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]

Post 4.

The claim that modification of the witnessed aircraft which was travelling well over the structural limitations of a standard transport category Boeing 767 is "impossible"

Rob's response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804735

My response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804737

What's the difference in bodyframe between these two 747s?





This...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Componen...hotoblog900.jpg

Weights

Empty: 151,315 lb (68,635 kg)
With main engines: 171,000 lb (77,564 kg)

Source

The aircraft was extensively modified by Boeing in 1976.[2] Its cabin was stripped, mounting struts added, and the fuselage strengthened; vertical stabilizers were added to the tail to aid stability when the Orbiter was being carried. The avionics and engines were also upgraded, and an escape tunnel system similar to that used on Boeing's first 747 test flights was added. The flight crew escape tunnel system was later removed following the completion of the Approach and Landing Tests (ALT) due to concerns over possible engine ingestion of an escaping crew member

Flying with the additional drag and weight of the Orbiter imposed significant fuel and altitude penalties. The range was reduced to 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km), compared to an unladen range of 5500 nautical miles (10,100 km),[3] requiring an SCA to stop several times to refuel on a transcontinental flight. The SCA had an altitude ceiling of 15,000 feet and a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.6 (445mph) with the orbiter attached.

Source