R. I. P. - No Plane Theory, Jim Fetzer evading questions Options

[onesliceshort]

I'm just going to jump straight in here. Basically Jim Fetzer has been evading these points I raised at "TruthandShadows" blogspot (820 posts later..)

Post 1.


From Simon Shack’s FAQ section:

The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake …” Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing ‘airplane’ images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released – inexplicably – as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight” 

First off, the "lucky shots" description is ludicrous because thousands of New Yorkers were focused on this area after the strike on Tower 1.

According to the NPT accusations, that’s 55 people who allegedly, knowingly allowed their names to be publically used as authors of totally manipulated footage, or altered the footage themselves. 55 people, alleged “sleepers”, who “know” exactly what happened on 9/11 in Manhattan. That the towers were blown up by internal explosives and that a hologram was used to fool on the ground witnesses. 

That’s a lot of loose ends.





Please also check the above collection of still images for debris falling from the impact side of the facade.

I agree that certain footage has been edited, withheld, censored or have had their resolution purposely lessened. The Naudet second tower impact has clearly been edited, one Citgo camera was physically removed, the "gatecam" footage which was capable of reading registrations on vehicles has been purposely reuploaded (at least twice) to make the footage useless etc. 

But to insinuate that an actual army of ops actually added an aircraft to footage caught? And adding them perfectly to match the flightpath?



So how can people who allege that all footage is a complete fabrication and that it's been in the perps'  hands literally from day one, base any scientific claims on observations made in them??

Even the claim that no aircraft debris was seen falling from the impact side doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Pause and play the impact seen in the following video. Slowmo if you can.



Then there's this:



I don't know if there is any footage of the base of that area, but the collapse of the tower also leaves the debris claim open to obfuscation.

We have to remember that this aircraft was allegedly travelling at over 700 feet per second. Over 4 times its own length travelled in one second as it impacted the facade.

The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft's recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second.

When the 60ft of fuselage appears to penetrate the facade, this could be down to optical illusion. The event was over in one tenth of a second.

Here's a video that's as close as I could find to the collision of a hard steel object (steel sled) against a bulky object such as the fuselage. A car.

Normal speed



Slow motion (pay attention to the actual collision at the beginning of the video)



See how the car appears to "melt" or "disappear"? The actual interaction was over in a fraction of a second.

[onesliceshort]

My worry is this: By declaring NPT for "dead", for whatever reason, this could be seen as if P4T are capitulating to the 'detractors' and 'professional disinformants' and thereby playing into their hands, as these people have probably been aiming for exactly this outcome, this 'death', from the very start.

You're way off base TM. This has nothing to do with "capitulating" to anybody. It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to redefine what NPT actually is ("NPT doesn't mean that there were no planes"...come on) and trying to wrap it up in credible documented and proven research by CIT and Rob.

You know yourself that anything I posted on the subject over at TAS wasn't a kneejerk reaction but an attempt by myself to see why good people like yourself defended it. To see if there was any basis for the claims. The reasons are listed above mate. There's no truth in it that I can see.

You should be asking Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimino why they created this little soap opera. Fetzer had his responses ready to copy and paste both here and at TAS because he knew what the reaction would be. He has painted anybody who doesn't agree with his warped wordplay as possible disinformationists (at VT - a site that allowed a clear disinfo "Pentagon missile" video be posted even though it was repeatedly proven that it was a hoax)

Even Senor El Once, a long time NPT advocate, has admitted publically at TAS that NPT is wrong based on the above posts.

If there's any counterargument I'd like to hear it.

Did you read the post on the "hologram technology" that you cited to me?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 7 2012, 09:03 AM

[Tamborine man]

You're way off base TM. This has nothing to do with "capitulating" to anybody. It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to redefine what NPT actually is ("NPT doesn't mean that there were no planes"...come on) and trying to wrap it up in credible documented and proven research by CIT and Rob.

Now you're completely confusing me, OSS!
Now it looks like we're completely talking past each other!

I have always been under the impression that "the no plane theory" first really started with the 'birth' of the 'Pentacon forum'
back in 2007. This 'countermeasure' as a result of the vicious attacks that then took place trying to discredit CIT.
Do you remember the slogan, "Hunt for the Boeing757"? Do you remember Swing Danglers 17 points, that conclusively proves
that no Boeing could have entered the pentagon, and therefore gave incredible support and much stronger backbone to the
"no plane theory"?

It is solely from this 'starting point' that i'm personally and independently defending NPT, and for no other reason.

You know yourself that anything I posted on the subject over at TAS wasn't a kneejerk reaction but an attempt by myself to see why good people like yourself defended it. To see if there was any basis for the claims. The reasons are listed above mate. There's no truth in it that I can see.

Yes i now gather that when you talk about NPT, then you're limiting the debate to exclusively center around WCT and nothing
else!
I cannot recall any time where you or Rob have been spelling out this "separation of terms" in a clear language, so that could
very well be where all the misunderstandings and confusions arise from!
Though i do grant you, that from yours and Rob's point of view it needn't have been done, as it should all have been "implied"
or "understood", but i'm sorry to say that on this occasion, i didn't get it.

So for the sake of absolute clarity can we now come to an agreement, that when you speak of NPT as being 'dead', then you're
only and exclusively referring to that as being the case solely with regards to WCT?

Can we also come to an agreement that the term, "NPT is dead", does not, and cannot, apply to the pentagon and to Shanksville?

You should be asking Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimino why they created this little soap opera. Fetzer had his responses ready to copy and paste both here and at TAS because he knew what the reaction would be. He has painted anybody who doesn't agree with his warped wordplay as possible disinformationists (at VT - a site that allowed a clear disinfo "Pentagon missile" video be posted even though it was repeatedly proven that it was a hoax)

I only speak for myself. You should know this by now, OSS!

Did you read the post on the "hologram technology" that you cited to me?

Yes, and was going to reply earlier, but didn't find the time the last 3 - 4 days!

I noticed that you didn't mention my quote from DARPA's budget papers once! Will you tell me why?

Instead you quoted a lot from the "3D-holographic Display" paper. This link i included for no other reasons
than to show that even back in 1998 great research was conducted by others re. 'hologram projections'.

For me, the only important part is the one i quoted from DARPA's paper. It is in that especially, where the
clues are to be found, i think! (Is that why you ignored it)?

In the OP's many posts, it looks like you're addressing several different people, but none in particular.

I can only offer comments to a couple:

For the most part, debris' falling from impact facade, looks like it consist mostly of pieces of alu. claddings,
as these pieces are long and narrow.

I think it will be rather difficult to prove that the 'oscillations' in the tower was caused by a plane. It could also
have been caused solely by the explosions, i think. (But i'm naturally biased, of course)!

Cheers

[rob balsamo]

I have always been under the impression that "the no plane theory" first really started with the 'birth' of the 'Pentacon forum'
back in 2007.

You thought wrong.

Click....
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=13622

Click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=10864

then click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...hp?showforum=24
(be sure to adjust the drop down to "the beginning" on the lower right)

Note the dates....

[Tamborine man]

You thought wrong.

Click....
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=13622

Click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=10864

then click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...hp?showforum=24
(be sure to adjust the drop down to "the beginning" on the lower right)

Note the dates....

I did - and humbly stand corrected.

Must admit that i never visited LCF, so missed out on this very interesting debate in those days!
(Not much has changed since then, it seems).

A few posts, from the threads you linked to, caught my attention -

'weknow', a.o.t., wrote:
"But this hologram story even its true you know we cant talk about this !
Its really difficult to make people understand what happened that day and you want to add the no-plane theory ???
Please don't, its already difficult like this."

'LiveFreeOrDieTrying' wrote:
"Even if no planes hit the towers, we have better change of exposing 9/11 by saying they did".

Strange really, what goes on in some peoples mind!
One "truther" is filled with fear, while the other
"truther" doesn't mind telling fibs!!

Nevertheless, i'll continue to defend the 'no plane theory' with regards to pentagon and Shanksville,
and looking forward to see if i at least will be able to come to an agreement with Onesliceshort, as
formulated in my previous post.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: May 8 2012, 08:41 AM

[rob balsamo]

I did - and humbly stand corrected.

You're welcome TM!

Many feel that the NPT was/is an orchestrated disinformation campaign in order to obfuscate and marginalize the research done at the Pentagon and Shanksville during that time.

The NPT was running rampant at the time significant findings were being uncovered in Pentagon Research. Much of those people who started the NPT back then are no longer around.

Case in point....
http://www.infowars.com/is-nico-haupt-a-co...ro-operative-2/

[bpete1969]

You're welcome TM!

Many feel that the NPT was/is an orchestrated disinformation campaign in order to obfuscate and marginalize the research done at the Pentagon and Shanksville during that time.

The NPT was running rampant at the time significant findings were being uncovered in Pentagon Research. Much of those people who started the NPT back then are no longer around.

Case in point....
http://www.infowars.com/is-nico-haupt-a-co...ro-operative-2/

Unfortunately, NPT will remain alive as long as people like Fetzer have the ability to get their hands on a keyboard.

As for disinfo...consider the method of presentation by the number one proponent of the theory. He makes a totally subjective claim and relies on facts that lay on the periphery of his main argument to bolster the main claim. When that fails, he uses the "only a fool would disagree" ploy and then states that he has proven his case. Any question you pose or rebuttal you offer is immediately dismissed and then he ridicules you for being a "disappointment" to him, or that he expected better of you and you failed. He then tries to throw you off by inundating you with links to all of his past works on the subject as if the fact they are print on a webpage makes then definitive proof that he is right and you are wrong. When that fails, he then falls back on his education and PhD as a way to intimidate you.
Uncle Fetzer was made for disinfo....and you have to commend him on doing the job well, for a time.

[rob balsamo]

When that fails, he uses the "only a fool would disagree" ploy and then states that he has proven his case. Any question you pose or rebuttal you offer is immediately dismissed and then he ridicules you for being a "disappointment" to him, or that he expected better of you and you failed.

Yes, I especially get a good chuckle (well, perhaps a deep belly laugh really) when Fetzer now claims I am not competent to be the head of P4T. Especially given the fact that he knows I created P4T and grown this list of my peers with my work...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Again, Fetzer is just pissed off that we will not endorse his crap, nor does our work support his crap.. .and like clockwork, he attacks anyone who disputes his crap.