Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted Options

[jfetzer]

Rob,

You are wrong on both counts. Newton's third law dictates that the causal consequences would have been the same whether the plane was in motion and the building stationary or the plane stationary and building in motion. What would have happened if this 500,000-ton building had hit the stationary 767 at 560 mph?

You adopt a model of building as if it were a stack of dimes on top of a stack of nickels on top of a stack of quarters on top of a stack of fifty cent pieces, for example. That's fine, except that those stacks were, in this case, welded together. I am afraid your own analogy has misled you, Rob. Another empty coke can!

Indeed, this is why the analogy of a plane flying really, really fast, which is your hypothesis, won't cut it. I observe as a counter example that if a car were traveling really, really fast, it still would not pass through a massive tree upon impact. And neither would a plane flying really, really fast have passed through a tower.

And, since I anticipate an attempt to trivialize my point, the videos show "the plane" effortlessly entering the building. The design of the building, however, including its intersection with eight (8) floors consisting as I have described them, would have posed enormous horizontal resistance. Your theory, Rob, is a fantasy.

Jim

Jim, the "equal and opposite" reaction that was done to the plane is the fact that the plane did not come out the other side in one piece.

Again -

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gH02Eh44yUg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The energy of 2000 sticks of dynamite did not hit a 500,000lb solid steel plate Jim. It hit eight floors surrounded by 1/4' thick steel box beams connected by bolts. 2000 sticks of Dynamite took care of 30 floors in FL.

lol

[jfetzer]

Rob,

You can't be serious. You are adopting an attitude like that of The 6th Floor Museum about the slides in their possession. You have no copyright on your research, Rob. Anyone is entitled to cite it one way or another in their own research. In the past, I have always cited it with great approval. But the arguments that you as the head of Pilots are making here strike me as in an entirely different category. Your other research has been meticulous and compelling. What you are doing here is poorly reasoned and inconsistent with the available evidence. It even entails the violation of Newton's laws. I really believe you need to give this more thought. Your position is indefensible.

Jim

That is a great idea Jim.

Don't take me seriously, and please don't use our work in your articles, as now we are just going round and round, and you still have yet to accurately recite the speeds reported

Thanks!

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 29 2012, 01:41 AM

[rob balsamo]

Rob,

You are wrong on both counts. Newton's third law dictates that the causal consequences would have been the same whether the plane was in motion and the building stationary or the plane stationary and building in motion. What would have happened if this 500,000-ton building had hit the stationary 767 at 560 mph?

Jim,

If a car hits a house, a house that weighs perhaps 100 times that of the car, does that mean the car can never penetrate that house and the car should be crumpled into a ball outside the walls of the house?

If a car lost control and hit the WTC, does that mean it could have never penetrated the lobby because the WTC weighs 500,000 tons?

How did this jet possibly penetrate this structure at a fraction of the speeds reported on 9/11, when the structure weighs so much more?

(IMG:http://blog.silive.com/latest_news/2009/08/large_teterboro-plane-crash-2005.jpg)

lol...

Jim, not only do I not want you to not use any of our work in your future articles, but I would appreciate it if you pull all our work from your past articles.

Thank you.

[rob balsamo]

You have no copyright on your research, Rob.

Actually, I do.

However, I am asking you nicely.

If you refuse, I will post to the top of every one of our articles you source, that we do not endorse the Theories of Jim Fetzer.

If you still refuse, we'll take it from there.

[jfetzer]

Rob,

Do you really think adopting the attitude of a petty intellectual tyrant enhances the stature of Pilots? It's not just the gross weight, of course, but the design of the building that matters. It was an intricate, lattice steel and concrete structure. No real plane could have penetrated it in the effortless fashion that we experience in these videos. All the phony animations in the world are not going to salvage an indefensible position such as the one you have foisted off on Pilots. And where do you come off imposing constraints upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I have held you in high esteem in the past, Rob, but, in my opinion, the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific and anti-rational attitudes you are displaying on this thread are doing great damage to the society that you head. Stop overreaching, Rob. You have no more control over my research than I have over yours. The difference is that, in this case, my position is well-founded, while yours is not. What would happen if a stationary 767 were hit by a 500,000-ton building that was moving 560 mph, Rob? Give this a little more thought.

Jim

Jim,

If a car hits a house, a house that weighs perhaps 100 times that of the car, does that mean the car can never penetrate that house and the car should be crumpled into a ball outside the walls of the house?

If a car lost control and hit the WTC, does that mean it could have never penetrated the lobby because the WTC weighs 500,000 tons?

How did this jet possibly penetrate this structure at a fraction of the speeds reported on 9/11, when the structure weighs so much more?

(IMG:http://blog.silive.com/latest_news/2009/08/large_teterboro-plane-crash-2005.jpg)

lol...

Jim, not only do I not want you to not use any of our work in your future articles, but I would appreciate it if you pull all our work from your past articles.

Thank you.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 29 2012, 01:56 AM

[rob balsamo]

Rob,

Do you really think adopting the attitude of a petty intellectual tyrant enhances the stature of Pilots?

Do you really think that if we adopt your theories and post them front page that I would have been able to grow such a list?

How'd that work out for Scholars?

We do not support your theories Jim. And quite frankly, I am glad I further explored this issue and did the math. It confirms what I already researched and discussed in the past in this forum section on this topic.


Jim, lets explore the hypothetical.

If there was some large Giant, I mean a REALLY large Giant. One who could pick up the South Tower and swing it like a bat.

For a baseball, he uses a 767-200.

He tosses up the 767-200 for a self-pitch, and swings the WTC like a bat.

How far do you think the 767 will travel?

Do you think the 767 will just bounce off the WTC like a baseball bounces off a bat?

Does the WTC look as solid as a Bat to you?

(IMG:http://i.imgur.com/Qtjfv.jpg)

Or do you think the "baseball" (aka as a 767 in this case) will just penetrate the structure as the structure/bat crumbles around the 767 at point of contact.

Jim, the aircraft did not hit a solid 500,000 ton steel bat covering the space of only 8 floors.

This is where you do not understand Newton's Third Law, nor able to understand basic KE, nor understand the fact that KE increases with the square of the velocity, nor are you able to accurately retain the speeds reported... (oh wait.. they were typos... 6 times over...).

Give it a rest Jim.

[jfetzer]

Those buildings were massive, intricately designed and integrated structures, which is why the comparison with a massive tree is appropriate. Just as the resistance of the tree is rooted in its roots, the resistance of the towers is rooted in their core columns and foundations. I can't believe you have become so obtuse. It did not simply encounter eight (8) floors, but eight (8) floors that were an integral part of a 500,000-ton building. And you have not even admitted the blatant inadequacies of the Purdue simulation. Something is very wrong, Rob, and it has almost nothing to do with me. I am not asking you to adopt "my theories" so much as I am pointing out that your position is clearly indefensible, which, in my opinion, does far more damage to the 9/11 Truth movement than those of us who are dealing with its most controversial aspects. How can you believe you are promoting "9/11 Truth" when you are basing your arguments on simulations that are false and violations of Newton's laws? And your authoritarian and possessive stance about your research is really something else. There is something called "fair use", Rob. Check it out. Before you go crazy because you can't cope with my arguments, you really need to look into intellectual property rights. You are only making matters worse by attempting to restrain freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Do you really think that if we adopt your theories and post them front page that I would have been able to grow such a list?

How'd that work out for Scholars?

We do not support your theories Jim. And quite frankly, I am glad I further explored this issue and did the math. It confirms what I already researched and discussed in the past in this forum section on this topic.

Jim, lets explore the hypothetical.

If there was some large Giant, I mean a REALLY large Giant. One who could pick up the South Tower and swing it like a bat.

For a baseball, he uses a 767-200.

He tosses up the 767-200 for a self-pitch, and swings the WTC like a bat.

How far do you think the 767 will travel?

Do you think the 767 will just bounce off the WTC like a baseball bounces off a bat?

Does the WTC look as solid as a Bat to you?

(IMG:http://i.imgur.com/Qtjfv.jpg)

Or do you think the "baseball" (aka as a 767 in this case) will just penetrate the structure as the structure/bat crumbles around the 767 at point of contact.

Jim, the aircraft did not hit a solid 500,000 ton steel bat covering the space of only 8 floors.

This is where you do not understand Newton's Third Law, nor able to understand basic KE, nor understand the fact that KE increases with the square of the velocity, nor are you able to accurately retain the speeds reported... (oh wait.. they were typos... 6 times over...).

Give it a rest Jim.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 29 2012, 02:23 AM

[rob balsamo]

Those buildings were massive, intricately designed and integrated structures,

As is a 767. Certainly, far from being comparative to an "empty coke can".

which is why the comparison with a massive tree is appropriate. Just as the resistance of the tree is rooted in its roots, the resistance of the towers is rooted in their core columns and foundations.

lol... that's like saying an out of control car cannot penetrate a house because it's structural resistance is based on it's foundation. First you claim it's the entire weight of the structure which is considered, now it's the foundation? Make up your mind.

(by the way, the core columns were not the structure initially penetrated. Hence the reason they call them core columns.)

How many Trees do you know in which the light from the Sun can penetrate?

If you hit a baseball with a tree, the baseball will fly far regardless if the tree is rooted.

If you swing the WTC like a bat using a 767 as a baseball, do you think you'll hit a homerun? Perhaps the 767 will just crumple to the ground after contact?


lol....this is just pointless.


Jim,

I no longer have time to go round and round with you tonight, especially since you have evaded every single one of my questions, and STILL cannot recall accurately the speeds reported.

It's simple Jim, stop using our work to support your theories.

I respect the fact you wish to explore theories. Please respect my position. Call me obtuse, a petty intellectual tyrant, any name you choose (and there are many over the past few pages). But the bottom line is, you do not have permission to use our work as our work does not validate your theories. John Lear understand this, you should too.

9/11: John Lear Interview from PilotsFor911Truth on Vimeo.

[onesliceshort]

Jim Fetzer, seeing as how you ignored my earlier posts, let's just cut to the chase.

How can you claim that all of the videos and images have been "faked", yet use those same videos and images to analyze the impact/penetration?

If they've been "faked", aren't they completely invalid?

Cheers

[Tamborine man]

I'll let paranoia speak for himself but that comment really makes me laugh out loud.
Translated: the more evidence of a plane being spotted, the more evidence there is for "holograms" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

It's not quite a laughing matter if one should view it from the "Right" side of the 'equation'!

If no plane entered the building, then it was not a "real" plane that witnesses saw from the
ground, or the helicopter crews filmed from the air, nor 'amateurs' filmed from the ground
or hi-rises somewhere, but MUST have been a 'simulation' in the form of a 'hologram'
projection, that all the various witnesses must have observed from their different vantage
points.

The very early Hazerkhani shot, and the next day Naudet bros. shot, as well as a few others,
i think bears the unmistakable imprints of being either CGI manipulated, or when it comes
to still photos, photo-shop altered - imho.

The first 'hologram' ever shown to the public, took place in the Japanese Pavilion at the
World Expo in Brisbane, Australia 1988. You stood in queue for nearly an hour to get in.
Inside you saw a little man almost a foot high (iirc), standing in the middle of a little mini
stage speaking to the audience around 6 to 8 feet away. It was all well lit. You could see
360º around him. He looked as physical and real as the rest of us. The only difference
being, that one could see a faint bluish tint surrounding him, but that was all.

Now, USA has always shown a desire to be the best at everything (except to Love, and
to respect human life of course), but besides that, all else it seems!
Thus, they would also have wanted to be the best and the foremost nation when it came
to 'Holograms'. This should really go without saying! So for this reason alone, I personally
got no doubt whatsoever that USA had this technology up and running back in 2001!

A paper from 1998 exist with the title:

3-D Holographic display using Stronium Barium Niobate.
With the following introduction:

"An innovative technique for generating a three dimensional holographic display using strontium barium niobate (SBN) is discussed.
The resultant image is a hologram that can be viewed in real time over a wide perspective or field of view (FOV). The holographic
image is free from system- induced aberrations and has a uniform, high quality over the entire FOV. The enhanced image quality
results from using a phase conjugate read beam generated from a second photorefractive crystal acting as a double pumped phase
conjugate mirror (DPPCM). Multiple three dimensional images have been stored in the crystal via wavelength multiplexing.

PDF from 1998."

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

You can Google the heading above and discover that other forums have already taken this up month ago.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Mar 29 2012, 07:05 AM

[GroundPounder]

welds break. bolts shear. steel bends. a hologram does not have mass and hence cannot be used to explain the damage.

[onesliceshort]

It's not quite a laughing matter if one should view it from the "Right" side of the 'equation'!

TM, the entire argument for holograms AFAIK is based upon a single video. "The Ghost Plane".
From this video and it's apparent "defiance" of the laws of physics, it's been decided that every other video and image is fake.

It's claimed that the aircraft seen in this video has been photoshopped, manipulated, faked.

In the video linked to by Jim Fetzer, "Theory of ghostplane":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

The author also demonstrates how the impact damage can also be faked.

Seeing as how you're obviously not going to address this post, I'll repeat the question (that you've also skipped over).

If this video is "fake" or "manipulated" or even a total invention, how can an entire thesis be based upon a piece of "evidence" where the alleged impactand penetration can be shown to be inserted?
Why is one aspect of the video completely accepted while another is utterly rejected when the entire piece is "suspect"?

You don't see the contradiction in using what you see as government supplied "evidence"? The oppurtunity to manipulate you?

[jfetzer]

These videos are showing the occurrence of events that violate the laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics, which means that they are showing impossible events. No videos that show impossible events can be authentic in both their content and their production. My point is to prove that they are showing either a video that has been faked (by introducing those impossible events using computer-generated images or using video compositing) or that the plane itself has been faked (by using a sophisticated hologram).

The use of computer generated images or of video compositing would affect the images that were broadcast over television, but only after those features had been added to the film. That would mean that witnesses who reported seeing what they took to be a plane would have to be suffering from false memory syndrome or simply mistaken or even deliberately lying. At least some of them appear to be sincere and telling what they believe to be the truth. The more weight we give to these witness reports, the more it evidence there is for using a hologram.

Since what they reported to be "a plane" was performing feats that no real plane could perform--including especially passing effortlessly into the building in violation of Newton's laws--what we see in the videos has to be something that LOOKED LIKE a real plane but was NOT A REAL PLANE. If there is something that can satisfy those requirements that is other than a sophisticated hologram, I would like to know what that could possibly been. The point of the proofs I have advanced is to prove these videos are fake, which is proof of the use of video fakery.

Video fakery is any use of videos to convey a false impression about the events they represent. In this case, those events concern what happened on 9/11. We have multiple lines of proof that the whole 9/11 story is a fabrication from beginning to end, including that the government has never proven that those 19 "hijackers" were aboard any of those planes, that the phone calls from the planes were also fabricated, that the NTSB never investigated any of the crashes, that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville, and that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

In addition, the videos we have of Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower and of Flight 175 crashing into the South are laden with anomalies. I presented many of them in "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'". One of the peculiarities of the situation we are in is that Pilots has established that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh at the time it was supposed to be entering the South Tower. Since it cannot be in two places at the same time, what we have MUST BE "video fakery".

The head of Pilots, however, has declared that Pilots WILL NEVER accept NPT ("No Plane Theory"), which is the position that none of the four Boing 757s and 767s the government maintains crashed on 9/11 actually crashed on 9/11, which means that the videos showing Flights 11 and 175 hitting the North and the South Towers are fake. But oddly enough, he has also declared that Pilots WILL NEVER accept video fakery. But his argument entails the use of at least one "modified plane", which is not Flight 175, which means that he is BOTH admitting AND denying "video fakery" at the same time.

This may not be QUITE as absurd as maintaining that the same plane could be in two places at the same time, but it comes close. Since HIS OWN ARGUMENT proves the occurrence of video fakery, even leaving the impossible entry into the building to the side, his position is self-contradictory. It cannot be true that the plane shown in these videos is NOT Flight 175 AND that video fakery was not taking place on 9/11. But that is the position of the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who has been reduced to defending the truth of a position that cannot possibly be true in the name of 9/11 Truth!

Jim Fetzer, seeing as how you ignored my earlier posts, let's just cut to the chase.

How can you claim that all of the videos and images have been "faked", yet use those same videos and images to analyze the impact/penetration?

If they've been "faked", aren't they completely invalid?

Cheers

[jfetzer]

Absolutely not. I presented four videos to demonstrate that video fakery of some kind was taking place. The "Theory of Ghostplane" was produced by Ace Baker in support of vide compositing. That method does not explain the data, however, when the witness reports are taken into account. Since I have laid out the evidence for video fakery again and again, I cannot understand why you would suggest that "the entire argument for holograms" is based upon a video that is not even arguing in support of holograms but for the use of video compositing. The case for video fakery entails that what is presented in these videos is fake, but how it was done could be using computer-generated images, video compositing, or a hologram. The CGI and VC alternatives, however, are inconsistent with the witnesses who reported seeing "a plane" (what they took to be a plane). since the use of CGI or of VC would not have produced the image of a plane for those witnesses to observe. The only alternative that does that is the use of a hologram, which, by the way, is powerfully supported by the fourth of those videos, entitled "Proof 'Plane' was Hologram that hit [on] 9/11". Notice how the left wing disappears and subsequently reappears. Q.E.D.

TM, the entire argument for holograms AFAIK is based upon a single video. "The Ghost Plane".
From this video and it's apparent "defiance" of the laws of physics, it's been decided that every other video and image is fake.

It's claimed that the aircraft seen in this video has been photoshopped, manipulated, faked.

In the video linked to by Jim Fetzer, "Theory of ghostplane":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

The author also demonstrates how the impact damage can also be faked.

Seeing as how you're obviously not going to address this post, I'll repeat the question (that you've also skipped over).

If this video is "fake" or "manipulated" or even a total invention, how can an entire thesis be based upon a piece of "evidence" where the alleged impactand penetration can be shown to be inserted?
Why is one aspect of the video completely accepted while another is utterly rejected when the entire piece is "suspect"?

You don't see the contradiction in using what you see as government supplied "evidence"? The oppurtunity to manipulate you?

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 29 2012, 10:09 AM

[rob balsamo]

Since it cannot be in two places at the same time, what we have MUST BE "video fakery"..............

This may not be QUITE as absurd as maintaining that the same plane could be in two places at the same time, but it comes close.

Sigh....

Since Jim apparently doesn't understand my answers to his questions which have been repeated for him nearly 9 times in various forms, it is clear he will never get it.

But for the readers, please click here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804182

Someone might also want to explain this video to Jim.... as apparently he doesn't understand it.




Jim, if you continue your strawmans, back on mod preview you go. I'm tired of your insults and having to repeat myself time after time. You are now officially in the category of a troll. I have given you enough latitude thus far. No more Mr Nice Guy.

[onesliceshort]

Did you actually read my post?? The post where I expanded on the contradiction of using the "Ghostplane" video as "proof" of anything?

Here it is again...

TM, the entire argument for holograms AFAIK is based upon a single video. "The Ghost Plane".
From this video and it's apparent "defiance" of the laws of physics, it's been decided that every other video and image is fake.

It's claimed that the aircraft seen in this video has been photoshopped, manipulated, faked.

In the video linked to by Jim Fetzer, "Theory of ghostplane":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

The author also demonstrates how the impact damage can also be faked.

Seeing as how you're obviously not going to address this post, I'll repeat the question.

If this video is "fake" or "manipulated" or even a total invention, how can an entire thesis be based upon a piece of "evidence" where the alleged impact and penetration can be shown to be inserted?
Why is one aspect of the video completely accepted while another is utterly rejected when the entire piece is "suspect"?

You don't see the contradiction in using what you see as government supplied "evidence"? The opportunity to manipulate you?

Your play on words regarding Rob's work is breathtaking Jim.

[jfetzer]

Rob,

Let me explain some of the elements of your position that appear to me to be completely indefensible, not politically but logically. A basic requirement of scientific reasoning is that conclusions have to be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. It seems to me that you are violating this requirement by citing only the evidence that is favorable to your side and thereby committing the fallacy known as "special pleading". Here are some examples of what I mean:

(1) Video fakery is any use of videos to convey a false impression. These videos have been used to claim that Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Since Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was, according to these videos, effortlessly entering the South Tower, even your own research establishing that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh implies that it cannot have been entering the South Tower, which in turn implies that video fakery was taking place. Proof #1.

(2) You insist that the speed of the aircraft shown in these videos--which is something like 560 mph, even if you want to quibble about it, which would have been impossible for a standard Boeing 767--would not have been impossible for a modified aircraft. But the use of a modified aircraft in a video that has been used to claim that Flight 175 hit the South Tower would necessarily be another form of video fakery, which you deny was taking place. That's Proof #2.

(3) The videos show an impossible entry into the building, which you maintain was correct based upon the animation provided by Purdue. But it shows the wrong number of floors intersected; does not represent the facade correctly; and ignores the internal structure of those floors. In fact, it does not even demonstrate that each floor was covered by 4-8" of concrete. But that means you are attempting to deny the use of video fakery using a fake video. Proof #3.

(4) In addition to the features I have previously enumerated, I have also noted that the plane has no strobe lights (John Lear), that it casts no shadow (Ben Collet), and that its left wing disappears and then reappears in some of these videos. To the best of my knowledge, you have never addressed any of these points, which means that, as with regard to (1), (2), and (3), you are selecting the evidence that supports your position and disregarding the rest. Proof #4.

(5) You are also committing Pilots for 9/11 Truth to NEVER accepting NPT ("No Plane Theory"), which means that none of the Boeings the government maintains crashed at these sites actually crashed at these sites, and to NEVER accepting "video fakery", even though your own position ENTAILS video fakery. So not only is your own position incoherent but you are committing Pilots to a position that is inconsistent with the available evidence. Proof #5.

(6) You deny knowledge of the existence of holographic technology, but apparently you have not made any effort to research the subject. I have pointed out that I have even interviewed a fellow who had recently taken a course on holography at Cambridge, named Stephen Brown, and given a link to the interview, where he assured me that the technology existed to project such an image under those conditions, which TM has confirmed, which is therefore Proof #6.

Do you have any idea how preposterous you come across by adopting these positions, by selecting evidence that supports your position but eliminating evidence that refutes it? You are taking a distinguished society of professionals, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and have committed it PERMANENTLY to a position that is PROVABLY FALSE in the name of "9/11 Truth". I am sorry, Rob, but you have turned yourself into a caricature of the man you used to be. And that is not the least of it.

Now you want to control public discussion of your and Pilots research, when there is no basis in the law or in common practice for attempting that. If John Lear allowed himself to be intimidated by your threats, that is a shame, not least of all because his views are closer to the truth than are yours. As a professional scholar, I know these issues and can better appreciate the absurdity of your position on this question as well. For the good of Pilots and 9/11 Truth, you should step down.

Jim

As is a 767. Certainly, far from being comparative to an "empty coke can".

lol... that's like saying an out of control car cannot penetrate a house because it's structural resistance is based on it's foundation. First you claim it's the entire weight of the structure which is considered, now it's the foundation? Make up your mind.

(by the way, the core columns were not the structure initially penetrated. Hence the reason they call them core columns.)

How many Trees do you know in which the light from the Sun can penetrate?

If you hit a baseball with a tree, the baseball will fly far regardless if the tree is rooted.

If you swing the WTC like a bat using a 767 as a baseball, do you think you'll hit a homerun? Perhaps the 767 will just crumple to the ground after contact?


lol....this is just pointless.


Jim,

I no longer have time to go round and round with you tonight, especially since you have evaded every single one of my questions, and STILL cannot recall accurately the speeds reported.

It's simple Jim, stop using our work to support your theories.

I respect the fact you wish to explore theories. Please respect my position. Call me obtuse, a petty intellectual tyrant, any name you choose (and there are many over the past few pages). But the bottom line is, you do not have permission to use our work as our work does not validate your theories. John Lear understand this, you should too.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/6185347?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p>9/11: John Lear Interview from PilotsFor911Truth on Vimeo.</p>

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 29 2012, 10:49 AM

[rob balsamo]

(1) Video fakery is any use of videos to convey a false impression. These videos have been used to claim that Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Since Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was, according to these videos, effortlessly entering the South Tower, even your own research establishing that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh implies that it cannot have been entering the South Tower, which in turn implies that video fakery was taking place. Proof #1.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804300

(2) You insist that the speed of the aircraft shown in these videos--which is something like 560 mph,

Jim, it's not "something like". Get it right or don't say it at all. Your attention to detail is lacking., especially when I have provided the data for you numerous times.

which would have been impossible for a standard Boeing 767--would not have been impossible for a modified aircraft. But the use of a modified aircraft in a video that has been used to claim that Flight 175 hit the South Tower would necessarily be another form of video fakery, which you deny was taking place. That's Proof #2.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804300

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804370

(3) The videos show an impossible entry into the building, which you maintain was correct based upon the animation provided by Purdue. But it shows the wrong number of floors intersected; does not represent the facade correctly; and ignores the internal structure of those floors. In fact, it does not even demonstrate that each floor was covered by 4-8" of concrete. But that means you are attempting to deny the use of video fakery using a fake video. Proof #3.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804373

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804376

(4) In addition to the features I have previously enumerated, I have also noted that the plane has no strobe lights (John Lear), that it casts no shadow (Ben Collet), and that its left wing disappears and then reappears in some of these videos. To the best of my knowledge, you have never addressed any of these points, which means that, as with regard to (1), (2), and (3), you are selecting the evidence that supports your position and disregarding the rest. Proof #4.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804418

(5) You are also committing Pilots for 9/11 Truth to NEVER accepting NPT ("No Plane Theory"), which means that none of the Boeings the government maintains crashed at these sites actually crashed at these sites, and to NEVER accepting "video fakery", even though your own position ENTAILS video fakery. So not only is your own position incoherent but you are committing Pilots to a position that is inconsistent with the available evidence. Proof #5.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804403

(6) You deny knowledge of the existence of holographic technology, but apparently you have not made any effort to research the subject. I have pointed out that I have even interviewed a fellow who had recently taken a course on holography at Cambridge, named Stephen Brown, and given a link to the interview, where he assured me that the technology existed to project such an image under those conditions, which TM has confirmed, which is therefore Proof #6.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804370

Do you have any idea how preposterous you come across by adopting these positions, by selecting evidence that supports your position but eliminating evidence that refutes it? You are taking a distinguished society of professionals, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and committing it PERMANENTLY to a position that is PROVABLY FALSE in the name of "9/11 Truth". I am sorry, Rob, but you have turned yourself into a caricature of the man you used to be. And that is not the least of it.

Goodbye Jim. Be sure to express that sentiment in every article you write which includes my work.

I'm tired of going round and round with you and enduring your ad homs and insults.

Have a nice day.

[tit2]

welds break. bolts shear. steel bends. a hologram does not have mass and hence cannot be used to explain the damage.

Flight 11 Crash (Wolfgang Staehle)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDaSpopJYEc

I guess this strange theory envisages that when the hologram reached the building at high speed, there is, at the same time, a detonation of explosives to simulate the damage allegedly done by the aircraft. But the explosions, resulting from the impact of the planes into the twin towers, do not show in my opinion, a detonation of explosives only. They show that this is mostly an explosion of jet fuel. I posted a video that explains it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcQBp264CME

It would have been necessary to put, beforehand, in the building, not only explosives, but also big quantity of fuel in the area that the hologram would reach to simulate the type of explosion and black smoke that we see in the twin towers after the impacts of aircrafts. In addition, the arrival, at high-speed, of the hologram on the tower must be perfectly synchronized with the detonation of explosives, otherwise everyone would see that the damage is done before or after the hologram has reached the building. Another question is how do the engine noise of the airplane without the airplane?

But if the holograms were used for the twin towers, it seems logical that they have also been used for the pentagon. In this case why there is no video showing the hologram of a plane for the Pentagon attack?

[amazed!]

Thanks for the NTSB calculations Rob. They were fairly clear, but do range from 473 knots to 507.

With a modified airframe it seems to be possible to be that far over Vmo, but I wonder about those big fans acting as airbrakes in the thick air. In the end it doesn't matter because what happened happened.

I think Jim is missing your point that the towers were so 'thin' that light passes through the interior making it appear to be almost hollow. By the exoskeleton, the aluminum fuselage WAS shredded, after nose gear made the first hole and engines made the second hole. Further, the landing gear and engine pieces were not planted on the street, but ended up right where they should be according to what we saw.