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]

Nevertheless, i'll continue to defend the 'no plane theory' with regards to pentagon and Shanksville,

That phrase is exactly why I objected to Fetzer's wordplay and his lumping of Pentagon and Shankesville research in with NPT.

It's not a case of crossed lines TM. There were planes involved. Any fudging of the definition of NPT doesn't interest me mate.

Edit: and the only paper I found online regarding DARPA and 3D holographic technology using Strontium Barium Niobate was the one I discussed (well, posted, nobody ever commented bar Senor el Once at TAS who has now rejected NPT having touted it for four years).

It's titled "3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate".

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 8 2012, 03:26 PM

[Tamborine man]

That phrase is exactly why I objected to Fetzer's wordplay and his lumping of Pentagon and Shankesville research in with NPT.

It's not a case of crossed lines TM. There were planes involved. Any fudging of the definition of NPT doesn't interest me mate.

Hi OSS,
i got absolutely no interest in any kind of "wordplay" or "fudging of definitions" at all. For me
it is alone a question of Truth, the pursuit of Truth, telling the Truth, the whole Truth, and
nothing but the Truth.

I found Swing Danglers '17 points' over at CIT's discussion forum:

invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=317

It should be very clear and obvious from this, that the 17 points are meant to be seen as a
very strong defense of CIT's "no plane theory". I.e., no plane impacted the pentagon!

As Rob so rightly pointed out, and that i also pointed out, NPT was/is used as a very powerful
weapon (indeed a two-edged 'sword') to denigrate, discredit and annihilate CIT, P4T and their
supporters.
(I urge you to have a look over at truthfraction right at this moment)!

At WTC it is worse. Here the NPT people are called 'lunatic disinfo'es' by not only the shills,
loyalists and the professional disinformants, but also by other 'truthers' who are now siding
with their 'detractors'; albeit for completely other reasons!

The confusion is total, and that's why i was hoping to come to some agreement with you, to
try to alleviate some of this BS - but alas, this doesn't seem to be possible.

Edit: and the only paper I found online regarding DARPA and 3D holographic technology using Strontium Barium Niobate was
the one I discussed (well, posted, nobody ever commented bar Senor el Once at TAS who has now rejected NPT having touted
it for four years).

It's titled "3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate".

In the thread "Debunkers respond to Cimino", you must have overlooked my post no.140!

And you must have overlooked it again in my reply post no. 210 to you on 27/3-12, where
i wrote:

"Please read in conjunction with quote from DARPA's budget paper, as shown in post 140!"

I my post no. 299 addressed to Rob on 15/4-12, I only quoted the pertinent part from the

DARPA Paper that i was interested in, as follows:
"…..
more sophisticated technology would have been utilized then; sort of more in line with what
DARPA was playing around with in those days - and of course, before that time as well:"

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)
based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state
lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits
per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges
(> 1000 kilometers).

Cheers

PS!
To give you a little glimpse of where i'm coming from, and perhaps imbue a little calm, i
recommend to you this gentle chant:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...0&start=840

PPS!
Link to CIT doesn't work!
Found in 'Pentagon' thread, under title: 'There is no friggin plane impact'. Post of 29/8-08.

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: May 9 2012, 02:19 AM

[elreb]

It should be very clear and obvious from this, that the 17 points are meant to be seen as a
very strong defense of CIT's "no plane theory". I.e., no plane impacted the pentagon!

I find it a lot simpler to state that AA 11, AA77, UA 93 and UA 173 did not hit anything.

Personally, I do not believe that any civilian 757/767 caused any damage.

[23investigator]

I find it a lot simpler to state that AA 11, AA77, UA 93 and UA 173 did not hit anything.

Personally, I do not believe that any civilian 757/767 caused any damage.

Dear 'elreb'

at the end of the day, it will be you, that is "right" on the money.

Robert S