Your welcome Aldo. Its not hard to see whats going on here. Took me about 5 minutes.
Btw, nice signature. Being on the right side has many benefits.

Aerohead,

You have not responded to any of the evidence I have presented about the
impossible speed, impossible entry, the plane passing through its own length
into the building in the same number of frames it takes to pass through its
own length in air, the missing strobe lights, the absence of the damage to
the building as the plane passes through it. If you can about truth, which I
frankly doubt, then you will stop playing footsie with Aldo and try to come to
grips with the evidence. Otherwise, it tells me you really are simply posing
and are not serious about any of this. Just because you don't think I'm right
is not the same thing as proving that I am wrong. Take a look at this footage:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/57..._plane_hitting/

Now do you or Aldo or Craig or any of your chums seriously believe that this
is a real plane? I think it would be far more constructive to address evidence
instead of taking for granted that you know it all--which appears to be Aldo's
long suit--and study the evidence. The evidence I have cited here provides
rather convincing proof that video fakery was involved, which in turn provides
powerful evidence of collusion between the government and at least one TV
channel. I would like to believe you care more about exposing the truth about
9/11 than you do promoting unfounded falsehoods about me and others who
are doing everything we can to get to the bottom of this, which you are not.

Jim

SanderO,

If you will study the evidence I have been presenting instead of trying to evade it,
you will see that what "doesn't add up" is for Aldo and Ranke to attack me when I
not only support them but am arguably doing more to expose falsehoods across a
broader range of issues than they are willing to consider. Just take a look at what
I have presented about video fakery--the impossible speed, impossible entry, and
all that--and ask yourself how you could have been taken in for so long when the
proof is entirely apparent. And if you haven't studied it before, look at this footage:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/57..._plane_hitting/

Surely you don't seriously believe that you are watching a real plane in this video?
Too many members of the research community seem to think they have a lock on
some aspect of it. I admire Adlo and Craig for tracking down witnesses, which they
did very well, and for rebutting the attack by Chandler and Cole. But how does that
entitle them to attack me, when the only basis for their negative attitude is rumors
and false beliefs about my positions? How many times do I have to explain these
things before someone like you will understand that we are all dedicated to finding
the truth and that those with whom you disagree are not therefore agents of disinfo?

Jim

Aldo,

You are a bit much. Your reaction to my difference of opinion about the blue tarp
was hysterical in both senses: it was an absurd overreaction and also makes you
look dumb! I hate to say it, but you have offered no evidence to substantiate the
claim that I am spreading "disinfo" about video fakery, for example. If you can't
prove your claim, you should withdraw it and apologize for being such a blowhard.

As for the Scholars breakup, I wanted a "big tent" approach, while Steve and his
buddies wanted to focus on thermite plus explosives, which does not appear very
promising to me. Thermite is not an explosive, so for thermite to be explosive, it
has to be combined with explosives. Why don't you reduce your ignorance about
all these things by reading some of the articles I have published about it? Read,

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op"
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml
or
"The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/02/mi...kevin-ryan.html

There is a certain advantage to knowing what you are talking about. And I LOVE
this tactic of taking MY MILITARY SERVICE AND USING IT AGAINST ME! That
really tops the cake. I served as a commissioned officer in the USMC for four
years and resigned my commission to enter graduate school in 1966, where I
earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. And I have just
published my 29th book, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010)

What is there about me that leads you to suppose I am some kind of agent? I
have spent around twenty years doing research on JFK, including chairing or co-
chairing four national conferences and publishing three collections of studies by
experts on different aspects of the case. assassinationscience.com was my first
web site, where many of my articles on JFK are linked; and, in addition, I also
co-edit an on-line journal for advanced study at assassinationreseasrch.com.

Our research has exposed fraud in the evidence there, too, including that the
autopsy X-rays were altered to conceal a massive blow out to the back of his
head; that someone else's brains were substituted for those of JFK; and that
the home movie of the assassination, the Zapruder film, has been extensively
edited to conceal the true causes of his death. My most recent articles about
JFK are "The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox", "Forrest Gump on the grassy knoll",
and "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" Our research
has implicated the highest officials of the government in the assassination.

So if I am supposed to be some kind of agent, you might want to explain
why I have dedicated so much of my life to revealing truths and exposing
falsehoods about the assassination of JFK? It doesn't make a lot of sense
that I should be exposing governmental complicity there and yet serve as
an agent here. Let me offer an alternative explanation. It requires less
mental effort for you to spread false and malicious rumors about me than
it does to come to grips with the difficult issues I have been addressing.

The fault, deal Aldo, is in you, alas! Would you were not such a mediocrity.

Jim

Jim, what i think is...... you are obsessed with your theory
and with promoting it. Nearly every post contains reference
to your theory. What i cant figure out is, are you a disinfo
agent or just obsessed with this truly mega-debunked theory,
or just trying to steal hits for your site so you can
make money.
NPT has been debunked more times than Santa Clause and the
Nuclear Bomb theory combined. We have been over it ad nausium.


Obsession.
: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation.

Relax, chill man. Think.

Hello Jim,

I am a mod here but right now I don't have the time right now to go through this thread and split out the off-topic posts especially as a lot of them touch on the very issue that is topical - namely the silencing of certain views on certain websites.

If you want to discuss TV fakery, please start a new thread in the Alternative Theories forum and you will probably find a few people who will wander in and give their views. If you keep on raising this issue in this thread, eventually I will find the time to split off all your posts about it.

Thanks,
KP

I wish Jim would demonstrate for us a more useful application of his 'credentials'...

Jim I wish you would apply yourself to untangling and straightening out the focus issues at hand, here, at this time. Despite having seen so much grumbling against you, even combined with my own first hand experience... my invitation to you to rise above it and really put your shoulder into it... is still honest and gentlemanly.

Trouble arrives to my thoughts, the moment I consider how far back your peculiar behavior has been in-the-mix. To this very day, I myself carry a great big 'question mark' with your name ever since I witnessed (within six feet) your curious mutual grinning exchange with Greg Jenkins. Don't take it personal... Greg has had ever since a great big question mark with his name too.

But see... what I'm doing right now... wandering off-topic... is exactly what many people find frustrating about your tendency to insert and draw other people, like myself here even, into such an extreme time hog... away from the subject at hand.

For myself, as an aircraft builder and mechanic... I personally tend to cling to details highlighting weight and balance related physics, and serial number documentation flow. My interests ARE disproportionate, vs. the way, say an ATC might fixate upon ground based radar sweep technicalities and the signal data collection and storage equipment. Or the way an avionics technician (a real one) can really get down and dirty parsing the on-board sensor wire harnesses and signal collation/display/record units.

The reason I think that Craig, Aldo and others that make up CIT are such a natural fit to this here pilots forum... is a recognition that each other is carrying a large chunk of, largely accurate, (because it's cross-reference-able, holographic like) corroboration. As also a pilot myself, though with nowhere near the seat-time and type as Rob... I CAN STILL holographically confirm that he is vastly more correct than Chandler/Coal. As a part time gumshoe, I can also recognize the substantial investment and value of what CIT has done. Trouble is, no one at 9blog is ever going to here me say that anymore, because I was banned from that forum long ago... for getting down right cursing pissed with people who would oft come along and drag the topic at hand into some shadowy smoke-filled forest of mirrors.

I find it a touch ironic, which makes me giggle a bit, that your 'credentials' and behavior are at such odds. When people call you 'Jabba the Hut', or tease you as-if a 'Fester'... I do giggle a bit. I giggle, because the truth must thread a joke someway somehow, for it to actually be funny. I giggle only, instead if downright belly-laugh, for not really knowing for sure if you just have an unfortunate tendency to fray the same tiny but noticeable thread, in an otherwise gigantic and fine tapestry sadly going unnoticed? Or, I giggle, because it wouldn't surprise me to discover someday you're really just a great big single-minded one-liner rope, ironically actually docking a ship of state to the shore of smoky-mirror forest land.

You'd, you would even have to admit, that if such a story where told (if not about you personally, of course)... that that would be disturbing irony. Hypocritically deceptive and devious, if in fact the rope was cognitive and actually knew what it was doing all along.

You agree, don't you, that such 'story telling' would be quite possible... even highly 'plausible' if/when considering the statistics scientifically in light of the stakes at hand? If so, and you wish to hold onto your behavior unmodified with an arrested evolution.... then callous-up and get even more used to the giggles, laughter... and crude cursing... because I will on one hand champion your cause to stay right here... inserted into the middle of this here thread... to remain in the arena for the rest of us competitors... to better hone ALL our skills, real time, and for the high stakes.

I've got my pen ready, just like my battle axe is ready... and a few other nasties tucked into my waistband. I'd rather spend some time untangling Chandler/Cole. I'd rather spend some time arraying witness testimonies on a kind of spread sheet, cross referencing them and highlighting categories of credibility, corroboration, conflict and implausibility.

I'd rather spend some of my time arraying the serial number question. Arraying the log book question. Identifying actual personnel who supposedly had the last contact with the craft on the ground checking the tire pressure, topping off the fuel tanks, and pushing back the nose wheel from the ramp (and signing the log book).

I'd also rather be waxing my globe hopping seaplane operation... but I also need to rebuild my chicken coop and clean the pig pen no matter what.

You might have other focus interests... that's cool. With any good chance... might you try to show us how exactly it does FIT in some why into the holograph at hand. Should you wish to fester contentiously and 'at-odds' with the preponderance here... I might turn 'twitchy', dog fight into a kill position... and open up my guns for whatever it's worth.

Just thought I'd lay it out on the line... you know... where I'm coming from... and what kind of guy I can be, either way.

Frankly, I don't remember this woman, but what she says re: Greg Jaynes is
absurd. He and I nearly came to blows. I found his performance despicable.
So how am I supposed to defend myself against these unfounded allegations?

My public life is very much an open book. My curriculum vita is available here:

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

I have given hundred of interviews about 9/11, JFK, and Wellstone many places.
If you enter "Jim Fetzer" on google, you will find perhaps a hundred of videos of
presentations I've made. A sampler of my research with a few bonus selections:

ON CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES:

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

"Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Birds-of-...100121-980.html

"Conspiracies and Conspiracism"
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6047.shtml

ON THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK:

"Reasoning about Assassinations"
http://assassinationscience.com/ReasoningA...assinations.pdf

"The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco" (with Jim Marrs)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTM...091116-941.html

"RECLAIMING HISTORY: A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public"
http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html

ON THE ASSASSINATION OF RFK:

"JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn't"
http://www.voltairenet.org/article165721.html

"RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador"
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6464.shtml

ON THE FAKING OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM:

"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ji..._of_jfk_fil.htm

"Mary in the Street - Revisited"
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-...-090324-48.html

MORE RECENT WORK ON FILM FAKERY:

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/wh...nt-hill-or.html

Plus John Costella has a nice tutorial into to Z-film fakery:

"THE JFK ASSASSINATION FILM HOAX: AN INTRODUCTION"
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

and there is a 66-part series about the Duluth conference I organized under
the title, "Zapruder Fakery", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY

ON WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11:

"Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html

"Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html

"Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?"
http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621

ON WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TWIN TOWERS:

"9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/91...arlor-game.html

"An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs...-the-wtc-on-911

"Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html

ON WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON:

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/wh...t-pentagon.html

"Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...66571196607580#

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

ON VIDEO FAKERY IN NEW YORK:

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof...080729-132.html

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

ON PLANES OR NO PLANES (not mine either, but excellent related studies):

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-...100811-366.html

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16924

Killtown on Shanksville,
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2010/10/guest...fetzer-mon.html

ON THE DEATH OF PAUL WELLSTONE:

"The Senator Wellstone Assassination"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vbf49kzWFw

"The NTSB Failed Wellstone" (with John P. Costella)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...wellstone.shtml

"WELLSTONE: THEY KILLED HIM" (from Snowshoe Films)
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/wellstone/

In addition, of course, I have edited three books on JFK, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998),
MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), as well
as a co-authored book on Wellstone, AMERICAN ASSASSINATION: THE STRANGE DEATH
OF SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE (2004), and edited the first book from Scholars for 9/11 Truth,
THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) as well as a DVD, "The Science and Politics of 9/11", which
presents the proceedings of the Madison conference, which I organized and moderated.

Moreover, I have a public issues web site, http://assassinationscience.com, and an on-line
journal for advanced study of the death of JFK (which I co-edit with John P. Costella, Ph.D.)
at http://assassinationresearch.com. I host a radio show, "The Real Deal", three times a
week, which is archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. I have a new blog with some
of my best work at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. And of course I manage Scholars'
web site at http://911scholars.org and its forum at http://911scholars.ning.com. If I am
an op, I must be doing something wrong, given the content and significance of my work.

Now, if I am no longer the issue, perhaps we can return to issues related to 9/11, which
includes attacks on those who are conducting research on false or misleading grounds?

Jim

I'll second that Erin. Well said.

Thanks, KP50. I have been just the least bit floored by the ad hominem attacks from Aldo, aerohead and
SanderO. I really expected more on this forum. I have a thread on video fakery already going at ATS, as
I believe I have mentioned previously, at www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread659196/pg1 If anyone
wants to participate, they can join ATS and post. There would be no point in replicating it all here. But I
appreciate the consideration you have shown by making the suggestion. I am a fan of Pilots. Thanks.

Rob,

I would make more sense if you were to split off the last two from aerohead and
ErinMyers, to which I was replying. Having my responses without their posts is a
bit odd. When you read the thread carefully, you will see why I replied to them
with a history of my efforts to expose the truth about JFK, 9/11, and Wellstone. I
am being accused of being some kind of disinfo op, which is simply absurd, where
I cannot see any reasonable way to reply other than by demonstrating that what
I have been doing with research and publication contradicts any claim of that kind.

Jim

amazed,

There are around 40 videos, to the best of my knowledge, none of which show anything contrary to the impossible speed (which a study by Pilots has confirmed), the impossible entry (see this slow-mo version: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/57..._plane_hitting/ ), the missing (or non-functioning) strobe lights (an observation first made by John Lear), and the fact that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air (which would be possible only if a massive steel-and-concrete building poses no more resistance to its path of flight than air)! Once you have the basic footage fixed, the creation of addition versions that show the same phenomena, I take it, is relatively effortless. If there were no bodies aboard, then of course that is another form of fakery. But the key point is that no real aircraft could perform the feats attributed to this one, if we take the video to be genuine. The only "evidence" we have of a 767 hitting the ST contradicts that one did, which means we are not dealing with a real plane.

Jim

Jim

I'm a pilot and have absolutely no technical knowledge about videos and such. As I said, for the sake of argument I accept that at least 1 video was altered somehow or the other. But I do not see how 40 videos could all be altered. I'm sure I have not seen all 40 of them, but I'm pretty sure I've seen maybe a dozen versions from different sources of the second strike at WTC. I have seen only 1 video of the first strike, very brief, and taken from a fixed parking lot camera.

I agree with you about the impossible speeds mentioned, and most others do too. I am personally so suspicious of the radar dated provided by the govt that I consider it more or less irrelevant.

The difference between my theory and yours, perhaps, is that I think a real Boeing could do exactly what we saw, or think we saw.

Further, I think that a 350 knot 767 might easily have penetrated the exoskeleton of the towers, just as one of the engineers described, comparing the exoskeleton to mosquito netting, and the airplane to a pencil being thrust through it.

I see the steel exoskeleton with its 2 foot windows and 40" centers as being a type of steel sieve or strainer. I see it entirely possible, even likely, that the soft aluminum fuselage, led by heavy steel nosewheel landing gear would look pretty much like what we saw. The various steel parts, including large engines and main landing gear assemblies, penetrated the exoskeleton and the vast aluminum sheets were literally shredded by whatever steel structure remained after the initial penetration. I don't see the case of the plane "bouncing off" the building as being persuasive or likely.

Just curious as to your take on the various heavy pieces of the airplane, engine and landing gear, being found downfield?

amazed,

Thanks for responding. You might want to begin with the study from Pilots about the impossible speed:

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

Here is another study that relates to the impossible entry of the plane, which shows no deceleration:

"9/11 Experiments: The Arbiter of Competing Hypotheses"
http://911scholars.ning.com/video/911-expe...-the-arbitrator

Jack White has a study about the engine part found at Church & Murray, which I tried to upload here:

"Church & Murry: Pick Up or Delivery?"
try: www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread659196/pg4 [but it seems to be encrypted somehow]

which includes FOX NEWS footage of a van at that location and men in FBI vests unloading something
heavy. The part, which I take it came from a 737, was on a sidewalk and under a steel scaffolding. It
appears the area was closed off with police tape before the event had even occurred. If we have mail
boxes here--which I believe we do--if you can send me your email address, I can send more on this.

Jim

People can live whole their life in delusions, but it is not necessary to persuade others to do so too.

Yes, I'll send you my email through pm.

I would put NOTHING past the perpetrators of this event, including placing debris here and there to bolster their story. I'm certain that was the case at the Pentagon, but not so sure about 'round Manhattan. I've seen work by some (don't know who) which makes it appear that the engine and landing gear pieces seem to be located at a logical place considering the observed trajectory of those pieces during the impact.

Nonetheless, I'll have a look at what you send.

In my view, I try to assume the mindset of a person or persons who planned and executed the events. It seems to me that if one is going to tell a story such as that involved in Vigilant Guardian--flying passenger jets into high rise office buildings, why NOT fly a few jets into the highest buildings in Manhattan? And buildings pregnant with symbology and even numerology?

Considering the state of GPS navigation and autopilots, it would be the proverbial cake walk.

And from the criminal perspective, maybe it's just me because I have tried for years now, but I fail to see the advantage gained by pretending to have the event solely through manipulation of certain video feeds? I mean anybody should realize that everybody and their brother with a camera would be filming after that first strike.

Sounds more like "Debate" than "Research"?

I have almost grown weary from trying to debate those who are willfully ignorant and refuse to admit an error or honor scientific and engineering principles.

I post below an email I received from Gordon Ross PE who published a paper at http://www.journalof911studies.com/ which Fetzer used to be associated with until he Ryan and Jones got into a dispute. Frankly I have no interest in jumping into the fray with intelligent but clearly irrational people. You simply cannot win a debate... and it becomes a waste of time.

Gordon Ross, PE (member of AE911T) writes this past June: My Bold

"Hi Jeffrey,

Please accept my apologies for not responding to your e-mail.

I have not been actively involved in the truth movement for some time because of a number of reasons but after reading your e-mail I did intend to reply.

The reasons for my silence were/are varied. My personal circumstances were the primary reason but I was also fed up with the internal politics of the truth movement and with being, in effect, forced to argue with butchers, bakers and candlestickmakers about subjects of which they knew and understood little or nothing.

By internal politics I mean, for example the split that arose from the work of the CIT on the North/South flight path. Their work represents a far more convincing argument to me than those who support or partially support the official flight path story. I was also involved in discussions with several individuals on varied subjects such as analysis of the seismic evidemce and WTC destruction.
It appeared to me that in these cases there were sections of the truth movement who refused to consider alternative arguments or viewpoints and were content with simply repeating their own beliefs again and again and again. Resolution of the debate was achieved with banning and gagging orders.

However, your e-mail deserves a response. I totally agree with your statement when you say
" So my conclusion is that there was some funny business, but it was a rather simple operations because the design lent itself to a easy take down. Gravity did it once the columns were displaced and a few corner dissociated from the facades. "

I believe that the known physical and visual evidence conforms to the theory that charges were placed on the outer core columns adjacent to their welded connections every third storey, and on the corner perimeter columns every fifteen to twenty storeys.

The dust and debris was expelled every third storey
It emerged firstly on the mid faces of the towers
The distinct pattern of flashes of light accompanied by changes in the colour and character of the smoke in areas which then became seats of failure during the collapse
petallling of the core column ends
opposite concave faces on the column ends
spheroids found by NIST then only mentioned in an obscure part of their report
the bicoloured chips discovered by Prof Jones
I could go on but all of the evidence supports your and my argument on the WTC destruction.

All of these points were raised in my video presentation in 2006 and I still stand by that analysis.

With hindsight I made a mistake in my Momentum Transfer article by trying to allow direct comparison with the shit written by Bazant and Greening. The upper section did not act as a single mass. If I was in the same position now as I was when I wrote it I would have dismissed that argument out of hand and instead relied on the physical evidence and an argument very similar to yours.
Once again, I apologise for my late reply. I don't think you will want to use it anywhere else but if you do please feel free. I hope this helps or at least gives you some encouragement that we have independently arrived at the same conclusion,

Gordon."

You have to expand your horizons…

It is not about being right...it is about not being wrong...

In the original “Arts” and “Crafts”…a Master was a person who earned the right to be “elected” as a Grand-master or Guild-Master based upon his mastership or master piece…

I will get into more detail on the history thread…

Jim:

I DO appreciate your taking umbrage to the insinuations that you're either not living up to your credentials, or worse, playing them like cards in a high-stakes game of cloak and dagger. You simply have to take my word for it, I do appreciate you expression of feeling offended.

Yet I ask you to please consider first, a further explanation of my perspective... and than, consider my simple question to follow:

The "Woods vs. Jenkins" showdown was viewed by me from the very start as a contest that was not. Neither party impressed me. Neither party won my support. Neither party took from the "contest" my applause. It was a non-contest... as far as I saw it.

Jenkins tried to pull a few maneuvers that I saw as 'borderline' devious, or maybe he was just caught up in the excitement of the chase (unfortunately, I have no proof either way).

In the opposite corner however, it sure seemed to me that Woods was dreadfully unprepared on game day (I sat with her for more than an hour, before the videotaped bout, and then another hour after, and yet still felt something close to pity, maybe?, for her inability to soundly defend herself). I do in-fact know a thing or two about the subject she was flirting with... but yet she, for whatever reason, simply could not or would not convey to me that she felt any obligation to share third-party corroborating reference. In science, particularly questions of science related to 911... I simply have no time left anymore for people who even remotely fain some kind of 'hush-hush it's a secret' propriety over source and reference material. If it was actually a matter of 'could not', than she deserved a big flashing red 'Game Over'.

So as far as I'm concerned, she lost that bout all on her own.

Yet let's return to Jenkins for a moment, (and not "Jaynes" as you've typo-ed numerous times, damn it. Now please, stop that. Sure, the decades of hard work has you a bit strung out, me too, but let's try harder not to confusingly juxtapose JFK and 911 personalities). However, I do know for curtain that you know exactly who you meant... because you refer to the moment you 'were about to come to blows'. That would have been really bad, right there in the middle of the press club. Would have been a really unsavory negative-press bonanza against the movement of people seeking the truth about 911. If the restraint was all totally within your own power... might the tipping point have been that tiny tinny little grin Greg gave you six inches from your nose... right before you would have popped him?

Maybe it was nothing more than a tension relief valve by Greg. I know something about the 'nervous giggles'... but the timing was profoundly uncanny.

One hell of a coincidence. So long as the entire incident was completely unscripted and there was no attempt to stage anything by either of you.

Now... if you would like to rest the entire situation upon innocent misunderstanding on your part... and that at least YOU were not up to any shenanigans that evening... cool. Maybe you and I could re-discover each other's works and interests constructively building positively forward.

But take note... I will not tolerate additional convolutions by you in the Woods/Jenkins episodes. This is the last chance you and I would have to clear this up, at least with any of my assistance. Mind you, Jenkins' question-mark is much bigger than yours, for whatever my opinion is worth. But I'm volatile enough as it is, if you're supposed to be the wise man... than I can't (for my own good) hang out with you if you don't act like a wise man yourself.

Take care, and just know that I have as little time to dwell on this old history just as you probably have better things to do too. So, if you really want to put this passage to bed and behind us... let's get it done quick and simple.

Do you remember Greg's grin at you, and your own grin in return?

Erin

Thanks Erin for the mention of Greg Jenkins. I found his interview with Wood and in it you can understand what is going on with her.

She exposes her flawed observations especially in the denial that almost 200,000 tons of steel was recycled not to mention that the total debris removed was 1,662,000 tons from the site.

garbage in = garbage out

not getting into this fray, we've all been doing this for too long, but that's a typo right?

Erin,

Thanks for the "Jenkins" correction. At my age, it is a wonder I get anything right. You could be
correct about a smirk from him and a grimace from me. I thought his actions were despicable and
inferred--quite possibly mistakenly!--that you were suggesting he and I were someone on the same
side. That bothered me. Judy was exhausted from a long drive and had no idea that he was going
to interview her. Judy's style is rather Socratic in raising questions rather than delivering lectures
which is more my form. I had invited her to The National Press Club because I was speaking and
discussing some of her work, where this whole business with Jenkins also caught me by surprise.
So you can tell me if this helps to bridge the gap between us regarding the events of that evening.

Thanks for pursuing this. I think I now understand better where you are coming from. Good job!

Jim

A basic desideratum of criticism is to be sure you know the argument you are attempting to defeat.
Why don't you explain my arguments and tell us how these videos are supposed to defeat them? As
far as I can see, they do nothing of the sort, but there seem to be some who are eager to agree in
spite of the evidence. Since John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, and a study by
Pilots for 9/11 Truth both support the impossible speed of the plane shown in the videos, how does
this response cope with that question? The impossible entry in defiance of Newton's laws cannot be
defeated by showing the plane entering the building in defiance of Newton's laws. So what exactly
do you think you are proving here? Do you think the plane should pass through its own length into
the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air? That implies
that this massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance to the plane's trajectory
than air. If you think this is a real plane, then my hats off to you. Some of us have a far greater
tolerance for fantasy than do I. You may be the best example of living in delusion on this thread.

SanderO, I realize you are out to trash anyone who's views make you uncomfortable, but this
was a hit piece. It was edited quite deliberately to create the impression she is OBVIOUSLY
wrong. But if she is wrong, it is by no means obvious. You could learn more about 9/11 if you
were to study the massive evidence she has accumulated at her site, http://drjudywood.com. I
am afraid that the buildings were actually destroyed below ground level and that very peculiar
damage to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, not to mention the "toasted cars", has not been
explained by the conventional explanations coming from Scholars for Truth and Justice. In my
opinion, they have not even explained the conversion of the conversion of most of these 500,000
ton buildings into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. Judy has an hypothesis that requires
more substantiation and elaboration, but it has more potential to explain the odd damage to the
other buildings and the "toasted cars" than Jenkins and others would allow. I think you, SanderO,
are running the kinds of risks that others have run when they attack views they don't understand.

I am not uncomfortable, but thank you for your concern.

Perhaps we can't get to explaining what happened in those 10-15 seconds it took for the buildings to be destroyed of we can't agree on what we are seeing. Woods sees no collapse.. she sees everything dustified. There were 1,662,000 tones of debris removed from the site in the clean up... and it wasn't all done with vacuum cleaners.

"Martin Bellew, Director of the Bureau of Waste Disposal, New York Department of
Sanitation states in an article on the AWPA website:
“200,000 tons of steel were recycled directly from Ground Zero to various
metal recyclers. The Fresh Kills Landfill received approximately 1.4 million
tons of WTC debris of which 200,000 tons of steel were recycled by a
recycling vendor (Hugo Neu Schnitzer).” 22
Phillips & Jordan, Inc. reported:
“The last debris was processed on July 26, 2002, day 321 of the project. At
the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission: 1,462,000 tons of debris had
been received and processed, 35,000 tons of steel had been removed
(165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero).” 23
Thus the total amount of debris is 1,662,000 tons. "

I believe this was in the Gregory Urich Paper you or your former colleagues published???

Hi Jim! I just want to say that I keep hearing how this NPT has been debunked thousands of times. Well I have read and looked at lots of evidence and I'm not sure what the hell everyone is talking about. I think it is possible that real planes were used and they faked the videos to look like the they wanted it to. But if your faking it why not just fake it all? No plane at Shanksville. No plane at the Pentagon. Why would anyone expect there to be any at NY?

BTW I have looked at lots of your JFK research. Spot on!! I thought the Zapruder fakery you did with Jack White and the others was awsome. Opened up a whole new view of things.

I would love to pick your mind on a few things.

Hi SandersO,

why are you saying this?

"Woods sees no collapse.. she sees everything dustified."


Cheers

She said it on an interview.

The fact that Woods' legal efforts were accepted at the circuit level and rejected at the appellate level says something, considering that the effort by the government at coverup is huge.

It just be a coincidence, but it might not.

I am not a lawyer, but getting a case dismissed I believe makes it much harder for one with the same "charges" to be brought. The courts will dismiss it saying.... we've already decided there is no merit.

If this IS true... and I would like lawyers to weigh in on this... it could either be a strategy to keep 911 evidence out of a court... by introducing an obvious frivolous case and "ruining" others from bring suit.... or it was an ill conceived egotistical none headed legal move.

I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding too.

My oh-oh meter went off when she decided to file a Qui Tam suit. That was the same trick Bev Harris pulled with her BBV voting scam. It's also the type of law suit you file if you want to make a personal financial gain from the litigation.

Listen, I don't think Judy is a flawless person, but I have had extensive interaction with her in the past and have no doubt at all that her efforts to bring the truth to the American people are sincere. Her attorney, Jerry Leaphart, is completely dedicated and brilliant, and some of her strongest supporters, such as John Lear and Morgan Reynolds, are also of exceptional merit. There is no better site to familiarize yourself with the evidence of what happened at the WTC than http://drjudywood.com. While I do not advocate directed energy weapons as having been established as the explanation for what happened at the WTC, the features she emphasizes--the dustification, the time element, the damage to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, as well as the "toasted cars"--has convinced me and others that explanations by means of thermite and conventional explosives are most unlikely to hold the key to understanding the demolition of the WTC. You will learn a great deal from visiting her site.

Sander, Since I have interviewed Judy fifteen or more times and featured her as a speaker at the Madison conference on "The Science and Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not", in 2007, which you can watch for yourself on the DVD linked to Scholars for 9/11 Truth at http://911scholars.org. I think it is very bad form for you to make that claim, which is an exaggeration. It appears to me you are creating a straw man to knock down. Give me a link to the interview, since you claim to have heard it, and I will check it out. In the meanwhile, if you visit http://drjudywood.com and study the astounding photographic and other evidence she has amassed there, I think you will learn more about the effects that have to be explained, which I have just outlined in my last post. Send me your link and I hope that you will follow-up mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7PC95XGEk

I have look at all of Judy Woods work on her web site several times. It is a good collection of stills.

911 Free Forum's Major Tom and femr2 have a better collection of images and videos and many annotated and analyzed.

Judy Wood is off the reservation in my opinion on 911.

The Greg Jenkin's hit piece! Brilliant, SanderO. Thanks a lot for sending that! Nice touch.

The totals you are talking about are from the World Trade Center, not just the Twin Towers. Fr. Frank Morales, an Episcopal priest from St. Mark's near "ground zero", was a first responder and observed (on two occasions) that the buildings were both reduced to "below ground level". So you might want to cut her some slack.

That's long past. Her work fails and it's been proven to my satisfaction.

To refresh:

Hi SandersO,

why are you saying this?

"Woods sees no collapse.. she sees everything dustified."

_____________________________

OK. Fine.

Have you asked her what she mean by "no collapse", in comparison to your strange theory

about 'gravity driven collapse'?


1) Have you asked her if she only sees "everything dustified", that is in fact dustified?

2) and again, have you asked her if she only sees everything not dustified, as in fact being material not dustified?

3) Have you asked her that when she sees "everything dustified", that this would include everything that's not dustified?


If you have not asked her these questions, would you please tell us why you chose to give us the impression that she

was referring to the number 3 option, as you seem to imply by your words quoted above!


It looks to me as if you're trying very hard, and by very devious means, to make her look like a fool,

but it seems quite obvious to me that it is you yourself who are now being revealed to be the true fool.

Please feel free to try to d(j)ustify yourself!

Cheers

Look, I have my hands full here without attempting to justify Judy's work, whcih
I find extremely interesting. The exaggeration of someone else's position to make
it easier to attack is called "the straw man". I spent 35 years teaching students to
avoid elementary fallacies like this, where your characterization of Judy's work is
an example. We don't know how the Twin Towers were destroyed and she may
be wrong about the use of directed energy weapons, but they have been around
long enough that the could have been used, where the case has not been proven.

It does not appear to me that you are interested in becoming more familiar with
her work, which is my subjective impression from posts like this one. My interest
in her work derives from the brilliant job she has done collating photos and other
studies of the effects of the attack on the World Trade Center that an acceptable
theory would have to explain. Those include the extent of the dustification, the
odd damage to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 as well as the "toasted cars".
If you have a theory that can explain all of this, let me know, because I don't.

Jim, I don't follow you. Why on earth are you addressing this to me?

Should it not be bleeding obvious that i'm responding to SandersO!!

Take a second look Jim, and start afresh ....please!

Cheers

Human behavior is always fascinating.

In some places, the mere mention of Woods is tantamount to heresy.

Yes, dogma is NOT limited to religious groups.

DYEW

Away from this cyber world, I have been called Cynical Dick for many years, because I am known for my cynical view of life in general.

But your cynicism regarding Woods filing the Qui Tam suit makes me look like a Cub Scout.

Quick research of definitions and history show that a large part of the reason for the Qui Tam action (in modern law) is the protection of whistle blowers, and there have been several court decisions affirming that.

The financial benefit to Woods would have been neglible, but the benefits to helping discover the truth were potentially huge. That is, if her action had prevailed, it might have been made public as to whether and why certain companies specializing in DEW provided "assistants" to NIST to possibly control the direction of the agency's "research" into the events of the day. IF she is right, the coverup was engineered by certain for profit companies.

But your "instincts" tell you that she took the action for financial gain.

Your bias and prejudice are obvious. Why, I haven't a clue. But it is obvious you do not like the woman, or you do not like the questions she asks. Shame on you.

The first video not just in my opinion clearly shows significant deceleration. The second quite significant sway of the building consistent with impact of something heavy from the right direction. So I'm quite not sure what interpretation of Newton's laws you mean... The speed of the plane is realy very high as confirm multiple sources including official ones. In fact first when I came to this forum years ago I came with the question about "UA175" almost unbelievable speed, later I even persuaded the same author of the videos I posted to make 3D simulation based on available videos to exactly determine booth trajectory (btw the videos fit each other) and speed and it was found out that the impact speed is 250+ m/s relatively to the buildings wall and the impact angle is almost perpendicular. You really believe a plane with such speed can't penetrate through "wall" of which almost half of the surface are just windows and the rest in form of columns is 0.25 inch thick steel (I really don't know what means "massive" for you) moreover easily dislodgable from its position because bolted just with 4 bolts on the connections. I must say that sustained trolling usually ends with holydays at this forum, so if you like it please keep it strictly here.

I would love to interview her or get her into a discussion at the 911 Free Forum, here or at Deep Politics. She's a no show.

I didn't consider the Jenkins interview a hit piece. She, BY HER OWN WORDS came off like an incompetent person and I base my understanding of her dustification by what SHE said.

Calling Judy, Calling Judy.