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

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Here's a link to some real plane crashes: webfairy.org...

Evidence you do not deserve the moniker, "scholar".

Associating yourself with the Internet huckster, "Web Fairy", and Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt who spits more angry spittle than anything resembling truth, you have brought your once well-intended organization (Scholars for Truth) to the newest and most regrettable low.

You sir, are a blight on conspiracy theory. A cancer that threatens the entire body.

Yes, and she is far better at serious research than are you Real plane crashes do not look like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/58e186339183.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Here's a link to some real plane crashes: webfairy.org...
And there are plenty more. Google "real plane crashes".

reply to post by hooper

 

And your point is? That planes crash? That they all look different? That there's someone out their that refers to themselves as "webfairy"?

This is another pathetic ad hominem. You really are not equipped to deal with cases of any degree of complexity if you cannot separate the message (argument) from the messenger. I really thought you were better than that, mister.old.school, but then that must be the best you can do when logic and evidence show you up, again and again. Why are you wasting everyone's time? Surely you have better ways to spend yours. Webfairy and Nico have done more to promote the truth than have you.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Here's a link to some real plane crashes: webfairy.org...

Evidence you do not deserve the moniker, "scholar".

Associating yourself with the Internet huckster, "Web Fairy", and Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt who spits more angry spittle than anything resembling truth, you have brought your once well-intended organization (Scholars for Truth) to the newest and most regrettable low.

You sir, are a blight on conspiracy theory. A cancer that threatens the entire body.

reply to post by JimFetzer

Yes, and she is far better at serious research than are you Real plane crashes do not look like this:

Oh, I'm sorry, here on my planet, different events have different charateristics. Thats how we can tell things apart. Apparently wherever you are from all plane crashes look alike. That must be convenient, much easier to plan for emergency response I suppose.

Tell you what, show me a video of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center tower before 9/11 and then we'll compare the two.

reply to post by JimFetzer


Are you being obtuse? Or, intentionally deceptive??

Noting your "style" (it has been evident, before, in MANY , MANY other types who resort to such idiotic tactics) of twisting and spinning perfectly good examples put forward by others, to fit a skewed and alternate-reality view that YOU (and it needed to personally address you, this time) wish to impose upon others. THAT is what I would consider deceptive.

Your only other choice is to admit that a claim of "scholar" in one field (your expertise) by no means qualifies you in others (such as, oh....PHYSICS....as evidenced by your continued boners here). So, if you do not wish to carry the moniker of "deceptive", then "obtuse" must apply.

Case in point (notwithstanding the weak attempts at mis-using my images):

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Here's a link to some real plane crashes: webfairy.org...

Oh, brother!!


In ALL THREE of those examples....consider the ignition source!!!

(Jet fuel will NOT "instantly" burst into flame absent a source of ignition). Surely, every learned and accomplished individual should realize this basic fact?? If you had a bucket of jet fuel, and dropped a lighted match into it, the match would simply extinguish, in the fluid. Jet fuel (and gasoline, for that matter) require atomization, and being in fume form, and in sufficient concentrations, in order to ignite.

A major problem with gasoline is that it has what is known as a low "flashpoint." This is the temperature at which it produces fumes that can be ignited by an open flame. Gasoline has a flashpoint of around 30 degrees Fahrenheit (-1 degree Celsius). This makes fires much more likely in the event of an accident. So engine designers sought to develop engines that used fuels with higher flashpoints.

www.centennialofflight.gov...

Jet A-1 & Jet A

Flash point: > 38 °C (100.4 °F)

en.wikipedia.org...-1


Really....I am stunned at such basic, basic ignorance of this sort.

SO....typical Jet-A and Jet-A1 fuels, as used in turbine powered civil aircraft, have a "flash point" of over 100 degrees F.

Tell us, Jim....what part of the contact of the wings with the facade of the WTC Tower is going to

• A): Open up the container (wing) in less than 2/10s of a second (the TOTAL impact sequence time, nose to tail), to;
  
• B): Cause the fuel to thus spray, and atomize and produce fumes in sufficent density to;
  
• C): Ignite?? Oh, and what is the SOURCE OF IGNITION???

Let's take another look at the nonsense from "the webfairy" site:

webfairy.org...

Can you discern the SOURCES OF IGITION in each instance, those three examples?? AND, compare and contrast to the situation and facts of Ameircan 11's and United 175's impact with the respective facades of the WTC Towers??

Animated gif #1: A small turbo-prop airplane (same type of fuel used) experiences a hard landing, sufficient to cause structural damage. DAMAGE that results in the wing failing, and the fuel being released, at the point where the VERY HOT ENGINE is located!!! Thus, nearly instant flames. Ask again: SOURCE of ignition?? (Do I have to point out the obvious???)

Animated gif #2: The tragic B-52 crash at an airshow, in 1994 in Washington State. The left wingtip strikes a what?? An above-ground electrical POWERLINE! Breach? Yes. Fuel atomized/vaporized? Yes. SOURCE of ignition? Electrical sparks.

Animated gif #3: Another (apparent) turbo-prop....hitting an obstruction....AT the point on the wing where, once again as in example #1...the ENGINE is located!!!

BTW----ALL THREE of those examples have one very important aspect in common: VELOCITY!!!

Please, pull the veil from your eyes, get out and learn some actual science and physics, and stop attempting to "dumb" people down. It reflects poorly on what''s left of your reputation and crediblity.....

Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is another pathetic ad hominem. You really are not equipped to deal with cases of any degree of complexity if you cannot separate the message (argument) from the messenger.

If the "messenger" is purposefully using errant data, horrible-quality imagery, heavily-compressed videos, and never a high-quality/high-resolution source photo or video in their effort to perpetuate a scam, then the messenger has become the problem, and cannot be separated from the message.

My assault on your integrity was not an 'ad hominem' by any stretch of anyone's imagination. It is, was, and will be a direct frontal assault on you and your calculated effort to perpetuate lies and fraud.


Show me one original high-resolution, high-quality image or video that illustrates your points effectively, and I will retract. Throughout my participation in the "no plane" scam, that's all I've ever asked, and have yet to be offered.

reply to post by weedwhacker

(Jet fuel will NOT "instantly" burst into flame absent a source of ignition). Surely, every learned and accomplished individual should realize this basic fact?? If you had a bucket of jet fuel, and dropped a lighted match into it, the match would simply extinguish, in the fluid. Jet fuel (and gasoline, for that matter) require atomization, and being in fume form, and in sufficient concentrations, in order to ignite.

Listen, I know that technically that's true and I've heard it a million times, but for some reason I don't think I would ever try it. Just call me chicken.

On a project I was managing the contractor's personnel, for some strange reason, loved to smoke cigarettes while refueling the tools with small engines. At least once a week I had to tell some guy to put out the butt while pouring gas into the saw or drill or whatever.

reply to post by JimFetzer


hello jim...you might like to add my threed onto your list there...you might enjoy the reading material.....I am a structural Engineer and the animation that some people seem to put their faith in does not even depict the actual structure and layout of the towers...which is very interesting in itself....I have been working on a model myself....but no matter what the model never represents the observed no matter how hard one trys to replicate the actual collapse of the towers.

As for getting evrything thing correct as to why the towers actually fell that is quite the challenge since all evidence had been quickly destroyed and no outside experimentation or investigation was allowed.

enjoyable reading

keep up the good work....but i myself just do my work quietly now....try to not present evidence in this forum anymore because not any of the debunkers actually give back evidence of their own accord....they copy and paste others works...such as bazant reports,NIST...and FEMA rubbish....also they believe the MSM...such as popular Mechanics and Nat Geo...and History Channel even though it has been shown exhaustively they have biased viewpoints.

you will not get any decent examples But they will do everthing they can to discredit your analysis....but they will not present their own analysis.....they will ask you for examples...data....confirmation....yet will not provide any themselves....it is rather interesting....do i care if any of the debunkers believe ....not one bit....they are entitled to be blind what did not occur.

Do i personally believe the no plane theory....nope
Do i believe 19 individuals hijacked four planes and sucessfully over all obstacles and were able to hit target successfully...3 out of 4...nope
Do i believe that 3 Buildings of a steel frame construction came down due to fires and impacts and one which was not even impacted by a Aircraft,,,, nope.

I have the NORAD recordings from the day and people in NORAD were told to stand down....
Do we have a smoking gun...not really hard to have a smoking gun when the gun was seized and sent away on a slow boat to china by the same criminals involved.

As for people saying that this was not an accident so therefore it did not come under Aircraft investigation...so be it....But what it was....Which requires a much Larger scope of investigation....IT WAS A CRIME SCENE.

they can locate black boxes from under the ocean....but not from the rubble on shore...YEAH RIGHT....and these debunkers believe thats ok.

Anyways.....Have fun witht them jim....but it will be the same few doing the debunking....so nothing new here....

we seem to be missing two though....but i am sure they will show up soon.....

reply to post by hooper

At least once a week I had to tell some guy to put out the butt while pouring gas into the saw or drill or whatever.

You're referring, there, to gasoline (petrol) correct? Higher "octane", lower flash point. See above...about 30 degrees F. (-1 C).

So, gasoline will "fume off" and vaporize readily, from freezing up to room temperature (and above). The key is the concentration. And, since the fumes are invisible (except for the slight distortions they cause, visually in the air....)...in fact, THAT is when you know the fumes are getting concentrated....you can SEE them alter the light waves, in the air itself, because it changes the overall density of the air....with the addition of the fumes, of course.

But, like I said...gasoline WILL ignite much more easily than kerosene (which is, basically, what Jet-A and Jet-A1 are).

A bucket of gasoline WILL have a layer of fumes, at the surface....held there by the walls of the container. SO, don't try that "lighted match" on automotive gas!!! (Unless you're in the Antarctic, maybe...but then, why?).

Kerosene, at temperatures below 100 degrees F? Much, much harder to ignite.

(That's why I nearly threw something at the screen, in the end of "Die Hard 3"!! (If you don't remember...."hero" Bruce Willis "cleverly" lights a trail of leaking Jet fuel from the bad guys' departing airplane!! To act as a "fuse" all the way to the jet, to blow it up!!! UTTER nonsense, but Hollywood Science at its most inane. I truly believe a LOT of these "9/11 truthers" get their ideas from movies and TV shows......).




(The rest of the premise of that sequel, equally ridiculous, BTW!! That "hijacking" and taking over an airport control tower could somehow hold an airplane in the air "hostage"??? Laughably absurd!!!).

reply to post by JimFetzer


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/58e186339183.gif[/atsimg]

Jim, you miss the point. This image has been stabilized. Vertical and horizontal camera movement have been taken out. The plane remains unmoved relative to the frame. Place your mouse pointer over the tail of the plane and you will see that the plane does not move. However, because the plane actually IS moving into the building, the building appears to move into the plane (within the frame). This allows the edge of the building to act as a marker of frame by frame movement of distance. IT IS SHOWING DECELERATION OF THE PLANE AS IT ENTERS THE BUILDING. The movement of the edge of the building slows down as can be seen by comparing the equidistant markers.

You dodge questions like a politician. I asked you to explain the violent swaying of the building to the north upon impact of your "holographic" plane. You've yet to answer or even acknowledge that question ONCE--instead referring to roadrunner cartoons. Again, please explain this.

I questioned the validity of the "same number of frames" argument you provide as proof of lack of deceleration of the plane on impact--an argument YOU HAVE BROACHED REPEATEDLY. Yet when it is addressed, you employ red-herrings such as "Thanks for providing another nice video displaying the impossible entry." If you don't understand the gif I posted, or do not believe it demonstrates my assertion. What about this one?


Can you answer those questions?

And again, how do internal explosives create this?


Be honest Jim, you have no logical answers to these questions. It's painfully obvious. You're dodging and weaving is getting boring.

Originally posted by plube
keep up the good work....

Could you explain how "good work" may be categorized in this regard -- someone (or more accurately, a group of people) who relies exclusively on errant analysis of poor-quality videos?

Certainly you're aware that the "no-plane" theory has its origins with the "Web Fairy" and her (and others) belief that dropped frames, "ghost" wings, and similar artifacts of poorly-compressed digital videos are evidence?

also they believe the MSM

I never have: The Mainstream Media Has Picked Your Candidates, Based on Advertising Budgets

But they will do everthing they can to discredit your analysis

Again; please explain how an analysis that relies on poor quality material, and ignores better quality material, is credible?

but they will not present their own analysis

Perhaps you missed my analysis, based on higher-quality source material: Exposing The Fraud of the "No Plane Theory" -- Conspiracy Fakery

they will ask you for examples...data....confirmation....yet will not provide any themselves

It is incumbent upon those making extraordinary claims to provide the evidentiary backing to those claims.

Do i believe 19 individuals hijacked four planes and sucessfully over all obstacles and were able to hit target successfully...3 out of 4...nope

You disregard the possibility that a former CIA covert asset, Bin Laden, may have received covert assistance that ensured their extremist operatives were able to board the ill-fated planes?

Do i believe that 3 Buildings of a steel frame construction came down due to fires and impacts and one which was not even impacted by a Aircraft,,,, nope.

You disregard the distinct possibility that the construction of the World Trade Center complex, built in the most organized-crime riddle city in North America with regard to construction and materials, may not have been in line with the original intentions of the structural engineers who specified how it should be built?

IT WAS A CRIME SCENE.

In that we agree. And one of the strongest arguments for a government conspiracy is that it was used as a pretext for war instead of being treated as an International crime -- as all previous terrorist attacks before it have been treated.

but it will be the same few doing the debunking....so nothing new here....

"Debunking" here is necessary. This is a crap theory being perpetuation by a faction of "9/11 Truth" with an agenda of obfuscation. If we conspiracy theorists don't work hard to eliminate such atrocious "theories" birthed from con-men and charlatans, then there will never be any hope of uncovering provable conspiracies.

I respectfully petition those who managed Above Top Secret to move this thread, and all other no plane theory threads, to the Hoax forum.

Those who feel similarly should contact the managers.

reply to post by JimFetzer


Of course Jim the video and picture you are comparing it with have the same resolution DOH!!

Homer Fetzer strikes again, apples with apples it is that simple Jim but may be not simple enough it seems.

When will you learn Jim like for like, you claim you know science try and practice it then.

reply to post by JimFetzer

Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is pretty bad. I have already addressed the Lear issue: the affidavit presents arguments
that explain why a speed of around 560 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude was impossible. That
the plane shown in the videos is traveling at an impossible speed is one of the arguments that
establish we are viewing some form of video fakery. The problem then becomes to explain it.
This is sufficiently uncomplicated I would have assumed even mister.old.school could grasp it.
Unless he can overcome those arguments, even he ought to simply concede the point. Either
refute the arguments presented in the affidavit -- which Pilots has also established, of course --
or admit that the plane shown in the videos for Flight 175 was traveling at an impossible speed.

reply to post by mister.old.school

 

edit on 23-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

On "impossible speed" and video fakery:


According to John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747:
“Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flight 11 and Flight 175

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Pilots has produced a five-part video study to demonstrate the problems with the
impossible speed under the title, "Pilots for 9/11 Truth: World Trade Center Attack".

The first segment is at www.youtube.com...

Your logic defies explanation. Even to say, "you present convoluted thinking," is a gross understatement.

At 4:04 in the first video, the "pilots" source Dave Lindorff's story, Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI.

I've previously asked, and no answer has been forthcoming, however, the question must be answered by you. If you believe no planes struck the towers, why are you using a source (as evidence) that believes black boxes were recovered but covered-up?

It makes no sense. And is further evidence of your intentional obfuscation.

Thanks for this excellent post. I am learning the lessons you describe. What surprises me the most is the lack of willingness to engage the basic points, such as the demonstration by Pilots that the plane is traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed. A real Boeing 767 could not have flown at 560 mps at 700-1,000 feet altitude, as Pilots has confirmed and as John Lear has explained. It would violate the laws of aerodynamics. Not only would it have been aerodynamically impossible, the plane would have been uncontrollable and fallen apart. You need to watch the Pilots new (five part) video on the World Trade Center attack, www.youtube.com... They seem to think that the brainless repetition of claims I have refuted is going to cut it. But that's just more of their "GI/GO".

reply to post by plube

I'm still waiting for Jim Fetzer to take all of his "evidence" to court after all these years, but, in fact, Jim has none. Imagine that he still has to push claims of "could not have", "should have, "impossible to", but never a stitch of evidence. But that is the history of all conspiracy theories.

reply to post by JimFetzer


Sorry, but your continued propensity to delusional thinking is inhibiting your growth towards facts, knowledge, reason and logic.

What surprises me the most is the lack of willingness to engage the basic points, such as the demonstration by Pilots.....

That (cough*cough) "demonstration" HAS BEEN "engaged"....countless times. It is pure, unadulterated BUNK.

... that the plane is traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed.

Prove it! Why will you not address the video, just a few posts up??
THIS ONE. Again. Watch it. Twice. Three, four times...until you understand it:

www.youtube.com...



Do you know what the "demonstrated dive velocity" is? It's in the video....the actual Boeing numbers, from their flight test data, for the B-767. Prove it wrong!! YOU are the one making the continued false claims, in spite of the facts, evidence and engineering data from the manufacturer of the airplane. Not some wannabe airline pilot and his ego-stroking joke of a website ("P4T").

You constantly spew (without basis) the word "impossible", as if it's a religious mantra to give you comfort.

Let me walk you through this....The Vd. "Velocity Dive Maximum". Published by Boeing in the Flight Certification Data as 420 KCAS. That is knots calibrated airspeed..(I see ALL OVER the web, from buffoons at "P4T", they posted it as "410 knots". Idiots).

What is 420 kts? Conversion factor is roughly 1.15...but, let's use an online calculator, just for accuracy (and proof): Knots to MPH calculator.

The answer? 483 MPH. SO....we know for certain that the airplane, the Boeing 767-200, was physically demonstrated to reach that airspeed velocity. BTW....NOTHING in that implies it could not have gone faster!! Since you obviously know nothing about large airplanes (and neither do the "P4T") you need to be taught what the purpose of that is.

Boeing 767.

(Page one above. Rest is gravy).

The Boeing 767 has a Maximum Dive Mach Number (Md) of 0.91. For certification, the FAA and CAA apply different methods when determining the aircraft's Maximum Cruise Mach Number (Mmo):

FAA
For the FAA, Mc must not be greater than Md - 0.05M.

Thus for FAA certified aircraft, the Boeing 767 has a maximum cruise mach number (Mmo) of 0.86M. (Md minus 0.05)

www.inral.com...

BASICALLY< what the above is saying, is....Boeing determines a "Vmo", both in KCAS and an "Mmo" in Mach number. This is a margin above what the engineers have determined to be an efficient range of cruise speeds (in Mach) for the various desired goals...."Economy" cruise, "Long Range" cruise, and "Constant Mach" cruise being the three main ones.

"ECON" is self-explanatory....it is derived from a combination of actual calculated weight, altitude, outside (static) air temperature and prevailing winds. (A tailwind, will, for example, calculate in the computer's figures and choose a slower Mach number....a headwind, one higher).

"LRC" (long range) is looking at all those factors above, but also seeks to maximize duration, thus actual range over the ground.

"Mach" cruise is merely a pilot-selected input, and all calcualations (time remaining, range available, etc) derive from it, rather than the other way around.

There is a finite envelope of speeds, in Mach to fit those various options. This is derived mathematically, and is dependent on the aerodynamics, wing airfoil (and other) shapes, and structural factors. The point is, the Vmo is a value above that "normal" cruise speed envelope (be little point to have it LOWER, would it??). Vmo/Mmo is selected as a compromise, also, for gust load protection in turbulence, and overall airframe life span and danger of damage, in turbulence encounters.

As seen in the excerpt above, the demonstrated dive is defined as a margin above the Vmo/Mmo (it is written there, vice/versa...but ALL of these parameters are considered, as they derive these values).

SO, once again....it is simply one of many arbitrary values, and the basis for there derivations all have reasons. Reasons that get LOST in the rhetoric and crap spewing from many sides....as in the likes of "P4T".

Let's see what some REAL PROFESSIONAL PILOTS have to say:

From the PPRuNe Forums, and "Torque Tonight":

..."Mach is limiting at higher levels and so is not relevant here. At lower levels Indicated Air Speed is limiting and for the Boeing that I fly VMO is about 340kts (I would expect the 767 to be similar). True Air Speed increases with altitude for a fixed IAS and so a TAS of 545mph (475kts) may well be achievable at high altitude whilst still remaining inside the IAS and Mach limits.

Close to ground level (ie at skyscraper height) TAS and IAS will be almost equal and so your 545mph would represent a significant overspeed.

The limiting speeds are set to ensure a significant safety margin. At the limiting speed as far as I can remember, you should be able to pull 1.3g ie a 40deg angle of bank turn without any risk of causing structural damage to the aircraft. (My numbers may be out but you get the picture - there's a big safety margin and virtually no chance of breaking anything).

As your speed increases above the limit, the margin is eroded, the risk of damage increases, the G you can pull without exceeding structural limits reduces, up to a point at which structural failure is certain.

Now I heard that the WTC aircraft were massively oversped, so much so that they came close to breaking up in flight. The fact that they exceeded VMO without automatically falling apart is not really a great surprise and certainly not justification for further crazy conspiracy theories from people who don't know the first thing about aero engineering or aircraft performance. An aircraft will not break up the moment it exceeds VMO or VNE, and if flying straight and level ie at 1g, I would expect the speed margin between VMO and structural failure to be large. 545mph is believable".

www.pprune.org...

Excerpt from username "Jimmy Macintosh":

..."In Summary:

The aircraft strength is practically tested to the theoretical calculated worst loads the aircraft is predicted to experience with a margin of safety applied. It's all about hedging your bets, assuming worst loads, worst combinations, weakest material properties and a saftey margin on top"....

Rest of this? More BS on your part...sorry, but either you wish to continue to believe fairy tales, or you KNOW better, and have another agenda? Which is it, Mr. Fetzer??

A real Boeing 767 could not have flown at 560 mps at 700-1,000 feet altitude, as Pilots has confirmed and as John Lear has explained. It would violate the laws of aerodynamics. Not only would it have been aerodynamically impossible, the plane would have been uncontrollable and fallen apart.

"Fallen apart"?? LOL!!

You really need to learn how to vet your information "sources" more carefully.

Or, you may wish to remain mired in Confirmation Bias Land??

Originally posted by JimFetzer
and as John Lear has explained

As has been stated over and over, the former CIA employee, John Lear, initially supported the airspeed and altitude of the "official story" before he became involved with 9/11 "Truth" factions.

You continue to evade and avoid this very important issue. Someone you held up as an experienced pilot of high acclaim -- confirmed the high airspeed at low altitude.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Seventh
and even more damning the seismograph data depicting two huge earth tremors 14 and 17 seconds prior to impacts,

snip even more lies, from someone with a agenda to just attack the USA and Bush.
Just more lies from a "truther"
www.popularmechanics.com...

so how is linking to a biased and well known disinfo magazine on the perp payroll, make it a credible debunking? ...

...and skeptics wonder why 9/11 truth continues to grow.