironic part is that Dr. Fetzer champions premises that are even more wild-ass and bat-shit crazy that he has been duped by. Yet, Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious to the lack of his substantiation to these premises and to the legitimate issues & errors that others point out. [How can mass-less holograms have radar signatures from two different radar systems without evidence of data juking?] He keeps framing it for his strawman (as above with John Lear) as “a commercial Boeing 767”, and can never get his argumentation aligned to handle a quite special plane-looking-missile.

        //

  83. FETZER: “There are good reasons for me, as an expert on critical thinking, to respond to lapses in your reasoning.” – to Clint Bradford

    So Fetzer is a self proclaimed “expert on critical thinking” and just why is this so? He is “credentialed” by academia.

    Is this sufficient in this day and age of the Public Relations Regime, and the obvious infiltration of higher learning by an oligarchy bent on a scientific dictatorship based on numbing and dumbing down of the general population?

    I should think the real test is in the putting; does Fetzer actually practice genuine “critical thinking”?

    I think it is clearly shown on this and other threads on this blog, that Fetzer is actually using Orwellian Newspeak techniques of spurious rhetoric, compounded by ridiculous claims of scientific absurdities. Examples of these are legion, not only on this blog, but in investigating what it is he is actually selling in his “conspiracy” articles and books.

    ww

    1. Here’s something nice for you, Senor El Once and onesliceshort to consider:

      I can’t wait to see how the three of you are going to attempt to explain this away.

    2. Hi dear Señor,

      you wrote,

      Regarding the hologram you saw in 1988, because you were, and still are, not well versed in the technology of holography, what materials are required, and what placement they must be in, you probably didn’t notice things that made it happen, and even if you did, the haze of time and memory has done their numbers.

      Although the flat two-dimensional panel is required, the effect to those viewing it (from front angles) is entirely 3D. The image has “depth.” In filming this, the camera stumbles across artifacts that betray it, like when the viewing angle goes from perpendicular to parallel as well as the reflections of lights off the glass.

      You’re right, though. What I “think” you saw is probably vastly different from what you “remember” seeing. Still, in making the case for 9/11 holography, you need more substantiation of the proof of concept than what you “remember” from 1988. In the intervening decades, someone would have capitalized on it and commercialized it to the point of “Holo Santa Claus”, “Holo Halloween,” etc. The lack of this highlights the state of the technology.

      I think it could be worth remembering that it’s only the unimportant details which fades away with time.
      The ‘main event’ remains etched in your memory, and recalled from time to time when you’re reminded of it for whatever reason.

      I.e., would you f. ex. have concentrated more on what colour trunks Ali and Foreman was wearing, rather than what more importantly took place in the ring especially in the last couple of rounds?

      Here following is a little bit more you can have a look at if you feel like it:

      http://www.stormingmedia.us/keywords/holograms.html

      Cheers

  84. Let me explain what the issue is that Fetzer actually has with me.
    He recognizes that I am really good at this ‘Spy v Spy’ biz – I am good at counter intelligence, I can recognize all the hallmarks of an Intel Agent. I have studied intelligence analysis, but also spycraft for more than 40 years.

    I am better at his own game than he is.

    Fetzer’s profile is a perfect match for a mole, an infiltrator – and his period of “sheep dipping” and then coming a wolf out of the closet is well documented. This is very much paralleled with the case of Frank Legge, who is part of the other tong of this pincer movement against the Truth movement; the one pressing in the direction of the official story, while Fetzer sells the trinkets of lunacy from the other side.

    It is this that causes Fetzer to go into hysterics and meltdown, screaming for me to be banned from this blog.

    He couldn’t even restrain himself on the new thread. He is a hamfisted amateur, lacking in any subtlety or tact. He can’t even put his own theories on perception manipulation to sufficient effect. If I were his superior, I would fire him, strip him of his chair and cast him into an alley where he belongs.

    PS

    Fetzer, the Constellation crash has already been addressed. The dynamics of this crash are in no way similar to the WTC crashes. Again you bring irrelevant ‘evidence’ to the table.

    ww

    1. If the Constellation would have its wing chopped off by a wooden pole, who could doubt that the “official account” of the Pentagon attack with its alleged interaction between the alleged plane and multiple lampposts is a fraud? or that the videos of the plane entering the South Tower with no collision effects represents another physical impossibility. So of course what does this guy do? He changes the subject to imply that there’s something wrong with me!

      How dumb is that? What “profile” am I supposed to fit? I graduated magna cum laude in philosophy from Princeton. I was commissioned and served four years as a regular officer i the Marine Corps as an artillery officer (not intelligence) and as a series commander (with 15 DIs under my command). I earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science and then spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.

      If I were some kind of mole (op, agent, whatever), then why have I spend so much time, money and effort in EXPOSING GOVERNMENTAL COMPLICITY IN CRIMES? On JFK, for example, see “What happened to JFK”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLL8diz-7bw; on 9/11, see “False Flag Terror”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEzoBKAkzmU; on Paul Wellstone, “The Sen. Wellstone Assassination”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vbf49kzWFw

      I do hundreds of interviews and presentations on these subjects, which can easily be found by doing a search on “Jim Fetzer, JFK” or “Jim Fetzer, 9/11”. The evidence that I AM NOT AN OP is so abundant and compelling that only someone with an agenda could make such a claim in reckless disregard for the facts of the matter, which supports my inference that one of us may be an op, but it ain’t me. This guy is every bit as phony as a three-dollar bill.

      1. >..”or that the videos of the plane entering the South Tower with no collision effects represents another physical impossibility. So of course what does this guy do? He changes the subject to imply that there’s something wrong with me!”~Fetzer

        Yes there is something wrong with YOU!

        You keep insisting that videos of the plane entering the South Tower had “no collision effects,”

        Which is absolute garbage, anyone viewing those videos can see such collision effects for themselves. Your continued insistence on this point, regardless of how many times you have been called on it – DOES IN FACT – show the disingenuous nature of your argumentation.

        The Constellation crash may very well have some relevance to the Pentagon issue, but it has NONE WHATSOEVER to the WTC events.

        That you hold yourself in such high esteem for your “work” on the JFK assassination, yet it is countered by many other JFK researchers, who have the same take on you as I do as per the 9/11 event.

        So, what is your opinion on the theory that Greer shot JFK with a nickle plated revolver Jim? Do you buy that pile of bullshit?

        I have been studying the JFK hit since 1965. I have close to a hundred physical books in my library on the subject. I have studied good quality videos of every version of the Zapruder film.

        The “revolver in Greer’s hand” is nothing but the glare off of the hair, top of his head, of the agent sitting shotgun in the limo.

        No matter how you squirm, I will not change my opinion that you are a con man leading a carnival on both of these vital issues.

        ww

  85. rogue1 again demonstrates that he willing to make stuff up. What has William Greer to do with my research on the assassination–except for having pulled the limo to the left and to an abrupt halt after bullets began to be fired to make sure that JFK would be killed? As I have explained in many places, had Greer shot JFK, since he was to the left/front of the target, his brains would have been blown out to the right/rear, when in fact they were blown out to the left/rear, where they hit Officer Hargis so hard he thought he himself had been shot. rogue1 doesn’t care about the difference between true and false, black and white. Making false assertions like these with no evidence at all is clearly comparable to lying.

    I think anyone who is willing to make up claims that have no foundation whatsoever has no place in an exchange of this kind. He previously cited two JFK non-entities, Anthony Marsh and Clint Bradford, for things that they said in 1996 when I organized the first seminar on Zapruder film fabrication, which they wanted to deny. But the evidence that I was right has become simply overwhelming. And he again demonstrates his corrupt willingness to say anything regardless of its truth by tossing Doug Weldon, J.D., into the mix, when Doug was a contributor to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), with a study of the shot to the throat, which passed through the windshield en route. His death does not deserve such dishonor.

    1. Good at least you don’t buy the Greer shot Kennedy lollipop.

      I did not claim that you did – I ASKED if you bought it. Stretching a question into a lie is another one of your bullshit rhetorical tactics.

      As far as this tear jerking ploy that I dishonored anyone because they are dead now, skip to the loo with it.

      As far as calling others “non-entities” – it is more of your blowhard hubris to defame anyone who disagrees with you.

      Your posing as the New Age Guru of Conspiracy Theory is funny.

      ww

      1. You don’t know anything about JFK. You have no idea who Bradford or Marsh are. You didn’t even know that Doug Weldon and I were friends and that he contributed a brilliant chapter to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). You didn’t even know he had recently died. And you could care less. You try to waltz your way through it each time I call you on one of your fabricated posts. You call me a “mole”, which is simply absurd, when I have been doing everything I can to expose governmental complicity in JFK, 9/11 and Wellstone. I point out that it makes no sense to claim I “fit” a profile when I actually refute it, yet you shovel more shit. You are just about as disgusting as they get. No respect for me. No respect for truth. Disgusting!

  86. “No respect for me. No respect for truth. Disgusting!”~Jim Fetzer

    No respect for you does not equate to no respect for the truth.

    It has been clear for decades to anyone familiar with the JFK assassination, that it was a systemic hit, a coup d’etat. It is clear that the Public Relations Regime is never going to allow this to be generally understood.

    Whatever is ‘new’ is trinkets, and since none of the essentials have made a dent on the operations of the national security state, none of these new tidbits are going to make the difference.

    You are right I didn’t know that your friend died. If I were to say I am sorry to hear that, how much would it mean to you anyway? What would you care, you have as much respect for me as I do for you, so it would be meaningless. Nevertheless, I am sorry. For whatever it is worth to you.

    ww

  87. “Later i found mr. rogue “butting in” to our discussion…”Tamborine man

    I have news for you pal, this is an open forum thread. If you want to have a one on one private conversation with someone do it by email.

    The so-called “hologram” you say you saw, was certainly not a projected hologram – the technology is STILL unavailable as Senor’s research revealed, earlier.

    What you saw was in all likelihood the Pepper’s Ghost illusion, which is often hailed as a hologram – so much so that no one makes a stink about false advertising.The conceptualization for the Pepper’ Ghost technique is over a hundred fifty years old. But there are modern digital versions that are very convincing.

    The tiny lady at the end of the haunted mansion ride at Disneyland Anaheim is done this way, as are several other illusions on the ride.

    ww

    1. This reference to holograms is fine because it refers to something that was written previously and it doesn’t get into evidence. I removed a paragraph from onebornfree’s comment of 9:11 a.m. because it would have sent us down the same path as previous threads. If somebody wants to pick a fight about holograms, do it on another thread. Thank you.

  88. Thanks for that. Let’s let it go. Everyone knows where we stand. For those who want more about the assassination, see “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today!”

    1. Well I’d love to watch your Kennedy video, but I have a mobile connection and pay by the minute for videos…this would eat up a whole months worth, and cost me close to 60 extra dollars to view.

      I do agree that the JFK assassination was a seminal event in recent history, a coup d’etat, a violent regime change. It was the proximate event that led to the unopposed rise of the military/industrial complex that the previous president had warned of.

      But as far as this society – it is TOO BIG, too frightening to come to grips with for the common people, who much prefer pleasant myths over hard truths.

      It was once said that “in a democracy people get the government they deserve” – well I would say this is true under any form of ‘government’…that all but a fresh revolutionary government is an oligarchy, and it only takes a few years for power to corrupt even the best laid plan for governance.

      Amerika’s own history shows that it wasn’t but the few years from the end of the Revolutionary War to the convention in Philadelphia that the new oligarchy of the very group of men who led the revolution performed a bloodless coup, and made a secret deal among themselves to secure their power.

      In my view anyone believing in the myth of “American Exceptionalism” has a stunted consciousness, and is a “lost soul”.

      ww

  89. ADDRESSING THE FORUM IN GENERAL
    AND GREG FELTON IN PARTICULAR

    I have come here tonight to describe the hypocrisy of one Mr Greg Felton, who first of all began a dispute with me over something that is none of his business – defending another poster – one who has proven himself quite capable of answering his own challenges.

    On top of this, his main excuse is that he opposes long bickering exchanges, and degrading characterizations of opponents. He calls these, “pissing matches” and refers to ”ping pong games”.

    And yet there he is in the next thread over maintaining exactly the thing he professes to be against.

    He has persisted beyond reason, providing a series arguments that taken together are clearly self-contradictory.

    Now I have been taken to task by several other commentators here, who come on a’flame, reading me some riot act, who then turn around and accuse me of starting it. Felton isn’t the first by any means.

    These defaming claims that I am the one who is combative and “nasty” are self fulfilling fantasies, delusions that they project upon me. And there are enough of them currently working these threads to rise up like a pack of jackals and scream me down with denials.

    The weirdest thing about this is I have not bitched, whined and cried for intervention from the moderator in any instance. I have never complained that the thread was lacking in civility. I have always promoted the most open, no-holds-barred debates.

    It is Feldon who claims to seek ‘civility’ and calm debate, that wants to have the last word, and continues to taunt…thus leading the argument on. He being the one who supposedly deplores these long arguments now promotes one of his own; the very definition of hypocrisy.

    I submit to the candid world, that should you start at the beginning and read our posts in the next thread after this, in their sequence; you will find the truth of the matter. And those unfamiliar must keep and mind that Jim Fetzer and I have had a feud lasting months on these threads. So my assertions that Fetzer meant specifically me in his first post are meritorious .

    Now if you will excuse me I have my own thoughts to attend to.

    ww

    1. Well, Greg was right on both counts: my entreaty was more general, rouge’s more specific. But I have confidence that Craig can sort this one out with any assistance from me or Greg!

      1. And of course you would say this Fetzer…and yet you cannot deny our long feud, and the reasoning I put to accusing you of a veiled taunt in your first thread.

        However Not even Craig can “sort this out” this is a matter for the rational to judge for themselves. And for the irrational to continue with their blithering nonsense here.

        ww

  90. And so now Fetzer has joined in egging Felton on – adding fuel to the fire that he started. Fetzer was obviously referring directly to me, with the flimsiest of veiled rhetoric; as I pointed out on the thread where this is taking place {Fear of Ridicule}. As I am the one who has objected most strenuously against his Orwellian term “No-Planes”. I am his most vociferous opponent on this blog.

    Fetzer continues to use the term NPT but now adds qualifiers of “No Commercial Planes” etc…and these qualifiers are essential enough to replace NPT or “No-planes Theory” if he actually meant to replace them – BUT he doesn’t mean it, he is conning us, because he really means no-planes, that the aircraft witnessed and recorded were HOLOGRAMS.

    So this offer of qualifiers is disingenuous mollification, to appease this host and readership with clumsy rhetorical acrobatics.

    There is no business like bullshit, and bullshit is Fetzer’s game.

    ww

    1. To everyone!

      I wrote:

      “Later i found mr. rogue “butting in” to our discussion…”

      (Please note my inverted comma’s!)

      Mr. rogue replied thus:

      I have news for you pal, this is an open forum thread. If you want to have a one on one private conversation with someone do it by email.

      I got no problems of course with people participating with lucid, intelligent and thought-provoking comments in any discussion. In fact i would heartily welcome this.

      Here is what mr. rogue “butted in” with, and i referred to above:

      Where do you come up with this lunatic bullshit? What a crank shaft.

      I rather wish mr. rogue would take his “crap” over to other more suited forums or blogs, instead of polluting this thread with his malodorous vitriol!

      Trust that at least 99% of readers in these threads would agree with this!

      Cheers

      1. Such remarks as those you just made are futile Tamborine man, because any fair minded person can read through this thread and see you are a chattering fruitcake.

        ww

        1. Any survey of our respective posts would show that you are overwhelmingly more abusive and aggressive in ridiculing and demeaning others here. Just read the past few comments you have posted. Of course, I think you are despicable person, but consider how many of those posting here find your conduct both obnoxious and offensive compared to those who take exception to my commentaries. I do not suffer fools gladly, but you win, hands down!

      2. “I do not suffer fools gladly,but you win, hands down!”~Fetzer

        Thank you very much. Coming from you that is a great compliment.

        ww

  91. Given the damage to this Constellation from hitting a wooden pole, how can anyone doubt that the Pentagon scenario is a fantasy and that the Flight 175 scenario is an impossibility?

  92. Jim Fetzer asks…again:

    “Given the damage to this Constellation from hitting a wooden pole, how can anyone doubt that the Pentagon scenario is a fantasy and that the Flight 175 scenario is an impossibility? from hitting a wooden pole, how can anyone doubt that the Pentagon scenario is a fantasy and that the Flight 175 scenario is an impossibility?”

    The flight scenario of flt 175 is not pertinent to the question Fetzer, and your continued rhetorical twists to that effect call out your game.

    So are you getting senile Fetzer? This is the second time you have posted this irrelevant Constellation from hitting a wooden pole video, and it proves no more than the first time.

    ww

  93. Have you ever met Dr. Fetzer? All this nonsense about him being “a mole an infiltrator” is hogwash. Jim is an accomplished retired professor who has a passion for the truth. Sorry to disappoint but that is all he is!

    Why do you claim that the Constellation crash has no relevant bearing on the Pentagon debate? It is a simple and important connection. If flight 77 had struck several light poles on its 400 mph descent into the Pentagon it would have exploded on contact, just as the Constellation did. To think otherwise is illogical and defies reason. Why are you so angry and righteous in your posts? I thought we were here to explore ideas not annihilate each other.

  94. its simply really.. if a plane did hit, there would be some sort of verifiable credible evidence that shows that beyond all reasonable doubt.

    to date none has been presented.

    duh….

  95. Am I the only one that recalls clearly a TV clip shortly after 9/11 where Rumsfeld, conversing about the events of the day says, ‘….when the MISSILE hit the Pentagon….’?
    LeRoy Gmazel
    (…and thanks for the story. With regard to Legge et al it reminds me of Dr. William Pepper’s comments as a keynote speaker at the 9/11 conference in Chicago in 2006. He encouraged truthers to persist, that their work is essential but warned that the movement will be/has been infiltrated.)

  96. I have just recently been made aware of issues surrounding 911. Doing just a small amount of research into the issues surrounding the pentagon one thing is absolutely clear. The NTSB and FBI have failed to prove that Flight 77 hit it. How can this be possible? I read Legge’s paper and did some research into it and Warren Stutt. I have to ask, are these people kidding? Are they trying to make people in the Truth Movement look foolish? The only thing Legge’s paper did for me was make me wonder if there is someone on the Official side of things he is trying to protect? Taking the pentagon out of the 911 truth movement only helps the Official Story. The fact is, either they have given the American public fake FDR data or they have proven that flight 77 didn’t hit the pentagon, with their own data!!!! Now people need to ask themselves and understand, how is that possible?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s