 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 28, 2007 at 09:11:23
Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery: New proof of media duplicity, Scholars claim by James Fetzer Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
New proof has appeared in “September Clues,” a series of studies of these broadcasts currently available on YouTube and on google video. “These six studies, each of which is less than ten minutes in length, make it very difficult to deny that something was amuck on 9/11,” Fetzer added, “and they have now been corroborated by an in-depth analysis of the digital properties of a ‘live’ WNYW (Fox 5) helicopter video of United Airlines Fight 175 hitting the South Tower, which Ace Baker has provided. It, too, can now be found on-line as ‘Chopper 5 Composite’ at http://www.acebaker.com. We have also linked to them from our web site, 911scholars.org.”
Fetzer said he was affected in his thinking when relatives traveled to Madison from Milwaukee to visit with his daughter and son-in-law. “They wanted to watch a Brewer’s game, so we put it on TV,” he explained. “They had a favorite announcer who was on radio. So we put the radio by the television. To our astonishment, the radio broadcast was so far ahead of the television coverage that we knew whether it would be a ball, a strike, or a hit before the ball had left the pitcher’s hand. I realized deception was possible.”
The first segment of “September Clues”, which is subtitled, “The 911 News Media Coverage,” provides an instructive example. It starts with CNN footage in which, as the plane hits the building and begins to emerge from the opposite side, there is a “FADE TO BLACK!” On CBS, the wife of the producer reports observing the plane hit the building from her location in Chelsea. On FOX NEWS, a helicopter broadcast goes “FADE TO BLACK!” at the same point at which this occurred on CNN. As the voiceover explains, such events are important for multiple reasons, including:
(a) the “FADE TO BLACK!”s on CNN and FOX occur just as the nose of the plane is emerging from the opposite side of the building, as though an editor were seeking to cover the image;
(b) the announcer on CBS does not appear to notice any plane as it approaches the building, which would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to observe from Chelsea;
(c) microphones located on-site near the base of the South Tower failed to pick up sounds of any impact, which presumably would have caused significant auditory reverberations.
Point (a) is especially striking, Fetzer said. “The study points out that the nose of the plane exactly conforms to the nose of a Boeing 767, but this one had just passed through 200 feet of steel and concrete and should have been severely damaged if not completely destroyed. Pixel pattern comparison confirms the correspondence, which, under the circumstances, would be physically impossible.” The “FADE” takes place 0.28 seconds late, moreover, which appears consistent with human hand/eye response coordination.
They made a mistake they were unable to correct in time, Fetzer said. Six minutes later, CNN repeated the footage, but with the oddity that the network banner masked the appearance of the nose as it exited the building, as though that were not the most stunning feature of the video record. “That this was done provides powerful confirmation that the ‘FADE’ was a deliberate effort to conceal the occurrence of an event with the potential to reveal the deception. What’s the probability of two networks ‘fading’ at exactly the same moment of their ‘live’ coverage, if this was all on the level?”
Ace Baker’s “Chopper 5 Composite” substantiates these concerns with proof that the image of the plane was recorded separately from the image of the Twin Towers, Fetzer said. He discovered that, when variations induced by the helicopter’s motion are removed from the raw footage, apparent variations in aircraft speed that should be reduced are instead increased. Moreover, as the plane emerges from the building, the nose cone itself appears to accelerate and decelerate, repeatedly. That would not occur if this were an actual event being recorded on an authentic video.
The five other other segments of “September Clues” address other anomalies. “Part 2: The Flying Telephants,” for example, shows that various videos of the airplane’s approach are inconsistent with one another, where some show a smooth, perfectly horizontal trajectory into the building and others display a steep vertical descent before impact. A few show no plane at all. “This means they can’t all be authentic,” Fetzer observed, “but they could all be faked, which I would never have taken seriously before these studies.”
“September Clues, Part 5: 17 Seconds” shows that audio beeps that were 17 seconds apart were included in broadcasts from the major networks, apparently in order to synchronize the footage being used. In some cases, the networks kept the audio track of the impact on the South Tower, but changed the video track so the nose cone exit would not be seen. The difference between the official “time of impact” at 9:03:11 and the seismic effects recorded at 9:02:54 also turns out to be 17 seconds, which appears to have been the interval that created the opportunity for image manipulation.
Ace Baker mentions a group long convinced of video fakery, including Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, StillDiggin, Killtown, and others, who have been frustrated their arguments have not been taken seriously. “For that reason, I’m including this subject in a conference on ‘The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What’s Controversial, What’s Not,’ which will be held in Madison on August 3-5, 2007 (911scholars.org),” Fetzer said. “We are going do our best to get to the bottom of this. Truth about 9/11 is stranger than fiction.” (See http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/07/prweb541060.htm )
www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 49 comments |
|
Marion, Florence or Leavenworth
Google and type in "9/11 ... Arrest Bush 41" by David Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 2:29:38 PM  (0+)
|
|
Links to Videos and Articles Mentioned
September Clues: (originally released on livevideo.com. Google version is in mono.) PART ONE by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 9:22:31 PM (0+)
|
|
More Information
Every known 9/11 "airplane strike" video (both TV news and amateur recorded) is archived at this link. Every video shows the same thing: an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding into a steel/concrete building like it glides through the air. Analysis of 9/11 TV newscasters on local NYC stations. Newscasters on two different channels were using the exact same phrases on a developing story on live TV. They were reading from a script... the same script: Octopus 8 Other videos... Employees Expose FOX NEWS Distortions (non-9/11) Reporters Blow Whistle on FOX News (non-9/11) by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 11:04:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Same phrases
Bush: "The threat is not imaginary, it's real." Blair, plummier: "The threat is not imaginary, it's real." Aznar: "La amenaza no es imaginaria, es real." = The threat is not imaginary, it's real. It was all enacted according to a script planned beforehand, and the threat was imaginary, not real. Folks, quite clearly, we've all been had. Action. Let's roll'em. - All those collusive heads, I mean. by amazin (34 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 400 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 2:15:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Let's be logical...
Why is it that "tv fakery" is now inextricably linked to the "no plane theory"? You promote Sept Clues for tv fakery evidence, but then it tellsthe viewer that there were no planes. by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 2:57:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Perhaps if you looked at the information...
...with an open mind instead of trying to refute TV-Fakery/No Plane Theory (NPT) in every which way, then you'd understand it. You seem to make a lot of assumptions. i.e. you cannot assume that the reason people didn't see a plane is because they were too close. You must provide evidence and analysis. Are you aware that some people reported missiles? National Review has this quote: “I saw it," he says, "It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb — uh, a missile. This could be World War III." The BBC reports: I distinctly remember somebody saying: “A missile just hit the trade center, I saw a missile hit.” According to a CNN transcript, a reporter said: a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. An eyewitness also states: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange. What you don't understand is that the 9/11 perpetrators control the 9/11 Truth Movement. They control what theories become popular. They control what theories get shunned. The reason you think NPT is crazy is because you've been conditioned to do so. No other reason. TV-Fakery / No Plane Theory (NPT) is the most important issue of 9/11. Why? Because it implicates the corporate media directly as being the actual orchestrators of the attacks. Yes... the orchestrators. It was the media who scared America into a war with the Middle East and into supporting the Patriot Act. Yes, the military, Directed Energy Professional Society, and others, were responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. But the direct involvement of the corporate media cannot be overlooked. Impeaching Bush will do nothing in the long run, although it is a necessary start. The people who run the country need to be removed from power. These individuals do not reside in the White House, but in high-level positions in private companies and organizations. i.e. Disney (parent of ABC), General Electric (parent of NBC), The Federal Reserve, Directed Energy Professional Society, and countless others. Listen to the recent BBC broadcast about Grandpa Prescott Bush and learn of the high-level people in private companies who were conspiring to turn the USA into a fascist Nazi Camp. TV-Fakery / NPT is the most important issue about 9/11. People must learn that they cannot trust the media at all. Did you read the Technology Review magazine article "Lying With Pixels", linked above? It details how the military and corporate media can insert prerecorded images into live feed for the purpose of altering world politics. Read the article! by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 4:37:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: LOL
by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 5:15:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: My argument is based on science and common sense
Is it physically possible for an aluminum airplane (and with a plastic nosecone at that!) to glide into a steel/concrete building? The answer is NO. It doesn't matter how many witnesses there are. The Laws of Physics wins over witnesses every time. Besides, it has already been explained to you that the eyewitness statements are conflicting. Some saw big planes, some saw small planes. Some saw missiles, some saw nothing at all, just an explosion. It seems you want to dismiss the conflicting testimony just to suit your predetermined conclusion. Do you know what that is called? Pathological Science. I know someone who said she saw (from her downtown Manhattan office) a plane go in one side of the south tower and pop out the other. Since this is not physically possible, she's either mistaken, or saw a projection. Watch the ending of the Octopus 8 video I linked to above. You'll see one of your so-called eyewitnesses, in a dark suit. He is nothing more than an actor. If you look closely, you will see that this performance was given in a studio and the WTC background was simply tacked on. LOL to you! by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 6:49:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Regarding the Videos
Every known 9/11 WTC "plane" video is archived on this site. All other channels got their live broadcasts from those two channels. Any video that shows an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding into a steel/concrete building is fake. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 6:58:49 PM (0+)
|
|
...
When I said to pay attention to how angles work on film, I didn't mean for the "nose-out" shot, I mean in all of Sept Clues. Also the 17 sec delay in the official time could be because they're going based off the time on the tv news videos. The beep, ka-cha, etc. discussed in Sept Clues could have been from an NY electrical disturbance, satellite disturbance or... dare I say, and artifact from the recording machines at archive.org. Ah, whatever, I just say we stick to what we can prove. by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 3:11:59 AM (0+)
|
|
...
For those that don't know, the videos used in SC are from archive.org which recorded news from each network that day as part of their archive program: by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 3:18:01 AM (0+)
|
|
...
Actually, some of the videos in SC are from there. The one with the scrolling VH1 banner isn't, for starters. by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 3:20:07 AM (0+)
|
|
...
Note: The maker of SC states that all the clips are form archive.org. by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 3:23:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Just watch the CNN/ABC video of the 2nd impact
It breaks the laws of physics in at least 2 ways: 1) Fireball is delayed - impossible for a fuel laden plane - it would ignite on impact 2) Largest fireball comes out of the SIDE of the building. 3) Plane's tail does not break off on impact. 4) No large wreckage falls to the ground. Plenty of other anomalies too. And which witnesses, when seeing the news footage in the evening would then afterwards say "I never saw the plane! They're broadcasting fake footage!" Not many witnesses would believe the news would broadcast fake footage - they would assume they missed seeing the plane. by Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 97 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 3:39:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I've watched it.
It was going 500 mph and crashed into an office building; how could you know what phenomena to expect? Besides, the infamous "flash" (which can be seen before impact on all the videos of the second hit and on the Naudet video of the 1st hit) has never been explained and could account for the fireball. by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 3:52:53 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: How do you know the plae was going 500 mph?
The speeds of the faked planes were derived from the faked videos. by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 5:58:11 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Circular Reasoning
For example, take the statement 'Circular Reasoning can be used to prove anything.' Now, clearly this statement is part of anything. Therefore, because 'Circular Reasoning can be used to prove anything', the statement can be proved. Therefore 'Circular Logic can be used to prove anything.' by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 1:54:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ...
And, as always, the burden of proof rests on those who are making the claim. by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 2:09:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That's right.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that there were planes! by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 6:24:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks for the lecture
What you don't understand is that I have already developed the conclusion that the planes are faked, based on crash physics that show that high speed would only increase deformation of the weaker aluminum, based on planted evidence, and based on the video anamolies. September Clues could be proven wrong and I still would not believe that Boeing 767s disappeared inside the Towers as claimed. I was not trying to prove that conclusion to you, because the conclusion is self-evident to anyone not brainwashed by the media and by conformity, and explaining is not going to do any good. All I was saying was that your claimed velocity of 500 mph is derived from the videos. What you don't understand is that speed doesn't help your argument, because steel is stronger, denser, and harder than aluminum, and the kinetic energy of a faster impact would be expended in greater deformation of the aluminum, not in greater load on the steel. by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:38:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Oh please...
I never said that a Boeing 767 did either; there was a burning 737 engine found down in the street. How could you have possibly done an intellectually honest study on the physics of the crash when there are tons of variables that you couldn't possibly take into account? The side of the WTC wasn't a flat piece of steel, it was steel grating as seen in the photos of the building. According to your description, the aluminum would've been shredded by the steel and then passed into the building through all the large open areas; but hey, I'm not claiming to be a physics expert. by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:14:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well argued, ADJohnson
I would take the witness argument a little further, Some people that saw nothing or something other than a plane could be affected by post0event information - the faked broadcasts and people talking about the faked broadcasts - and develop false memories they would strongly hold. Professor Elizabeth Loftus has studied and written about this phenomenon. by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 6:03:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Come on Scholars...
by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 4:17:40 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: johndoraemi ...
Google and type in "The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects" by David Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 6:51:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: as can be seen....
the poster johndoraemi is angered because TV-Fakery / NPT is catching wind and becoming very popular. He calls others disinfo agents and provides absolutely no evidence to back it up. His choice of words is very revealing as well. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 7:11:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Here we go again
Once again we see good people who seek the truth about 9/11 arguing with one another. This plays into the hands of the perpetrators. The thing that matters is that the three buildings were brought down with explosives. That has been proven beyond doubt. See peer reviewed articles here: http://journalof911studies.com/ The fact that the US admin has totally denied the use of explosives is proof of complicity. Nothing more is needed for action and action is what is sorely needed if we are to avoid attacking Iran. How do you get action? Polititions won't move unless the public is 70% in favour. How do you get 70% in favour? By putting a good case on solid scientific evidence. Arguing about details will get in the way of this. If there is solid scientific evidence that the videos were tampered with by all means spread the word but until it is scientifically proven it will do more harm than good. We need a united front. There has already been too much arguing about details. The author of this piece, Jim Fetzer, promoted the idea that the towers fell faster than free fall. He continued to do this long after it had been pointed out to him that the towers came down a little slower than free fall. He has also promoted the idea that the towers were brought down by space beam weapons even though there was ample scientific evidence that explosives had been used. He caused a lot of division in the truth movement. Is he trying to create division again by giving space to the "no plane theory"? We don't need that. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 9:41:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The only evidence of planes is the broadcast videos
The witness accounts are too contradictory and contaminated by the broadcasts. Enough questions have been raised about the videos, and about the plausibility of the plane penetrations shown on TV and assumed by NIST and Purdue, to shift the burden back to the government and media. In an age of known digital manipulation, the burden of proof should have been there in the first place. by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:44:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The WTC was Destroyed with Directed Energy Weaponry
NOT explosives. The explosives limited hangout is promoted by government plant Steven Jones. (Yes, he is a government plant. This can be seen by anyone who actually looks at the evidence instead of assuming he's for real.) Bush already made mention of Al Qaeda planting explosives in the towers. (Here's the video of Bush saying this.) So it's obvious what's going on: The truth movement is being set up for a fall. There are two truths that the perpertrators don't want people to know about: Directed Energy Weapons at the WTC. This is what the evidence shows and is what happened. You think it's coincidence that Steven Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched? No, it's not. Neither is the other evidence I link to here. The same goes for Greg Jenkins who conducted this ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood in a poor attempt to discredit the DEW evidence. Jenkins also has ties to Los Alamos as well as the NSA. And of course there's Bob Bowman, former director of the Star Wars program. No... Bowman doesn't talk about DEW evidence at the WTC, but instead choses to discuss NORAD standing down and other irrelivancies. You think it coincidence that all these DEW people are in the truth movement? TV-Fakery at the WTC. There is already 100% proof that the videos are fake: Every single video shows an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel/concrete building. This is physically impossible. Therefore, the videos are fake. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:15:14 AM (0+)
|
|
By the way
I share your concerns about Jim Fetzer, and am concerned about what he will do with this evidence. That's a separate issue from the validity of the faked planes theory, or better said, the discrediting of the planes evidence. by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:18:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Flimsy Walls on Trade Towers
If the plane didn't strike the internal pillars which are the strength of the Towers and didn't strike the concrete floors it could go easily through the flimsy wall partitions that all office building use. Jet fuel is only kerosene and doesn't ignite and burn quickly like gasoline used in piston engines. It can only burn after it has gotten distributed and around and mixed with air. Burn some kerosene in a pie pan in your yard and observer. by Green Cat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:36:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Steel Perimeter Columns and Concrete Floors
WTC Construction Video Clip - Perimeter columns of structural steel by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007 at 1:36:14 AM (0+)
|
|
The scientific papers ignore the fuselage
Wierzbicki/Teng ignored it completely. Karim/Hoo Fatt said they accounted for the energy loss but did not address the actual behavior of the fuselage, but merely assumed it penetrated. I said deformation, which includes crushing and fragmentation. Fragments would be deflected. Are you arguing that the columns remained intact, but the material went in through the windows? That's not what was observed. Or you are arguing that the fuselage remains intact into the building as as shown in the Purdue cartoon? by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:37:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: This was a reply to
2logical's comment above beginning with mention of a Boeing 737 engine found in the street. by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:40:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Don't forget the effect of the videos
Post-event information influences memory, and the memories formed are strong. Loftus on memory by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:15:10 AM (0+)
|
|
The burden of proof
must be on those who carry the official water of the government. The 9-11 Truth Movement, in all of its incarnations and variations, are raising sufficient evidentiary information to call that version into question. It is not sufficient to make statements to the effect that the official story "could" have occurred. The 9-11 Commission is alleging that its version is definitive. If some or even substantial portions of this version is belied by evidence that the commission for some reason ignored or responded to in illogical or deceptive ways, then there is strong reason to call for a real, independent investigation (which of course the 9-11 commission work was not). It makes no sense to require that the 9-11 Truth Movement(s) come up with a complete, airtight story of all that happened. It's the latter that we are seeking, because nothing close to a scientific investigation has been provided by those who were in positions to do so. by JimZ (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 6:47:42 PM (0+)
|
|
I agree
WaPo's Arkin on Digital Coups "Video and photo manipulation has already raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world." by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007 at 5:45:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Sifting grain from straw
JimZ makes a good point above that it is not necessary for the 9/11 Truth movement to know everything and get everything right. It is just necessary to know that some things are totally untrue in the official explanation and demand an independent investigation. It is totally untrue that fire was significant in bringing down the three buildings - explosives did it. It is enough to get that right. And it is a good thing that we don't have to get everything right. The 9/11 movement has created a few ratbags who strut the stage and cause confusion (space beam weapons, H-bombs, no planes). If you look at the speakers at the seminar that Jim Fetzer is advertising above you will see the names of Judy Woods and Morgan Reynolds. They did some good work once but have either gone mad or have gone over to the other side, promoting unbelievable ideas which put the 9/11 truth movement at risk. Jim seems to be obsessed with the idea that controversy is good for the movement and seeks out these charlatans to support. I'm sure some of his speakers will have useful contributions but one needs to be careful when speaking to the public to avoid pushing ideas which are easily shown to be wrong. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007 at 6:23:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You don't know what you're talking about
First, using ad hominems (i.e. "ratbags") does not refute any of the data. What it does, in fact, is reaffirm the validity of the claims that have been made. Second, it is vitally important for people to know that the "truth movement" is being controlled by government plants (i.e. Steven Jones) who push fabrications like molten metal, and do everything possible to discredit DEW and NPT. Third, attorney Jerry Leaphart said that the DEW theory has more admissible evidence in a Court of Law than any other WTC destruction theory. 27 July 2007 by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007 at 9:11:36 PM (0+)
|
|
17 seconds is pretty short
Of course videos can be faked, but the idea that a whole new appearance can be created in the 17 second interval between action and presentation is absurd. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007 at 6:33:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You Obviously Didn't Read "Lying With Pixels"
The Technology Review magazine article says it can be done in REALTIME! There's nothing "absurd" about it. You are making assumptions not based on the evidence. (Evidence that has already been presented, no less...) by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007 at 8:54:36 PM (0+)
|
|
facts
ad hominems neither refute nor prove anything. Sometimes they are deserved. Your ad hominem about Steve Jones does not prove anything either. Jones is not lying about molten metal. He has proof. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 1, 2007 at 1:09:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Please show me!
I am very eager to see Steven Jones' "proof" of molten metal. (Yes, I read his paper, so don't bother pointing there. I want you to explain his proof.) btw, I did not make any ad hominem's toward Jones. Everything I said is backed by evidence. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 2, 2007 at 3:03:37 AM (0+)
|
|
"Truth Movement" or "Conjecture Movement"?
by Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 1, 2007 at 12:24:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Eric Salter is an Phony as Steven Jones
No where in any of Salter's papers does he explain how an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone glides through a steel/concrete building. Did you even bother to read it? Salter believes that Newton's Laws of Motion can be violated. But they cannot. Aren't you capable of looking at simple, obvious evidence for yourself instead of linking to people like Salter? by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 2, 2007 at 3:16:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Proof
CB_Brooklyn You accused Jones of fabricating evidence. That appears to be an ad hominem as you do not provide evidence. I think he has been careful to only promote ideas for which there is good honest evidence. Here is where he gives proof of molten metal and explosives. http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf This is a rambling paper, a transcript of a talk. If you want to get straight to the proof go to page 22. The proof is this. In the dust from the towers is a substantial proportion of iron. The particles are spherical. This is proof that they were once molten. Their small size is proof that they were subjected to extreme violence - what else but explosives. The analysis of the spheres shows elements commonly found in thermate. I expect there will be another paper on this in the near future. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 2, 2007 at 10:37:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sorry...
But there is no "proof" in Jones' paper. Jones' "word" that he found traces of something in dust samples is not proof of anything. His research has already been proven faulty, as I have shown in sites linked in my other comments. Anyone taking his word for anything is being taken advantage of big time. There was no molten metal at GZ. I have shown this myself in this piece-by-piece debunk that I have compiled: WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction? Jones' analysis does not address, nor does it explain, all the data. Therefore his hypothesis is not valid. Dr Wood's directed energy weapon evidence does a much better job explaining the data than thermite/explosives. And as trial attorney Jerry Leaphart said last week in a radio interview with Kevin Barrett, there's more admissible evidence in a Court of Law for directed energy weapons than any other 9/11 theory. Also of note... Jones cannot make the assumption that only explosives could make small sized debris. This is faulty reasoning. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 6, 2007 at 5:25:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Not interested in Jones v. Wood debate
I'm also not interested in the DEW v. thermate debate. The buildings were rapidly pulverized, and it is self-evident that massive amounts of added energy were required for that to happen. I am interested in the question of whether planes have been proved. by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Thursday, Aug 2, 2007 at 3:59:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Not interested in Jones v. Wood debate
(continued) Professor Jones has offered plane debris as evidence of planes. I have argued with him by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Thursday, Aug 2, 2007 at 4:00:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Planted debris is not evidence of planes
(continued again - sorry, the commenting here is cumbersome) Professor Jones has offered plane debris as evidence of planes. I have argued with him /that the trajectories of this debris through and out the oother side of the buildings are implausible, even according to NIST, and gotten no good answers. I try to separate this from the thermate issue, which I do not fully understand. As I said, I don't think that question needs to be answered at this point. by Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Thursday, Aug 2, 2007 at 4:06:42 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
