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

So let me get this straight.... or atleast try.....

According to you and your Pals mr Fetzer on 911 a hologram of a windowless fuel tanker with a missile pod firing napalm crashed into a empty skeleton wtc timed with space energy weapons that set off mini nukes but it never happened because it was faked on tv.


Did I miss anything Jim?



What the hell man are you serious with this double think and nonsense? Have some respect for the victims and their families of the tragedy of 911.

Are these the next topics we expect from you and your cohorts in time?

The World Trade Center - Fake Smoke Piping & Delivery System Installed!
Did the WTC have a Fake Interior Lighting & Shuttering System to Cloak the Interior?
VIDEOS: Essential Prep for Controlled Demo - Did we Miss Anything?
Movie Sets and Controlled Demolitions--- CDI and Lethal Weapon 3
Is this a massive smoke machine?
The Reconfigured World Trade Center Picture Thread

letsrollforums.com...

reply to post by JimFetzer


Shot yourself in the foot yet again Jim back to school for you I think.

Well, what would you expect to happen if an empty beer can was smashed against a brick wall, for example? Would you expect it would pass through the building unscathed? Or suppose a car ran into an enormous tree. Would you expect the car to pass through the tree without slowing down? In collisions, the more fragile and less dense object invariably succumbs to the less fragile and more dense object. If you visit my Buenos Aires Powerpoint presentation, in the first fifteen (15) slides, you will see that the structure of both Twin Towers were massive, interlocking lattice steel-and-concrete structures, where each floor had a steel truss connected at one end to core columns and at the other to the external support columns, where each was filled with 4-8" of concrete. At 208x208, that means they represented about an acre of concrete apiece. You will see that, in the case of Flight 175, it was intersecting with eight (8) of those floors, which would have posed enormous horizontal resistance. The wings would have broken off, the tail snapped off, bodies, seats, and luggage fallen to the ground. Parts would have passed into the building, including its massive engines, but most of it would have crumpled and smashed up against the building rather like that beer can smashing against a brick wall or a car running into an enormous tree. I know that you understand what I am saying, but won't acknowledge it, because for you, this is a game. I have yet to hear you or any other of my critics explain what would happen to a plane if it were to collide with a single such floor suspended in space. Of course, it would be completely destroyed. So what would you expect if it collided with seven or eight of them anchored to core columns as parts of a massive, interlocking lattice steel strucutre? If you want more discussion, see Stefan Grossman, www.apfn.net... , or Morgan Reynolds, www.911hoax.com... , where Morgan includes diagrams of the intersection of Flight 11 with seven (7) floors of the North Tower as well as of Flight 175 with eight (8) of the South. In fact, at this point in time, it is a great idea for everyone to become familiar with the studies of Grossman and Reynolds and others. I interviewed Stephen Brown, who had recently taken a course on holography at Cambridge, on "The Real Deal", nwopodcast.com... . Check 'em out.

reply to post by mister.old.school

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, what would you expect to happen if an empty beer can was smashed against a brick wall, for example?

Reasonable people are aware that a 767 is not an empty beer can, and the WTC towers were not a brick wall.

In collisions, the more fragile and less dense object invariably succumbs to the less fragile and more dense object.

You still seem unable to grasp the concept of kinetic energy.

Have you seen the images I provided in this post?
Specifically, this one:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb831bd53bad.jpg[/atsimg]

The wings would have broken off,

How did the right wing create a hole in a brick wall? This was from a relatively low-speed impact at the Teterboro Airport in NJ.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by JimFetzer
No, that is false. These are two distinct questions.

When I asked you for your example of what video was used for the analysis of the airspeed, based on frame-counting, that's the one you provided.

Furthermore, you've yet to establish how an object in motion, tending to stay in motion, refutes Newton's Laws as you've previously stated. Proving that the tail of an aircraft traveling in excess of 400 mph, with significant kinetic energy, remains roughly at the same velocity when the nose encounters a hollow structure is hardly evidence any physical laws have been subverted.

Hmmmm it didn't hit a hollow structure, it hit a steel wall. This 'hollow' building thing came from the alternative name for box columns, HSS hollow steel section. HSS columns are always used in construction for their weight to strength ratio. So technically the plane went through two steel walls of about 4" thick, not to mention the edge on part of the columns also.

According to Newton, an object stays in motion unless acted on by an outside force, that force would be the wall.
Also according to Newton (3rd law) colliding objects exert equal force on each other, regardless of velocity of either object. Velocity increases the forces on BOTH OBJECTS, not just the moving object. The opposite forces include deceleration, the object with the greater mass will decelerate less than the other object. The deceleration of the objects determines the amount of damage, the object with the most mass will receive the least damage.

A good example of this is the well known F-4 crashing into a concrete wall vid, the aircraft had less mass than the wall and thus was destroyed. If the plane had more mass than the wall it would go through it, but not be destroyed completely by it (as in the pentagon).

reply to post by JimFetzer


Let's get back to the singular issue that echoes through your postings here, the "impossible" speed of the 767.

You often stated that a frame-count analysis of the videos indicate the jet was traveling at an impossible speed.

When you finally provided a video that you believed proved that point, the calculated speed was well below what you've been claiming.

Please comment on that.

reply to post by JimFetzer



Well, I see one of the primary reasons you continue to be mired in such false perceptions, and do not understand reality...especially in matters of aviation:

Consider the following. Pilots for 9/11 Truth...

There is your problem, right there!!

Anyone who opens a sentence with a reference to "them", is already lost in Woo Woo Land......

There has never been a valid "claim" made by that little group. You have constantly hand-waved away the fact that one of their "stars", John Lear, utterly changed his story....but, it was only after he began his association with the club. Oh, and what about their separation, their break on the general details of the "concept"? Lear has peeled off onto a diverging trajectory....why do you ignore that serious flaw??

Believe me, I have delved into the garbage pile of "P4T" for years, now. You may seriously wish to re-evaluate your so-called "sources".

Oh, and that would include the "killtown" jokers. They are equally clueless.......

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmmm it didn't hit a hollow structure, it hit a steel wall.

It hit a building with a steel lattice-work that was part of a load-bearing facade. It wasn't solid steel, but a design that was both aesthetic and structural in nature.

According to Newton, an object stays in motion unless acted on by an outside force, that force would be the wall.

Indeed. However, as in all physical sciences, the devil is in the variables.

The frame-count comparisons attempted to establish that, in the first 0.367 seconds of impact of the nose-section of the aircraft, the tail section (which is in motion) should experience immediate deceleration, regardless of the momentum and kinetic energy.

Mr. Fetzer would have us believe the aircraft is nothing more than a hollow beer can. In that event, there would be little resistance from the aircraft superstructure, and the rear-end of such a beer can should continue with it's own momentum until appropriate resistance is encountered. He can't have it both ways: a beer can that should crumble, or a solid aircraft that would experience immediate deceleration of the entire fuselage within 0.367 seconds of first impact.

In Newtonian physics, momentum and kinetic energy are exceptionally important. The aircraft possessed very high attributes of both, while the building did not.

Also according to Newton (3rd law) colliding objects exert equal force on each other, regardless of velocity of either object.

Incorrect. See above.

the object with the greater mass will decelerate less than the other object.

Only if both objects are in motion.

the object with the most mass will receive the least damage.

How did a low mass fiat inflict this much damage on a high-mass building?
www.virginmedia.com...

reply to post by ANOK


The f4 was stripped no engine landing gear etc it also hit a reinforced concrete wall designed for a nuclear power station was that the design for WTC TOWERS no

Also DO you care to explain how in the Empire State building crash a lower mass aircraft, at half the velocity manage to put one its much lighter engines clean through the walls of the building and out the other side!!!

Oh by the way the Pentagon had work done to reinforce the walls!!!

Originally posted by JimFetzer
No, it's not "hard to tell". What kind of nonsense are you spreading here? I have explained over and over again that the plane would be intersecting with eight (8) floors made of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external support columns at the other, which were filled with 4-8" of concrete. What is there here that you don't understand? I can't believe that you are perpetrating these gross deceptions on this thread! And where did you come up with the atrocious claim that I have no background in science? I earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, where the history of science is dominated by the history of physics. My latest book, which is my 29th, is THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010). This is a nice illustration that you know no more about me than you do about the laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics.

reply to post by mister.old.school

 

edit on 3-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: elaborating on a key point

edit on 3-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

Well I have 32 years in construction and I am on site daily and I give advice to engineers and architects and test items on site SO I HAVE A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE THAN YOU!!!!

YOUR not a physicist, or an engineer or in construction YOU have NO pratical experience on a site philosophy of science is that not a course a university does to make up the numbers!!!!!

Originally posted by ANOK

Hmmmm it didn't hit a hollow structure, it hit a steel wall.

Not entirely accurate.

The twin towers had hollow tube steel bearing walls, purposely designed to be relatively lightweight to be more flexible to the wind.

Click here for more information.

SphinxMontral, I am quite sure that you were echoing sentiments parallel to mine. I am stunned by the extent to which the debunkers on this forum will resort to fallacies and presumptions to advance their cause. mister.old. school, for example, apparently ACCEPTS that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, then PRESUMES that that means the plane is flying slower than 560 mph by varying the speed of the camera to facilitate his claim. This reminds me of NIST, when it discovered that the trusses would only sag about 4", which was not enough to pull them away from their supports, and simply converted that figure to more than 40"! That is the level of intellectual honesty we are witnessing here. But since he ACCEPTS the equal frames argument, he should abandon his mythical account.

I continue to be stunned that, given the massive of objective, scientific evidence of video fakery I have presented on this thread, it continues to be classified under "HOAX"! Something is wrong. For those who do not appreciate how grossly mister.old.school is manipulating the facts, see "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", which has a soft, limestone facade, yet its west wing wall did not even display the outline of a Boeing 757, much less the kind of cartoon-like cut out allegedly created by the Boeing 767's that hit the North and South Towers. I recommend giving this some thought, because either mister.old.school or I is pulling your chain. How could the planes at the Twin Towers create massive cutouts while the plane at the Pentagon did not make an impression? Of course, that might make sense, since the Pentagon plane flew over it, except that the videos of the hit on the South Tower does not show the cutouts being created by the plane as its passes into the building.

Similarly, one of my other critics faults the analogy of an empty beer can hitting a brick wall, saying the plane was not an empty beer can and the steel sides of a 500,000-ton building was not a brick wall. That, however, does not undermine the analogy, since the empty beer can, like the plane, should have crumpled and broken apart. He has not shown that there were more differences than similarities (of aluminum objects hitting far denser objects), few but crucial differences (when the density of building, like that of a brick wall, was vastly greater than that of the objects hitting them). The argument, of course, is inductive rather than certain, but the comparison is apt. I have a new source, which management will no doubt also ignore, in "Fabled Airplanes", which is archived at www.zeropoint.ca... Airplanes.html, whose author, Christopher Holmes, Ph.D., is a forensic psychologist. But I doubt that will impress the ATS "braintrust". Evidence doesn't seem to matter.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
So let me get this straight.... or atleast try.....

According to you and your Pals mr Fetzer on 911 a hologram of a windowless fuel tanker with a missile pod firing napalm crashed into a empty skeleton wtc timed with space energy weapons that set off mini nukes but it never happened because it was faked on tv.


Did I miss anything Jim?



What the hell man are you serious with this double think and nonsense? Have some respect for the victims and their families of the tragedy of 911.

edit on 9-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

I dont know how you can say that when you are a 911 truther as well ! Just because your opinion differs to that of Jim it doesnt mean you should attack him .

I have a lot of respect for Jim if you read his resumee he has done more up to this point than most ever do in a lifetime
The abuse he has recieved on ats is DISGUSTING and I'm surprised he has chosen to keep posting here .

Jim dont let them get to you , John Lear was abused too and subsequently banned , see his interview with Project Camelot .

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I continue to be stunned that, given the massive of objective, scientific evidence of video fakery I have presented on this thread, it continues to be classified under "HOAX"!

Please point to just one item you presented that is "massive," "objective," and scientific.

You placed far too much credence in a proven crazy old man (John Lear).

You offered a video that shows the aircraft speed well below the "impossible" speeds you've discussed.

You offered horribly blurred/compressed animated GIFs that only prove the low-quality of your source material.

Please. Just one item that actually fits the parameters you describe.

The video shows that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. The video is therefore authentic only if a massive, 500,000-ton building provides no more resistance to the flight of a plane than does air! If you accept that, you are either cognitively impaired or faking it on this forum. By arbitrarily changing the frame rate of the camera that took the video, you can make it come out any way you want, which is what you are doing in this case. Suppose you were right about the speed of the plane (where independent sources have repeatedly confirmed that it would be impossible, which even employees at Boeing have confirmed). Regardless of the plane's speed, as long as the camera frame rate is constant across time, no real plane could possibly pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. Since that is impossible, mister.old.school, how are we to avoid the conclusion that you are just as phony as the film?

reply to post by mister.old.school

I dont know about Video Fakery - but those Models NIST whipped up sure appear to be. I did a FOIA for them in 2008 and 3 yrs later, we still cant run them to see how WTC 7 came down. I think my lawyer has some kind of
legal no-no they are hashing out at the moment. Its been about a year of it being like a tennis match. but the models will either run *complete or not *incomplete... either total BS or we have something new that may effect every skyscraper on the planet.... which side do you put your money on.... cuz, we getting the models and we will be holding people liable.

reply to post by JimFetzer


Rubbish!:

The video shows that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

Watching 30 frames/second video with the naked eye CANNOT accurately determine the minor deceleration that the airplane underwent! I'd think a "scholar" would understand this basic fact.

You conveniently insist on ignoring the video that demonstrated a better analysis of the impact sequence....with an animated frame outline at the same constant speed....it clearly shows the very beginnings of deceleration, as resulting from the impact with the Tower facade. Perhaps you are UNABLE (or unwilling?) to watch videos, in this thread? (Might explain so many of your continued misconceptions?):



You may also click on the "YouTube Link" words, on the bottom of that displayed freeze-frame, to go to the YouTube website, and watch there. That way you can learn, and become more educated.

Also, you seem to be stuck on your very weak "appeal to authority", in the name of John Lear...once again, you fail to acknowledge that is LYING, in the 'affidavit' that you cite. Well, as I pointed out.....his "loophole" there is to claim he is of that opinion....so, trying to nail him for perjury would be a difficult, and really unimportant effort. He discredits himself, with his EARLIER comments (prior to jumping on the so-called "9/11 truth" gravy train bandwagon).

By ignoring that evidence (as well as a similar video, showing CLEAR evidence of the building swaying, at impact)...then tell us what YOU think we should label you as?

Deceptive? Agenda-driven? HOAX-perpetrator? Or, clearly unable to properly process factual information, so instead preferring to reside in a delusional world view??

Because, your feeble attempts to "promote" the NPT are failing miserably. You may as well be on a campaign to convince the world that the Earth is flat. Has about equal credence......

(If, though, your 'true' intent is to discredit that so-called "9/11 truth movement"? Ermmm.....no need, really, They are also doing a fine job, all by themselves......They keep missing the target! The real "conspiracy" is in the incompetence, and THAT arse-covering that has gone since Day One. THERE is your true conspiracy.....).


"The '9/11 truth movement' consists of the confused, the paranoid and the profiteer."

(Anon.)