Anthony,
Just for the record, you and I have gone round and round over this for years--where you have saved up every exchange we ever had so you could cull them for quotes taken out of context, exaggerate my positions, and suppress information about my actual views. As an example, you claim I have a lot of articles with similar names, but you doesn't actually cite the most important among them,
"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
Moreover, you love to shade the truth. Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight. You suppress the information that the speed of the plane in the videos (of 560 mph) appears to have been a lapse by using its cruising speed at 35,000 feet as if it could be attained at 700-1,000 feet as well, where the air is three times as dense and the turbines cannot suck the air through them, which causes them to function as brakes.
"Fight 175" entering the South Tower
Nor do you mention that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that this was an aerodynamically impossible speed for a Boeing 767, where you loves to talk about "special planes". But no matter how "special", no plane could have entered the building in violation of Newton's laws. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, while seats, bodies, and luggage fell to the ground. The engines would have made it into the building, but not most of the rest of a highly fragile aluminum "flying beer can".
Your claims are preposterous. An obvious study to have cited, were you actually an honest broker, would have been Pilots' study,
"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
You know better than you pretend, where my most recent articles were published at Veterans Today, which apparently enraged you. I do not understand your proprietary interest in all this, but it clearly exists--and his arguments, when properly understood and placed in context minus the exaggerations and distortions--are without merit. See, for example,
"Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11"
"Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"
But most of all, "9/11 Intercepted" from Pilots, which shows that a Boeing 767 would have been unmanageable and fallen apart at the speed shown in those videos.
How many of these studies have you actually read, Anthony? Because they provide a framework and background for understanding video fakery:
Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11"
David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
"Flight 11" approaching the North Tower
Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
Jim Fetzer, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
Killtown, What didn't happen at Shanksville
Your article and video are full of partial evidence and half-truths, which I fear is a form of deliberate misinformation. The number of those who would have have to be "in on it" regarding the Naudet video, for example, is grossly exaggerated. Most of those involved in something like this have no idea that what they are doing is not on "the up and up".
I notice you do not mention a study by Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged", which supports the opposite conclusion, where I have already explained to you why it was important that the shot be OUT OF FOCUS to not give away the missing plane. Something was flying by, but it does not appear to have been a Boeing 767.
Your reliance upon the Eric Salter study is especially revealing. Whether what Salter is alleged to have found is 8% or even 18% deceleration, that is not going to explain why it the plane's velocity did not fall to zero. The plane was intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which, of course, were also filled with 4-8" of concrete, which, at 208' x 208', represents an acre of concrete apiece.
As I explain in "More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity" (with a diagram), they would have created enormous horizontal resistance. The windows were only 18" wide and the support columns were a meter apart. There were no windows between floors, so most of the facade was steel, which is far more dense than aluminum. The video is a fantasy.
As I have challenged you before without receiving any response, how would it be possible for the plane--in both Hezarkhani and Faribanks' videos--to pass through their own length into the building in the same number of frames they pass through their own length in air? This is a perfect example of how you skip over and exclude evidence you don't like.
That result proves that the videos are fake (because it would be impossible unless those 500,000 ton buildings provided no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air) but also demonstrates that there was no deceleration and that Stalter's study is wrong. And of course you ignore that it was necessary to fake the plane
(1) to insure that it actually hit the building, which many members of Pilots were unable to accomplish with repeated trials;
(2) that it penetrate completely inside of it in order to create the false impression of a cause for the buildings' collapse; and,
(3) only then "exploded", which had to be precisely coordinated in time to account for the explosions in the sub-basements.
Those occurred 14 and 17 second BEFORE reverberations from those alleged impacts, as I have explained in "Seven Questions about 9/11". See my "9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job", in case you missed it, which is easily accessible and includes the following data table:
Which raises obvious questions about what you think you is doing here and why you commit so many straw man, special pleading, and ad hominem arguments. But on this point we can agree: There certainly is a lot of disinformation out there!
Jim
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
0 comments:
Post a Comment