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

reply to post by JimFetzer


Well......then glad that cleared up, simply the lack of proper BB codes.

Actually....for the sake of your personal reputation, it would have been better had "Abe" been impersonating you. Frankly, then the terribly incorrect "opinions" and dearth of knowledge displayed in many fields,.....to include aerodynamics, basic science, physics and commonsense logic in the posts attributed to the ATS user-name "JimFetzer" wouldn't be so embarrassing for the real James Fetzer, of "S4T"....

I know of no one having ever used my email address to respond to anyone about anything other than me. Why don't you send me copies and let me take a look? The university might want to take some action against him. I expect that violations of law are involved here. My address, as I take it you already know, is [email protected]. I am afraid the available evidence suggests you have been perpetrating the fraud. I think the mods need to check this out. Would someone please let me know how I can inform them of this disgraceful behavior?

reply to post by Resurrectio

Well, if you had ever shown that I was wrong about any of my arguments, there might be something to it. But so far as I am aware, that is not the case. Suck it up, weedwhacker. Surely you can do better than this.


reply to post by weedwhacker

So far as I can tell, this originated with Resurrectio. The key post is one in which he claims he contacted me. He says he contacted me (which he did not) and that I confirmed I am not here (which I am):


posted on 17-2-2011 @ 06:19 AM this post reply to post by weedwhacker


I wouldn't bother with Jim Fetzer - A.K.A "James H Fetzer" . I just emailed the REAL James Fetzer @ UMN and he confirmed that he IS NOT a member on ATS. This lunatic went and picked a well known 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and is impersonating him on ATS... Nice Jim, nice!

Are you now going to claim your a different James H Fetzer? How do you explain using his credentials then? Or are you going to claim you are one of his associates speaking on his behalf? I can not imagine the excuse you could use, that would make this NOT seem completely creepy and pathetic.

Just proves, lies and deception are the only successful tools of the truthers.


signature:
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather not screaming in terror like his passengers!

reply to post by Resurrectio

I can state, in public, that I am satisfied this is the real Jim Fetzer, after having exchanged emails and a couple phone calls with him while I was still living in NYC.

Let's move beyond the issue and back to productive conversation.


And for the record... I am confident "video fakery" is a farce. None of the "evidence" for such nonsense is based on an analysis of the original full-resolution source videos, and almost exclusively based on poorly-compressed low-resolution YouTube videos which can never be considered evidence of anything other than someone uploaded a video.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I don't have any idea what you are suggesting. The plane is made of aluminum and is very fragile. The building is a 500,000-ton steel and concrete structure with an intricate lattice design.

"Lattice design".

Not unlike a cheese grater.

Like I suggested 5 days and 3 pages ago.


Unless all half-million tons are concentrated in the point of intersection, the mass of the structure is moot. The full kinetic energy (KE) of the airliner was focused in one spot.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I can't imagine how anyone who has even the most elementary knowledge of physics could not follow this. It is not especially complicated. Think of a car driving at high speed into a massive tree.

Unless the WTCs were somehow made of solid wood, I can't imagine how anyone who has even the most elementary knowledge of physics would not understand that your analogy is wildly ridiculous.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Or just think of a single acre of concrete on one of those trusses, suspended in space, and the plane flying into it. JUST ONE!

Unless the entire mass of that "single acre of concrete" was somehow concentrated into the exact spot of collision, it doesn't matter whether it was one truss or 8; any simpleton with a high school understanding of physics would understand that the planes were flying into what amounted to a 110-storey cheese grater.

The planes had mass. The planes had kinetic energy. They would've followed the path of least resistance while crashing into the WTCs.

They would not crumple

They would not bounce off.

They would not look like a Warner Bros. cartoon.

I'm sorry if you can't internalise why Wile E. Coyote is not a reasonable exemplar of Newtonian physics

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Come on Sphinx--you're slippin'. Back to this old hype? What does an eye-witness who missed seeing the impact prove? It proves nothing except that their view was obstructed, or they weren't looking when it happened. Oberstein said, "I heard a boom, then I looked up and saw an explosion". Is that proof of no plane? Let's listen to what she had to say about the second plane. Watch at 01:22 :

I don't mind slippin' - as long as it's not on your slimy garbage. Yeah, because a "boom" sounds like an airplane approaching at 550 MPH at an altitude of 800 feet. By the way, we won't mention the fact that an airplane is not designed to fly at that speed at such a low altitude. We'll keep it our little secret. Ssssshhhhh!

Sounds like after a bit of coaching and persuasion, our witness Oberstein finally got the official story "correct" the second time.

All those thousands of witnesses and NBC talks to the same witness twice? A witness who "screwed up" the first time by not sticking to the official fairy tale script. How about that?

1) When Jennifer Oberstein witnessed the first explosion, she had just exited the Bowling Green subway station just south of the WTC near Battery Park. The first plane hit the north side of tower 1. Of course she didn't see it. She saw the explosion from the opposite side.

However, from battery park, she had a front row seat for the second plane. Does she sound confused, unsure of what she saw? Does she sound like she's acting? Since I know you will say "yes", that she was a "coached" actor--how did they get her to willingly participate in a mass murder and cover-up?

How many accomplices were there?

It's quite simple to find clips with people talking about the planes they saw. Here are just a few:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

How is it that so many, including the entire production teams of five major news networks, were so willing to assist in mass-murder and deception?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, if you had ever shown that I was wrong about any of my arguments, there might be something to it. But so far as I am aware, that is not the case.

Oh you've been shown.

Repeatedly.

By myself and others.

You just keep asserting away with actually addressing anything that seems contrary to your apparent world view.

Perhaps it would help if you went back and addressed the issues in this post.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
"Do you understand how a cheese grater works? Same basic process at play between the WTCs, AA11 and UA175. By your apparent understanding of physics, a bullet shouldn't work. Arrows shouldn't pierce. B-25s shouldn't be able to puncture the Empire State Building. "

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Do you understand that the impact between the stationary building and the plane at over 500 mph would be the same if the plane were stationary and the building hit it going over 500 mps? I think you haven't given this quite enough thought.

I have. Have you explained how a fleck of paint could cause so much damage to the space shuttles window?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The plane is made of aluminum and is very fragile.


.......................

Or just think of a single acre of concrete on one of those trusses, suspended in space, and the plane flying into it. JUST ONE!

Not really. 767's are not fragile. Not in any sense of the word.

Again, since you have completly IGNORED it every other time I have pointed it out.

The plane did not impact the ENTIRE acre of concrete on the floor. It imacted just a FRACTION of that. FRACTION!!

reply to post by JimFetzer

Well, if you had ever shown that I was wrong about any of my arguments, there might be something to it.
[skip]...suck it up.....surely you can do better than this.

Well...in many attempts, I feel I have stated and shown quite clearly where many of your assumptions and arguments were incorrect. I specifically focused on the aspects of your apparent basing of your beliefs on John Lear's opinions....I think you assigned way too much credence to what he has said, and haven't examined his motives behind them.

I am able to refute his many assertions with experienced-based knowledge, and whatever examples are to hand, when finding material from online sources to post as evidence. I tended to respond mostly to the aerodynamics (and flying aspects) of the discussion....but, I also have a solid comprehension of other sciences, and physics. Enough to be assured that airplanes weighing over 300,000 pounds don't "stop on a dime" (not even when encountering an obstacle of the nature and construction as the Towers buildings) and that the contents and components won't suddenly stop instantaneously, and then make a 90-degree "turn" to fall gravitationally straight downwards....which is just one claim made, RE: an assertion of "luggage, airplane parts" etc that you stated should have been seen, on impact.

Kinetic energy, momentum and F=MA (and Newtonian physics) just don't work that way......

Like the car that crashed into an enormous tree! But it only hit a fraction of the tree, you would say. What would happen to the car when it hit the tree? And if it were traveling really, really fast . . . ?

reply to post by FDNY343

Well, the impossible speed has been confirmed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and explained by John Lear. The impossible entry should be obvious to anyone who has viewed one or another the videos I have presented. The plane could pass through its own length as it enters the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air ONLY IF this huge building provides no more resistance to its path than air. And functioning strobe lights are required on all commercial carriers, which Flight 175 was supposed to be. I can't see where you have touched any of these points, much less refuted them. That is as much a fantasy as the videos. You seem to have contributed nothing.


reply to post by weedwhacker

A Boeing 767 is not a speck of paint and a 500,000-ton building is no space shuttle. But I take it the speck of paint no more passed through the space shuttle window than the plane should have passed through the building.

reply to post by FDNY343

For those of you who believe that the footage is authentic, here's your chance to pocked $100,000. Ace Baker has just reiterated his offer: $100,000 for any original quality 9/11 airplane video showing the plane go into the building.

acebaker.blogspot.com...

Sincerely,

Ace Baker "ace baker"
[email protected]

Tuesday, April 28, 2009
$100,000 Amateur Video Challenge
Did you or someone you know shoot amateur video of an airplane crash on 9/11? If so, it could net you a hundred grand.

As readers of my work already know, I don't believe any airplanes crashed anywhere on 9/11. All of the airplane crash videos are video composites, says me. Prove me wrong, and make a quick $100,000 U.S.

The problem is none of the 9/11 airplane videos are available in their original quality. I highly suspect that this is due to the fact that reducing quality on a composite image is the best way to hide the messy fingerprints of the compositing process.

To sort it out, I offer this next in what has become a series of $100,000 challenges. To meet the challenge:

1. The video must show "UA175" hitting the south tower.
2. You must allow me to inspect the original tape on which the event was recorded. It must be originally recorded video on "mini DV", or other DV format.
3. The airplane video must match in quality the other videos present on the tape. Any attempt to copy onto the DV tape video that has been further compressed, or reduced in dimensions, or subjected to any unnecessary quality loss is grounds for disqualification.
4. You must allow me to create a high-quality, uncompressed digitization of the video, directly from the original tape.
5. You will grant to me a non-exclusive license to publish the footage.


Jennifer Spell? Evan Fairbanks? Luc Courchesne? Michael Hezarkhani? Any takers?

I warrant that I have a line of credit in excess of $100,000.

Applicants may contact me via the email link, top right.

-Ace Baker

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Like the car that crashed into an enormous tree! But it only hit a fraction of the tree, you would say. What would happen to the car when it hit the tree? And if it were traveling really, really fast . . . ?

reply to post by FDNY343

 

If the car was traveling at 733 FPS, the tree would have shattered at the trunk and fallen over.

Again, comparing the WTC to a tree is wrong. A tree is a completly solid object, where the WTC is not. It is hollow.

Can you explain the paint fleck?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The plane could pass through its own length as it enters the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air ONLY IF this huge building provides no more resistance to its path than air.

Again, I will ask.

Why do you expect to see any deceleration in 6 frames on a grainy YouTube video?

This is silly. The deceleration would not be subtle. Its velocity would go to zero, with some parts moving through the building, in particular, the engines. I wish you would give this more serious thought. You can count the frames in either the Hezarkhani or the Fairbanks videos and they are the same. In both videos, the plane passes thought its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. Get over it.

reply to post by FDNY343

The paint fleck did not pass through the windshield any more than the plane would have passed through the building. I can't believe the childishness of the arguments you are making. It doesn't matter if the plane is moving and the building is stationary or the plane is stationary and the building is moving. What do you think would happen if the building moving at 500 mph hit the stationary plane? That should not be too difficult for you to think about. By Newton's 3rd law, the effects would be the same either way.

reply to post by FDNY343