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.

[Tamborine man]

Agreed, elreb -

Cheers

[23investigator]

Agreed, elreb -

Cheers

Dear 'Tamborine man'

Please forgive me, but needed somewhere to tag this onto.
Just dealing, with the Boeing 757 -first-, that is the Pentagon.

Mr Bob Pugh, had no doubt in his mind, right from the first instant, that it did not appear a large commercial aircraft had come in impact with the Pentagon wall.
He expressed also there was no collatoral damage to support such a notion, in fact reporting the hole he saw in the wall as no more than 16 feet wide, as he expressed it, the size of a 'domestic garage door'.
This can be viewed on you tube --9/11 truth: Pentagon Eye Witness Bob Pugh Tells his story.
http://youtu.be/-xtEJ4zrlPM

On the same video, at 4:41 a Gentleman is handling a piece of debris, which people about comment could be part of the undercarriage of an aircraft, other comment made argued against this, saying it was too small.
Whoever made that comment was on the 'money', there can be little doubt, in fact when carefully considered, the part looks to have come away from another part of an aircraft, which was most definitely not a Boeing 757.
Another video on you tube --9/11 Pentagon Explosion and missing plane wreckage
http://youtu.be/YSGK13Cgg
At 9:41, shows the same gentleman holding the same piece of debris.

Another video on you tube -- Witness D C 9/11
http://youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L
At 10:54 shows a Gentleman handling a piece of debris, with every appearance, of being ripped from some sort of aircraft. A person in the background can be heard to say --that is not from a commercial aircraft-- it is too thin, and comes from a smaller plane--, or words to that effect.
There can be little doubt that the man's opinion was on the 'money'.

It is puzzling to consider, why these instance of hard evidence, are being ignored, and the people involved have not been sought out, for their observations.

Robert S

[23investigator]

Dear 'Tamborine man'

Please forgive me, but needed somewhere to tag this onto.
Just dealing, with the Boeing 757 -first-, that is the Pentagon.

Mr Bob Pugh, had no doubt in his mind, right from the first instant, that it did not appear a large commercial aircraft had come in impact with the Pentagon wall.
He expressed also there was no collatoral damage to support such a notion, in fact reporting the hole he saw in the wall as no more than 16 feet wide, as he expressed it, the size of a 'domestic garage door'.
This can be viewed on you tube --9/11 truth: Pentagon Eye Witness Bob Pugh Tells his story.
http://youtu.be/-xtEJ4zrlPM

On the same video, at 4:41 a Gentleman is handling a piece of debris, which people about comment could be part of the undercarriage of an aircraft, other comment made argued against this, saying it was too small.
Whoever made that comment was on the 'money', there can be little doubt, in fact when carefully considered, the part looks to have come away from another part of an aircraft, which was most definitely not a Boeing 757.
Another video on you tube --9/11 Pentagon Explosion and missing plane wreckage
http://youtu.be/YSGK13Cgg
At 9:41, shows the same gentleman holding the same piece of debris.

Another video on you tube -- Witness D C 9/11
http://youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L
At 10:54 shows a Gentleman handling a piece of debris, with every appearance, of being ripped from some sort of aircraft. A person in the background can be heard to say --that is not from a commercial aircraft-- it is too thin, and comes from a smaller plane--, or words to that effect.
There can be little doubt that the man's opinion was on the 'money'.

It is puzzling to consider, why these instance of hard evidence, are being ignored, and the people involved have not been sought out, for their observations.

Robert S

Dear 'NP1Mike' and 'Tamborine Man'

Please forgive me for this route to bring forward this comment.

(1) In the case above: it is very clear from viewing the video that these were not rehearsed comments.

(2) In the case of Tower two: there were some comments made by people who appear not to have rehearsed their lines.

They clearly and articulately stated that the aircraft they had just seen hit tower two was not a large commercial airliner such as a Boeing 767.

It seems these people have become lost in the fog of illusion that no doubt kicked into high gear after both these terrible events.

Robert S

[23investigator]

Dear 'NP1Mike' and 'Tamborine Man'

Please forgive me for this route to bring forward this comment.

(1) In the case above: it is very clear from viewing the video that these were not rehearsed comments.

(2) In the case of Tower two: there were some comments made by people who appear not to have rehearsed their lines.

They clearly and articulately stated that the aircraft they had just seen hit tower two was not a large commercial airliner such as a Boeing 767.

It seems these people have become lost in the fog of illusion that no doubt kicked into high gear after both these terrible events.

Robert S

Continuing the theme above.

There is a video in which a woman in a helicopter is in conversation with another woman back at a TV station.

Her initial account was that she had sighted the aircraft that actually hit Tower Two.

It most certainly did not seem she was talking about a large passenger aircraft.

In fact that conversation was clearly edited and again lost in the fog of illusion.

My personal appraisal of the video is that it is the most realistic of any of the video footage presented and still available to the public.

Not to say it has not been visually edited as well as the audio discussion between the two women: as it most definitely has.

The visual editing is by superimposing a white globe effect over the actual aircraft detail.

The aircraft is not anything like the proportions of a Boeing 767.

Robert S