Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

Here's another in the apparently endless stream of mindless drivel coming from members of a group that has NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. Do I have to explain that I am not one of those whom you may think you and your chums have debunked before? I am the new guy on the block. You have to actually READ MY STUFF and then, if you can, explain my arguments (so we know you actually understand them) and then, if you can, explain what I have wrong. You can't do any of that if you don't even read what I've written. OK?

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by JimFetzer
All,

As I used the term, "video fakey",

That is all well and good, but you need to account for the eyewitness accounts of the planes impacting the Towers.

How do you plan on doing that?

Excellent post, SphinxMontreal! How many here are aware that these are the first airplane crashes in American history that have not been investigated by the NTSB! An FBI official, when asked, "Why haven't these crashes been investigated?", replied, "It wasn't necessary because we saw them on television!" But of course we did not see what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville "on television", and what we have seen on TV does not look right. So you are making some excellent points against a group who appears to be completely uninformed and at a loss as to how to cope with the evidence about 9/11.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"So, can our resident pilot throw any light on this?"

Contrary to the "rubbish" you read from some people, alleged airplane pilots are not experts in airplane crashes; their job is to fly airplanes and avoid crashes. The ones who are experts in airplane crashes are Aviation Accident Reconstruction Experts, whose job is to investigate and draw conclusions on these crashes. If these accident reconstruction teams require additional experts (such as credible pilots with genuine qualifications), they will employ their services.

Yeah...accident reconstruction experts...the same team of experts who the insurance companies, who paid out billions of dollars in 9/11 settlements, DID NOT use to investigate these alleged crashes. Instead, these insurers, who had billions to lose, obviously authorized the destruction of key physical evidence at the site and relied on Harley Guy for drawing their final conclusions as to what happened on 9/11.

So go ahead and be distracted by the story of Government involvement in 9/11. The bottom line is that if these insurance carriers did not pre-authorize the payment of billions and the destruction of vital physical evidence in this apparent fraudulent case, 9/11 never happens.

I guess for the first time in history, the insurers were overcome with a sense of immense generosity and decided to suspend normal procedures in coverage and claims handling.

edit on 4-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)

Well, whacker, I am the founder of Scolars for 9/11 Truth and I manage its web site, but I did not write what you are quoting. Why are you running away from the issues? I am here and I have presented my arguments (with more in store) so you and your mindless associates can attack me. But you have to quote an unknown source on some irrelevant issue? Can't you face up to the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and that your blather of the past is not going to cut it here? If you want to rebut my arguments, then explain what they are (one by one), so we know you understand them, and THEN tell us what I have wrong. I know that's asking for a lot from someone who has no idea what he's talking about, but there are reasons for having threads devoted to specific topics like this one. Show us what you've got, weedwhacker, before we dismiss you as a no-show when the rubber hits the road. I am here. What do I have wrong?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JimFetzer

 

???

More nonsense, I'm afraid:

.... you would have learned that Flight 175, had it been a real plane, would have intersected with no less than eight (8) floor....

From YOUR (junk claims) website (I assume, IF you are the "Jim Fetzer"):



About four floors. For the BULK and center of mass of the airplane. Really, from engine-to-engine laterally. SOME of the mass of the fuel, in the wing sections outboard of the engines had kinetic energy and momentum, thus aided in their penetration through the building's facade. Further, in any case, F = MA. Basic physics.



Sure you may be familiar with the bunk written here??:

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

THIS rubbish:

These were two Boeing KC-767TT airborne refueling aircraft capable of carrying 15,005 gallons of high octane jet fuel in on-board tank.

Only takes minimal research to prove it WRONG!

en.wikipedia.org...

More lies from the "truthers"!! The "KC-767" was still on the drawing board in 2002!

Wait, here's a detail the "scholars" apparently overlooked (from the Wiki article):

Boeing continued development of the aircraft.Italy selected the KC-767A and signed a contract in 2002 becoming the launch customer, with delivery set for 2005. The Italian Air Force (Aeronautica Militare) ordered four aircraft. This version is based on the 767-200ER and is named the KC-767 Tanker Transport, and is fitted with boom and hose-drogue refueling systems on the centerline with hose-drogue wingpod systems.[15]

Italy's aircraft became the first KC-767 to be assembled.

Delivery in 2005!!! FIRST airplane assembled!!!

Really, credibility on this = ZERO. Every bit of junk on the "scholars4truth" site.....

It is truly funny...."scholars"!!

edit on 4 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Excellent post, SphinxMontreal! How many here are aware that these are the first airplane crashes in American history that have not been investigated by the NTSB! An FBI official, when asked, "Why haven't these crashes been investigated?", replied, "It wasn't necessary because we saw them on television!" But of course we did not see what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville "on television", and what we have seen on TV does not look right. So you are making some excellent points against a group who appears to be completely uninformed and at a loss as to how to cope with the evidence about 9/11.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"So, can our resident pilot throw any light on this?"

Contrary to the "rubbish" you read from some people, alleged airplane pilots are not experts in airplane crashes; their job is to fly airplanes and avoid crashes. The ones who are experts in airplane crashes are Aviation Accident Reconstruction Experts, whose job is to investigate and draw conclusions on these crashes. If these accident reconstruction teams require additional experts (such as credible pilots with genuine qualifications), they will employ their services.

Yeah...accident reconstruction experts...the same team of experts who the insurance companies, who paid out billions of dollars in 9/11 settlements, DID NOT use to investigate these alleged crashes. Instead, these insurers, who had billions to lose, obviously authorized the destruction of key physical evidence at the site and relied on Harley Guy for drawing their final conclusions as to what happened on 9/11.

So go ahead and be distracted by the story of Government involvement in 9/11. The bottom line is that if these insurance carriers did not pre-authorize the payment of billions and the destruction of vital physical evidence in this apparent fraudulent case, 9/11 never happens.

I guess for the first time in history, the insurers were overcome with a sense of immense generosity and decided to suspend normal procedures in coverage and claims handling.

edit on 4-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)

Oh where to begin???

Now I may not be an expert, or nothin, but, ummm this was NOT an accident. Let me repeat that for the hard of hearing and reading:

THIS WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT

Here, this is a definition of "accident" :

An accident is a specific, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

en.wikipedia.org...

The NTSB is tasked for investigating an accident crash scene. AA Flight 587 was an accident. (FedEx) Flight 647 was an accident. TWA Flight 800 was an accident. IranAir 227 was an accident. An accident can happen from bad weather conditions, pilot/co-pilot error, mechanical failure, or any mysterious causes which need to be investigated. A plane that was intentionally flown into a building, not once, not twice, but thrice, is not considered an "accident" scene. It is a crime scene. Three planes (four, counting Flight93) were hijacked and then INTENTIONALLY rammed into buildings. That is not an accident.
Just like if a bus was hijacked and then intentionally rammed into oncoming cars, or a building, it is not an "accident", but a crime scene. However, if the bus lost control, and crashed, then it would be considered an accident.

here is what the NTSB does:

The NTSB is normally the lead organization in the investigation of a transportation accident within its sphere. However, this power can be surrendered to other organizations if the Attorney General declares the case to be linked to an intentional criminal act, although the NTSB would still provide technical support in such investigations. This occurred during the investigation of the September 11, 2001, attacks when the Department of Justice took over the investigation.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Its a rare occurance but it has happened before that the investigatioon was given way to another organization:

The first time that a NTSB non-criminal-act investigation under way was pre-empted or required to cease investigation was in the case of the Sept. 1, 1983, shootdown of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 by the Soviets. KAL 007 had taken off from Anchorage, Alaska, and had begun to stray, and then shot down just past Soviet territory. The NTSB office in Anchorage was notified that the plane was missing just three hours after it had come down in the Sea of Japan and immediately began to look into the matter. Shortly, after that, it was told to cease its investigation and forward to its headquarters in Washington all the material - originals and copies - it had gathered. From there, the information was sent to the State Department. James Michelangelo, chief of the NTSB's Anchorage office, was told by headquarters that the Board was off the case and that the State Department would handle the investigation. But the investigation was referred by State Department to the International Civil Aviation Organization of the U.N.[8]

Here is what the NTSB has to say on 9/11:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board is providing technical assistance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the lead agency investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11.
At the request of the FBI, the Safety Board has sent investigators with knowledge of aircraft structures and flight recorders to the crash sites in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. They are assisting in the search for the cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders - the so-called “black boxes” - and helping to identify aircraft parts.

The NTSB has offered the use of its laboratories to read out any recorders the FBI may find.

The Safety Board also dispatched its family affairs specialists to New York and Pennsylvania to advise the FBI and the airlines on providing federal services to the families of the victims of these crimes. Similar assistance is being provided for the crash at the Pentagon.

As the crashes of the four airliners on Tuesday are criminal acts, the FBI is the lead investigative agency and will release all information on the progress of the investigation. News media should direct questions on this investigation to the FBI’s press office at (202) 324-3691.

www.ntsb.gov...

Its been 10 years, and you truthers can't even get the most basic facts straight! but keep the laughs coming. Its great entertainment!

This is pretty bad, weedwhacker. If you think about it, you would realize that, since their fuel is stored in their wings, as soon as there was a high-friction interaction between the wings and the building, they would have burst into flames already as they were entering the building. All the worse for refueling versions of 767s. I guess you are one of those who believes everything he sees as well as everything he reads, even including animated simulations! You had been go back and read what I have explained in previous posts on the Kevin Ryan thread about lying, because, even in relation to the use of the term "lying", you have no idea what you are talking about. I think you have no idea how embarrassing your posts are for those who expect intelligent, evidence and science-based discussions here at ATS. This is rather sad.

reply to post by weedwhacker

[SNIP] The purpose of an NTSB investigation is to determine the cause of the crash. The only way to draw a conclusion WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION is to take for granted what you want to establish. I apparently have a lot more experience with the NTSB than have you, since I spent years in research on the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone. Go to assassinationscience.com... and check out some of my work on this subject. While you are there, read a study I co-authored with John P. Costella, Ph.D., "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", which Michael Rupert published in his "From the Wilderness" newsletter. It is also archived at www.fromthewilderness.com... You just might learn something.

reply to post by GenRadek

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I think you have no idea how embarrassing your posts are for those who expect intelligent, evidence and science-based discussions here at ATS. This is rather sad.

reply to post by weedwhacker

 

This coming from someone how doesnt know the difference between an accident and a criminal act.

Anyone who thinks no planes hit the WTC's is clearly bonkers.
Anyone who thinks hologram technology exists to create planes in the sky is clearly bonkers.

And i thought this video was pretty good. I did find it hard to believe a plane could cause so much internal damage but clear animation like this help persuade me otherwise.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Are you as dumb as you sound? The purpose of an NTSB investigation is to determine the cause of the crash. The only way to draw a conclusion WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION is to take for granted what you want to establish. I apparently have a lot more experience with the NTSB than have you, since I spent years in research on the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone. Go to assassinationscience.com... and check out some of my work on this subject. While you are there, read a study I co-authored with John P. Costella, Ph.D., "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", which Michael Rupert published in his "From the Wilderness" newsletter. It is also archived at www.fromthewilderness.com... You just might learn something.

reply to post by GenRadek

 

Keep the laughs coming there Jim! 9/11 was not an accident. What the hell would the NTSB be looking for when THREE PLANES intentionally CRASHED like kamikazie pilots into THREE buildings? Just what exactly should the NTSB investigate? A triple ocurrance of catastrophic flight control failures which resulted in the flight controls to lock up, and engine throttle failure where the engines mysteriously red-lined all right into three buildings?

Sorry buddy, not gonna fly with me or any intelligent researchers. Its plain and simple, 9/11 was no accident. NTSB investiagtes when the causes are unclear and/or mysterious. Hence ACCIDENT. ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION. The crashes were not accidental in ANY stretch of the word. Do you understand this yet?

reply to post by JimFetzer


Smile....

Can't you face up to the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about....

THIS coming from someone who should be embarrassed by the link to that website (in the discussion about the Sen. Wellstone accident...something ELSE you get terribly wrong).

The website that, among other things, includes the suggestion of the Apollo "hoax"??

Credibility? Zero. But, one thing that may be redeemable is the JFK saga....still a lot of ground to cover, there.

Anyway....you say that I don't have any idea???

LOL! No...of course not. Why would someone like me, with almost 40 years flying experience, about 20,000 hours total time, and the last 23+ years at a major airline have "any idea"??



Credibility, Mr. Fetzer = Zero. As shown countless times, by your associations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reviewing subsequent posts, and quoting the gems:

Originally posted by JimFetzer
.... since their fuel is stored in their wings, as soon as there was a high-friction interaction between the wings and the building, they would have burst into flames already as they were entering the building...

Ummm....you're a "scholar", and you embarrass yourself with that statement?? :shk:

Hate to be blunt, but that is pure twaddle. Indicative, though, of the sorts of misconceptions that abound, on this topic. As I've said many times, it seems that Hollywood SFX in many, many films have given the lay public some pretty humorous opinions on what they expect to see.....Hollywood loves the big, flashy bangs and booms!!

You think that the wings would have "exploded on impact"? I guess, when a car goes of a cliff and explodes in mid-air (in films) then you expect that to happen, too??

Let's see if we can put on our thinking caps, on the airplane wings issue: At (generously) about 420 knots (it was faster, but the math is easy this way) that is seven miles per minute. 6,076 feet per nautical mile, so that's 42,532 feet per minute. Divide by 60, for fps = 709 fps.

How wide are the wings, do you think? Never-mind, you can see them in relation to the overall length of the fuselage. (159 ft, 2 in). (BTW...I am type rated on, and have thousands of hours in, the Boeing 737, 757/767 AND DC-9 family. With much additional experience in other types...).

So....for the full 159 feet to pass into the building, start to finish? @ 709 fps? You do the math. And, you expect the wings to instantly burst into flame?? >scratches head<

Here, you need a few diagrams, for edification:



And (A B-757, because I had it to hand, but essentially much the same as the B-767 in layout):



Contemplate those, for a while. Note the wing structure....it is a "dual spar" design...a forward and aft spar, with the fuel bays contained in between. So, the fuel is set back aft from the wings' leading edges.....of course, the leading edges are comprised of the slats and their mechanisms, too.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Let's see if we can put on our thinking caps, on the airplane wings issue: At (generously) about 420 knots (it was faster, but the math is easy this way) that is seven miles per minute. 6,076 feet per nautical mile, so that's 42,532 feet per minute. Divide by 60, for fps = 709 fps.

I agree with you, but your 42,532 is feet per hour, so your 709 is fpm, and 709/60 is fps. Just a minor correction. 709 fps is rocket fast, not airplane or speeding bullet fast. 11 fps is still very similar to a speeding bullet, and that is about the speed in question.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Hold up, GRAR...

Convert knots to feet/sec

That is an online calculator, maybe should have linked it first time? I did the math the hard way...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ahhhhhhhhhhh. You're right, my mistake. I missed the whole "7 miles per minute" part when I read your post, and I thought you went straight from hours to seconds.

I was also wrong about bullet speeds, it is late. I was thinking bullets travel at about 9 m/s, but that is gravity, not bullets. Bullets are 600 to 4000 fps.
Source

I'll go back to bed now, just thought I would interject with some bad information and then move along.

Excellent post, SphinxMontreal! How many here are aware that these are the first airplane crashes in American history that have not been investigated by the NTSB! An FBI official, when asked, "Why haven't these crashes been investigated?", replied, "It wasn't necessary because we saw them on television!" But of course we did not see what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville "on television", and what we have seen on TV does not look right. So you are making some excellent points against a group who appears to be completely uninformed and at a loss as to how to cope with the evidence about 9/11.

Thank you Jim - coming from you that is quite a compliment. It does not matter one spit what the brain dead saw on the idiot box on 9/11. What does matter is that top of the line perceptive investigators such as yourself are online and 100% perplexed by this grand illusion. Keep up the great work!

Originally posted by GenRadek
Its been 10 years, and you truthers can't even get the most basic facts straight!

but keep the laughs coming. Its great entertainment!

That is because truthers are actually not interested in facts, as the facts of what happened completely destroy their silly conspiracy theories. Some are more interested in selling books and DVD's

Some are more interested in selling books and DVD's

Last time I checked, selling books and DVDs is a lot less profitable than selling illegal blood thirsty wars. However, I do not expect you to comprehend this fact.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
selling books and DVDs is a lot less profitable than selling illegal blood thirsty wars

Once again you are confused. Selling books and DVD's is the main reason some people push silly conspiracy theories. Much easier to make up a silly conspiracy theory, and flog a book/dvd to make money than actually working, and what person is selling so called "illegal" wars?

Or you could ask for donations on your silly conspiracy theory website.

reply to post by JimFetzer

All the worse for refueling versions of 767s. I guess you are one of those who believes everything he sees as well as everything he reads, even including animated simulations!

Still pushing the "it was a 767 tanker which hit the WTC" crap

One the 767 did not exist in 2001, except for paper design. first was not sold until 2002 (Italy) with delivery in
2005 , Japan bought some too

Boeing had no end of problems with design and was late delivering them

www.strategypage.com...

Two - in a tanker the fuel to be offloaded is stored in the interior cargo compartment. Wings hold fuel for the
aircraft own consumption in flight

But of course facts dont matter to conspiracy loon - it is all about your fantasy.....

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
selling books and DVDs is a lot less profitable than selling illegal blood thirsty wars

Once again you are confused. Selling books and DVD's is the main reason some people push silly conspiracy theories. Much easier to make up a silly conspiracy theory, and flog a book/dvd to make money than actually working, and what person is selling so called "illegal" wars?

Or you could ask for donations on your silly conspiracy theory website.

edit on 5/2/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)

Accusing a commercial motive for all investigations into alleged conspiracies is a pathetically weak argument and is manifestly ridiculous to all reasonable, impartial minds. But then one cannot expect sound judgements from someone who, as a matter of principle, dismisses all conspiracy theories as "silly".

Originally posted by micpsi
Accusing a commercial motive for all investigations into alleged conspiraciesect sound judgements from someone who, as a matter of principle, dismisses all conspiracy theories as "silly".

Here we have a truther with poor reading ability - where did I claim "all"? I actually said "some", as you would have seen if you bothered to read, instead of going off half cocked again.