NOVANEWS
9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about “Absurdities”
Re: “9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New-York Theory”
Anthony,
Just for the record, you and I have gone round and round over this for years–where you have saved up every exchange we ever had so you could cull them for quotes taken out of context, exaggerate my positions, and suppress information about my actual views. As an example, you claim I have a lot of articles with similar names, but you doesn’t actually cite the most important among them,
“New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″
Moreover, you love to shade the truth. Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight. You suppress the information that the speed of the plane in the videos (of 560 mph) appears to have been a lapse by using its cruising speed at 35,000 feet as if it could be attained at 700-1,000 feet as well, where the air is three times as dense and the turbines cannot suck the air through them, which causes them to function as breaks.
“Fight 175” entering the South Tower
Nor do you mention that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that this was an aerodynamically impossible speed for a Boeing 767, where you loves to talk about “special planes”. But no matter how “special”, no plane could have entered the building in violation of Newton’s laws. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, while seats, bodies, and luggage fell to the ground. The engines would have made it into the building, but not most of the rest of a highly fragile aluminum “flying beer can”.
Your claims are preposterous. An obvious study to have cited, were you actually an honest broker, would have been Pilots’ study,
“9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed”
You know better than you pretend, where my most recent articles were published at Veterans Today, which apparently enraged you. I do not understand your proprietary interest in all this, but it clearly exists–and his arguments, when properly understood and placed in context minus the exaggerations and distortions–are without merit. See, for example,
But most of all, “9/11 Intercepted” from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which shows that a Boeing 767 would have been unmanageable and fallen apart at the speed shown in those videos.
How many of these studies have you actually read, Anthony? Because they provide a framework and background for understanding video fakery:
Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11″
David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”
“Flight 11” approaching the North Tower
Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”
Jim Fetzer, “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″
Killtown, What didn’t happen at Shanksville
Your article and video are full of partial evidence and half-truths, which I fear is a form of deliberate misinformation. The number of those who would have have to be “in on it” regarding the Naudet video, for example, is grossly exaggerated. Most of those involved in something like this have no idea that what they are doing is not on “the up and up”.
I notice you do not mention a study by Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”, which supports the opposite conclusion, where I have already explained to you why it was important that the shot be OUT OF FOCUS to not give away the missing plane. Something was flying by, but it does not appear to have been a Boeing 767.
Your reliance upon the Eric Salter study is especially revealing. Whether what Salter is alleged to have found is 8% or even 18% deceleration, that is not going to explain why it the plane’s velocity did not fall to zero. The plane was intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which, of course, were also filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which, at 208′ x 208′, represents an acre of concrete apiece.
As I explain in “More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity” (with a diagram), they would have created enormous horizontal resistance. The windows were only 18″ wide and the support columns were a meter apart. There were no windows between floors, so most of the facade was steel, which is far more dense than aluminum. The video is a fantasy.
As I have challenged you before without receiving any response, how would it be possible for the plane–in both Hezarkhani and Faribanks’ videos–to pass through their own length into the building in the same number of frames they pass through their own length in air? This is a perfect example of how you skip over and exclude evidence you don’t like.
That result proves that the videos are fake (because it would be impossible unless those 500,000 ton buildings provided no more resistance to the plane’s trajectory than air) but also demonstrates that there was no deceleration and that Stalter’s study is wrong. And of course you ignore that it was necessary to fake the plane
(1) to insure that it actually hit the building, which many members of Pilots were unable to accomplish with repeated trials;
(2) that it penetrate completely inside of it in order to create the false impression of a cause for the buildings’ collapse; and,
(3) only then “exploded”, which had to be precisely coordinated in time to account for the explosions in the sub-basements.
Those occurred 14 and 17 second BEFORE reverberations from those alleged impacts, as I have explained in “Seven Questions about 9/11″ and “9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”, in case you missed it, which is easily accessible and includes the following data table:
Which raises obvious questions about what you think you is doing here and why you commit so many straw man, special pleading, and ad hominem arguments. But on this point we can agree: There certainly is a lot of disinformation out there!
Jim
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer
Related Posts:
-
9/11: “No Planes” v. Planes and Controlled Demolition
-
OBAMA – WHEN CONSPIRACIES GO TOO FAR
-
GORDON DUFF: RESURRECTING THE WIKI-CORPSE
-
GORDON DUFF: 9/11, THE BILL IS DUE
-
Friends of Israel: Enemies Inside the Gates
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=127803
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Notices
Posted by Jim Fetzer on Aug 3 2011, With 547 Reads, Filed under Of Interest, ZPicks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
-
Truth Seeker
This infighting is exactly what those who contrived 911 want. All that has to be proven is that the Official Government story was impossible, then we put those who contrived the story in congressional hearings and make them tell us how it was done.
You will never get the truth as long as the 911 truth movement is arguing how it was done.
Planes no planes who cares… plane fuel cannot melt steal end of story!-
Jim Fetzer
If we can’t sort this out among ourselves, how are we going to convince the rest of the world?
-
Truth Seeker
Much of the rest of the world knows 911 was scam. All that they have to do is observe the police state that is being created in its name. Also, why play the game of endless argument of how it was done? This is exactly why JFK was never solved or forced back into investigation. If the public was simply educated on the falsity of the Official Story, a consensus would/will have/be gathered and the government would have to eventually respond.
This is exactly why Italian 911 researcher Massimo Mazzucco will not be sucked into the game of explaining how it was done. He doesn’t want to be marginalized by the media, the government or the supporters of the official story.
He says in his documentaries he tries to just show the facts. He says why should the public be responsible for explain how it was done, they do not have the resources and tools necessary, that should be up to the authorities or the Bush Administration and their cohorts to explain. He further states that 911 Commission Report and the JFK Warren Reports have a lot in common in that they are reports design to conceal than to revile. They expect the public to buy a totally fictitious story and those who question it are conspiracy nuts.
He feels all the public needs to do is prove that the Official Government story is false or a lie. He explains that all wars since the 1800’s have been under false pretenses and 911 is no exception. He asks the question…, is it more patriotic to challenge the official story when we know it is a lie or to turn a blind eye, especially if you know there are rouge elements in the US Government?
Interesting points he made during this interview were:
1) No Arabs (supposed 19 hijackers) were ever filmed moving through the International Airports in Newark, Boston or Dallas with security cameras everywhere. In these highly secured airports, the Government could not supply the American Public with any video footage of Arabs in US airports on 911.
The video footage you have been shown are of some of the alleged hijackers (4) from Portland Maine to Boston prior, not in Boston International on 911.
2) On this momentous day, the hijackers drive to Portland Maine a risk possible missing their connecting flight and was shown to the public as a cover story for the lost luggage was found with all the planted evidence. Why luggage? Why a “will that would burn up” and all that strange evidence?
3) Passport page is found 4 blocks away by the FBI with a picture and name, when the plane is demolished.
4) If that wasn’t a miracle, in Shanksville, in the hole where no plane is seen you have 4 indentify documents of 4 separate hijackers, yet none of the passengers identities were found or shown. Of this evidence is a bandana and will of one of the passengers.
5) It should be plain as day with the neocons Project of a New American Century what their motive is about gaining control of the world while the Russians are still economically inferior.
6) Rodriguez 911 testimony about the expositions at the Trade Center on 911, before the first plane ever hit the first tower. Massimo said that just like the Warren Commission, the 911 commission chose on the evidence that fit the solution or story they had chosen for the public, not all the facts.
7) Flight 77 and Dick Cheney, where Cheney is caught lying about his whereabouts, the plane headed to Washington and the stand down of fighter jets via testimony from Norman Mineta under oath.
Rumsfeld, in June of 2001, changed an important intercept procedures for hijacked planes after 25 years of no hijacked American Planes, that made him the only direct contact on 911 and after the controllers from Dallas and Boston could not supposedly find Rumsfeld that day and on 9/12/01 the procedures were reversed.
The rest of the facts are discussed in his documentary “The Project for a New American Century” or a article posted recently:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5550 -
Prien
Jim,
I think that’s the wrong question. The real issue is a quote from somewhere that “the first step on the road to revolution is to discredit the existing system.”
Put in context of JFK, 911, the Gulf of Tonkin or any other offical flim flam, the first and most important step is to discredit beyond doubt that it’s impossible for an event to have happened the govnerment claimed. Period. That being so, you’re lying. You also have an ulterior purpose for doing so, and those are the purpose you are seeking to achieve based on the lies you are telling. We will not be taken in and shall, instead, oppose both your lies and your purposes.
Since the government that propounds the lie controls the physical parameters under which the supposed event occurred as they claim, they can create an infinite number of false trails to mislead people about what happened.
There are two books on the Kennedy assassination that pointed the way to unravelling what happened and why. First, James Lifton’s account proving beyond question the body had been altered before the official autopsy that purportedly pointed to how he was killed was performed. That proved beyod doubt the government was not only lying,but was in on the assassination. The other was JFK and the Unspeakable which laid out why he was killed, that pointed to the intests that were involved in making it happen.
That’s all anyone really needs to know about the event to reach the proper conclusiopns about what needs to be done to clean it up.
Prien-
Jim Fetzer
Prien,
I don’t get you. Sometime you make such intelligent and subtle observations, other times nonsense like this. PRECISELY WHAT WE ARE DOING IS DEMONSTRATING THAT THE EVENTS OF 9/11 CANNOT HAVE OCCURRED AS THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS–BECAUSE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS IS NOT EVEN PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. Unless you believe that the laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics were suspended on 9/11, you really should be on my side. I can’t believe the copious quantity of muddled thought here at VT.
And your remarks about JFK are equally unfounded. His name is “David Lifton”, by the way, not “James”, which is my name. But some of us in that case, too, want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Have you ever read any of my books on JFK, where I have brought together experts on different aspects of the case? ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)? Or visit my web site at http://assassinationscience.com or the on-line journal that I co-edit with John P. Costella, Ph.D., at http://assassinationresearch.com? Check ‘em out. Thanks.
Jim-
Prien
You’re right, it’s David Lifton, I should have checked book before I responded. Long time since I read it.
Actually, I was responding to your answer asking if we can’t sort it out, how are we going to explain it.
Truth seeker’s response expressed my sentiments in the first paragraph. That was the only real point I was making. All this arguing about details and trying toprove this or that about how it was done is worthless. It’s exactly the same with the JFK assassination The cardinal point is that they were trying to “solve” the murder which cannot be done weithout the necessary respuces and legal powers to conduct an effective investigation. No reasearcher can possibly do that, and all they end up with is lots of conjectures like tghis or that goup did it this way or that.
The key point about Lifton was he zeroed in on the EVIDENCE the government provided and instead of trying to decide who to, he focused on where and when it was produced and what the evidence in fact established. Among his most compelling points (aside from the autopsy findings and casket entries, etc) was that if any bullet evidence was fabricated, it all had to be fabrticated because the copnspirators could not afford to have any genuine evidence from the shooting that would contradict the planted evidence.
That thus meant that all the genuine evidence from the shooting had to be suppressed and fake evidence substituted for it. Only the govt could have done that. What buttresses his position is that there in fact was very little physcial evidence of bullets that was recovered, making it quite easy to plant all the fragments.
It’s exactly what was done to frame Simpson with blood evidence. They dumped the real swatches that were used to collect, and substituted fake ones with the blood that incriminatedd Simpson. The proof this was done is that although the LAPD procedures called for the criminalist to identify the number of swatches collected from each stain, Fung and mazzola did not lidentify the quantity of swatches for a single stain. That failure by itself destroys the necessary chain of custody reqwuirted to authenticate evidence because, among other things, it is necessary to account for and prove any change in the evidence as ity was orinigally collected. So if the original number os swatches is not identified, there is no way to account for the swatches they ended up with. Not accountuing for the exact number of swatches collected was the only way it was possible to make the undetected switches becayse had the number been noted for each stain, it’s next to impossible for those who made up the substitutes to know how many to make up for each stain to match the actual number that was collected.
The fact is the plane no plane issue is a distraction from the major and only point – the towers did not come down because planes crashed into them and started mini fires. They were collapsed by explosive devices. Bin Laden could not do that. Nor doesd the argument about no planes even refute the event could not have occurred as the govt claims. Indeed, the planes crashing into the buildings or merely the appearance of planes crashing into the building would serve the govts claims equally well, although crashing the actual planes would have been a lot easier than faking it. It is blowing up the building that makes it an inside job FOR CERTAIN. Once the public widely acknowledges that key point, then the demand for investigations to identify and punish the perpetrators can begin. For the bottom line is that if the public is not ready to buy the basic truth it had to be an inside job, it will simply fall asleep over th esoteric argument of holograms, no planes and video fakes and all manner of other side issues that will lead nowhwere.
Sorry, but aside from getting Lifton’s first name wrong, my remaining comments about JFK are right on as to the significance of those two books identifying the keys to the assassination..
Prien -
Jim Fetzer
I am sorry, Prien, but your obvious disvalue of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is very disheartening to me. I am afraid your values and mine have long since diverged. I am not about to settle for half-truths and incomplete analyses. That may be enough to satisfy you, but it is not enough for me.
-
-
-
http://tinyurl.com/3trgtxd
Jim Fetzer
“If we can’t sort this out among ourselves,
how are we going to convince the rest of the world?”
Sort WHAT out, Mr. Fetzer?
more ‘divisive disinfo misdirection routines’?
We don’t have to prove Mr. Fetzer’s Official No-Plane Theory wrong!
Please Stop trying to insist that we do!
Discontinue divisive disinfo misdirection routines, please.
====
“The scam would be to misrepresent to misdirect us from what We are trying to do.”
Dear Mr. Fetzer, I hope this helps to clarify…
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClearCog/message/18
======/
Fetzer wrote:
“If we cannot prove that 19 Islamic terrorists were NOT responsible for 9/11, how can we prove who was?”
http://tinyurl.com/453pqz8
Alert! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! ‘Bogus Conclusions’ / ‘False Theory’!
http://tinyurl.com/3waxtpm
Please consider:
‘Appropriate Conclusions’
VS
Bogus ‘Authority’ of ( inferior-positions / bogus-conclusions / False Theory) Hypocrisy / nonsense
divisive cogdis noise against the simple solution sanctuary of the due-process Accountability WE Seek
Consider: Obstruction of the proper requisite due-processing Accountability / Justice WE Seek!
#########################//
Smacko
August 3, 2011 – 7:09 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-261591
note:
what I posted did Not include the ‘/ False Theory’ inclusion in the following part:
Please, re-consider your following position
(especially regarding inferior-positions / bogus-conclusions:
I should have included such
——-
http://tinyurl.com/3jrxfun
Mr. Fetzer,
rather than misdirected; let us re-consider:
‘Bogus CONCLUSIONS’
regardinging:
‘Appropriate Conclusions VS bogus conclusions’
Mr. Fetzer,
Apparently now that you’ve distilled the thermite find down to its essential integrity / utility;
you have demonstrated its superiority to your no-plane-theory ‘utility’;
especially regarding ‘Appropriate Conclusions VS bogus conclusions’
Commensurately, as documented prime proponent of ‘Appropriate Conclusions’;
and author of the following article title:
Is “9/11 Truth” Based Upon a False Theory?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/
Please, re-consider your following position
(especially regarding inferior-positions / bogus-conclusions / False Theory):
Fetzer wrote:
“If we cannot prove that 19 Islamic terrorists were NOT responsible for 9/11, how can we prove who was?”
http://tinyurl.com/453pqz8
—
Regarding ‘bogus conclusions’:
Alert! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
http://tinyurl.com/3waxtpm
===
which brings to mind:
What IS “9/11 Truth” ‘Based Upon’?
&
What SHOULD “9/11 Truth” Be Based Upon?
&
What Should ‘CONSTITUTE’ “9/11 Truth”?
What Are WE “911 Truthers” Trying To Achieve?
Dear Mr. Fetzer, I hope this helps to clarify…
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClearCog/message/18
=====
Yes,
ALL ‘Bogus Conclusions’
Misdirect / Marginalize / Sabotage
Our Primary Position Of Seeking ‘Appropriate Conclusions’
(‘Appropriate Conclusions’ via Due-Processing Accountability)
http://tinyurl.com/3svu5lf
9/11 thermite evidence haunts US liars
http://tinyurl.com/4xz66vo
also see:
http://tinyurl.com/4x5rw3z
http://tinyurl.com/3pqvr27-
Prien
You’ve clarified everything. Mr. Fetzer is a Popperist who has adopted the notion that the true test of science is falsifiability. That is, one makes up statemnts that are falsifiable, and only such statements advance science. Now I know his cohorts refuse to accept the real meaning of Popper’s science, but the example he gives of practicing his method is we make up a statement that all swans are white. No good, because we will indeed see only white swans, so that statements isn’t falsified, nor falsifiable. But a statement that all swans are black is, of course, instantly falsified and falsifiable by the first white swan we see. So to carry on with this falsifiability, we make up statements like “all swans are green,.” or allswans are purple,” and an infinite number of such nonsense statements, and we will be doing science by falsifying them all.
Of course, Popper has sort of sought to save his nonsense falsifiability system by claiming that statements count as part of the system of science that is demarcated from mysticism if the statement is potentially falsifiable. Once you go down that road, however, any statement, even mystical ones, can always be potentially falsified. The hitch is that nothing can ever be VERIFIED in science, or be absolute.
The entire game hinges on the issue of the impossibibilty of deriving a universal from a particular. As Popper would have it, verification can only involve a particular, thus it can never produce universal and absolute truth. Thus his notion of falsifiability. It gets you nowhere because falsifying a proposotion never gets you any positive answwer abouyt the external wworld. It only produces negative ones.
The other issue is that Popper was a two sided philosophical idealist who denounced materialist philosophy. He, however, had his feet in both of the major camps of idealism – the subjective ideaslist to whom only the beliefs of the subject count, and the objective idealist who accepts that ideas of things are independent of the subject. His method was simple. When his objective idealist brethren attacked him for his subjective idealism, he would pounce and point to all the ways he affirmed objective idealism. Wheh the objective idealist attacked him for his subjective idealism, he denounced them for failing to his his dedication to objective idealism.
Anyone wanting to understand real science needs to get a grip on dialectical materialism. The key here is the unity of opposites and the oposition of unities. We cognize everything subjectively, without, of course, ever being the external. The subjective cognition is of external real object that we can only perceive internally. So the two are exact opposites. Since we are both in the same material world, there is the unity of these opposites within us. There is, however, also an opposition within this unity because the external is never internalized as such. This dialectical involvment in the world is played out by practice – our acting within this world, and cognizing this action.
The way we find out about the whiteness of swans is by establushing the DNA structure that generrates it. And this indeed may not be a universal truth for all eternity because the genes could change to create different colored swans. In that sense, any scientific or other finding must be tentative.
What all this boils down to is that truth is always absolute in time, but relative over time. Dialectics in motion.
Prien-
Jim Fetzer
Egad! You think that the hypothesis, “All swans are white”, is not falsifiable because we only observe white swans? But that the hypothesis, “All swans are black”, is falsifiable, because it is falsified by the first black swan we observe? I am dumbfounded. I thought that you were an intelligent fellow, but obviously I have overestimated you. The hypothesis, “All swans are white”, is also falsified by the observation of a non-white swan. How could you not understand that? And your other remarks about Popper are similarly misguided. He was a “critical rationalist” who believed that science and reason are our most reliable guides to the discover of truth about the world and ourselves. DNA may determine the color of swans, but if swans can have different genes for color, then there can be more than one color for swans. Do you also believe, by the way, that it is impossible to prove a negative? Because we can prove that it is not the case that there is an elephant in the living room by going there and taking a look. The absence of evidence of the presence of an elephant, in that case, is proof that no elephant is present. Just as the discovery of a single non-white swan is proof that it is not the case that all swans are white, which, in case you haven’t noticed, is also a negative. I am afraid that you need to go back to school and take some courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, because you obviously need them. I find this very disappointing.
-
Not all “jews” are terrorists. Just most “Jews”, do a DNA test. When Prien did “Jewish” terrorists become “Government” for Americans. Exactly where in the “Constitution/Declaration of Independence” do you read the words Talmudic terrorists/Jewish Terrorists/Economic Terrorists. Ipso facto Jewish Economic “Talmudic terrorists” are not “Government”, just Terrorists, THE ONLY TERRORISTS on Earth, and please see the Emet group…below. Wasting time on chasing your arse in reverse to the bottom of the pit, prevents you from being able to climb the mountain of true information{scientifically verifiable using logic} for a clear view of REALITY, THE JEWISH TERRORISTS printing currency & Owning the Media and Running a Crack whorehouse called Congress, and a Talmudic terrorist “jewish” state in Palestine…among other criminal syndicate activities..
-
I keep losing my replies, so I’ll make it short.
If your misrepresentations of my position is your notion of going for the truth and nothing but the trtuh, then yiou are lost in space.
Your opening statement asking wehter I realize that “all swans are white” is falsifiable is entirely refuted by my asctual comment which was that it is FALSIFIED by the first black swan we see, to which I added, NOR FALSIFIABLE.” It should have been made clear by the following commets about faslsifiability that I should have added “nor FASLFIABLE by currnet observation of all swans” The point is that if the demarcation criterion includes any”theory” (.ie some form of univeral hypothesis) that is poentially faslfiable,it excludes nothing.
But Popper makes this prety clear by alleging that for a theory to be ‘empirical’ or ‘falsifiable’ if it divides all possible basis statements unambiguously into the following two non-empty classes:” these being basic statements that are inconsistent with it (which it prohibits) and those that are consistent (which it permits) such that “a theory is falsifiable if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty.”
All this then gets us is “that a theory makes assertions only about its potyentisl falsifiers. (It assserts teir falsity. About the ‘permitted’ basic statements it says nothing. In particular, it does not say that they are true.”
If you want to really understand where this muck takes science, read Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio Criticism where he takes apart the Machian forerunners of Popper. Their whole shtick is to declare materialism to be metaphysics, and to enthone idealism in the halls of sceince. That is exactly what Popper does. except he uses his various forms of statements rather than the pinciples of coordination the Machian adopted as noted below..
To understand the flavor of this sceince, it is founded on the distinction between thought at being. It is the contradiction betweem their idealist theories and natural science that this crowd seeks to eliminate. Avenarius tried to do it “by means of the ‘potential’ central term in the coordination” that “is the ‘indissoluble’ connection betwen self and environemnt.” And “to eliminate the obvious absurdity of this theory the concept of potential central terms is introduced For instance, what about man’s development from the embryo? Does the environment (the ‘counter-term’) exist if the central term is represented by an embryo?”
This crowd, of course, rejects the materialist princple stated by Engles “‘that matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter. and adopt instead the standpoint of Avenarius that ‘”‘the thinking brain is a fetish of natural science.’”
All this muck finally leads to Willy repudiating “the school of philosphy of experience in order to replace it by the philosophy of basic experience, which is confusion thrice confounded.” This eventually leads Willy to ask”what about the world prior to man? He first answers it according to Avenarius by claiming “‘we project ourselves mentally into the past,’” but then claims we are not bound to regard experience as only human experience. By no means. We must, instead “‘simply regard the animal kingdom-be it the most insignificant worm-as primitive fellow-men.” When Willy returns to this question in 1905, “the worm was removed.” Instead we get “What does millions of years without life mean?…Is time perhaps a thing in itself? Of course not. And that means that things outside men are only IMPRESSIONS, bits of fantasy fabricated by men with the help of a few fragments we find about us…Need philophers fear the stream of life?…And so I say to myself: abandon all this love of systems and grasp the moment you are living in, the moment which alone brings happiness.’” And thus did this philosphy of science collapse into a world of pure existentialism, exactly as Popper plunged into his World 3 nonsense.
You want this science. You an have it.
Your misrepresentations of my comments already speak for themslves.
Prien -
Jim Fetzer
What can I say to these distorted remarks? Popper emphasized falsifiability because scientific hypotheses–laws and theories about what happens in every space/time point of the universe under specified conditions–are universal hypotheses. They are falsifiable but are not verifiable. His genius was in recognizing that they have the force of prohibitions that preclude certain events from not happening under the conditions specified. Pure water below 32*F, for example, will freeze. You can test that proposition by attempting to arrange some set of conditions under which it might be falsified, such as summer days or holidays. Those, we know, are causally irrelevant conditions, but if there are any relevant conditions that are not encompassed by those specified, then the law is incomplete and the outcome may or may not occur, depending upon the presence or absence of those additional conditions. You committed a simple mistake but claiming that the hypothesis, “All swans are white”, is not falsifiable, when it would be falsified by the discovery of even one non-white swan. And that, of course, is the definition of falsifiability: are there any conditions under which the hypothesis or theory would be shown to be false? If so, then it is testable and scientific; if not, then not. Hypotheses about the course of history reflecting God’s will, for example, are unfalsifiable because, no matter what the course of history, it could be said to be consistent with God’s will. It would be necessary to have independent access to God’s will for the course of history to determine whether or not it is in accordance with it. There are many who make such claims, of course, as religious leaders or zealots, including many “end times” fundamentalists. But, even though they may hold their beliefs with great intensity, there is no specifiable set of conditions under which they could be shown to be false, which makes them, not meaningless, but unscientific. I hope this helps. I discuss these issues many places, including, for example, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (1993).
-
I made no mistake about the falsifiability as a criterion for demarcating science from metaphysics if all it means is that any statement qualifies providing contrary statements can be conructed. In that case, any so called universal is falsifiable by its contrary.
Rather than deal with various specifics that make up falsification and falsifiability in Popper’s system, let’s cut to the chase by noting how this man of empirical science actually views the role of expereince in science. The starting point is his self-described “problem of the ‘Empirical Basis.” This “problem” of course concerns the relationship between perceptual experience and basic statements. (Does the Machian claptrap about principles of coordination” between the subject and the wold start to ring bells?) He concedes that “perceptual experiences have often been regarded as providing a KIND OF justification for basic statements [truly big of him to concede this.)…Yet it was also felt that statements can be logically justified only by statements.” That, of course reads experience right out of the equation (Machianism supreme). And then he declares that “the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be intersubjectively tested.” thereby founding emprical science and nothing but subjective idealism. This leads to his conclusion that fully confirms my points about falsifiability when he declares: “I do not demand that every scientific statement must HAVE IN FACT BEEN TESTED before it is accepted. I only demand that every statement must be CAPABLE of being tested; or in other words, I refuse to accept the view that there are statements in science which we have, resignedly, to accept as true merely because it does not seem possible, for logical reasons, to test them.” (I am not going to go into the distinction betwen logical and empirical basis for testing, which merely returns matters to the problem of the empirical basis and Popper in effect denying that experience can be the basis for jsutifying such statements.)
And what universal statement (which is what he means by scientifc statements is not potentially capable of being tested AT SOME POINT IN ETERNITY once we obtain the technical means to conduct the test. when staements can also be constructed that makes them logically testable).
His whole theory is but a restatement of the Machian nonsense of pholisophical idealism that went from the principle of coordination to Willys worm to living for the moment once all else failed. And that’s exactly where *Popper’s nonses end up with hisWorld 3.
If you want to do real science, become familiar with dialectical materialism, but particularly MATERIALISM as opposed to Popper’s various forms of idealis which lands you in nothing but muck.
The real contribution Popper made to the “philosophy of science” is to denounce marx without in the slguihtest refuting him The ruling class loved it because it gave them a purportedly scientific basis for denouncing Marx’s theory of the matrial foundations of society, capitalism and change with having to confront them.
My cherished view of Popper is his response to Platonic pilosophers who denounced him for misrepresenting Plato’s philosphy in his diatribe against him. His explanation was that his critics should have cut him some slack and realized that his arguments were part of his war effort. This while he was in Australia. The Wehrmacht obviously trembled from the force of his attacks. In actuallity, as the idealist he was, he might as well have imagined he was hurling fleets of paper airplanes at Germany for all the good his denunciation of Plato did to bring on Hitler’s downfall.
Prien
-
-
-
-
-
Garibaldi
Oh well, for sake of utter redundancy- http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/03/911-no-planes-v-planes-and-controlled-demolition/comment-page-1/#comment-261255 Please do yourself the favor.
-
Anonymous
Video fakery on 9/11 is a fact.
Why Lawson is belabouring the fact is unknown.
Good work Sir.
P.S. Say away from all the Judy’s of this world – they drag your name into the muck of disbelief and tarnish your credibility.-
Same old same old, Jim Fetzer. I see you have a crew of cheerleaders working the comments section here for you. I can’t use the appropriate word to describe what you are, Jim Fetzer, because Gordon is tryong to keep this a family website. To put not too fine a point upon it you are beneath contempt.
Now leave Anthony Lawson alone, you mealy-mouthed pos. He’s one of the most decent, honorable people in existence on this planet. By comparison with him you don’t even rate nematode.
No, I’m not going to try to reason with a fat fraud. End of message.-
Garibaldi
In your cups again tonight, Peter?
-
Jim Fetzer
If this is the quality of your thought re subjects like this, I can’t imagine anyone taking you seriously.
-
Predictably, your unequalled intellect entirely misses the point, Jim Fetzer, which is that I wish the whole world to be in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about what I think of you. What they do with that knowledge is entirely their own affair and frankly I couldn’t give a flying duck what you take seriously, you doubletalking sob
-
Jim Fetzer
Why should anyone care what you think about me–or what I think about you, for that matter? You are making one ad hominem post after another, which demonstrates to me that you haven’t a clue when it comes to the scientific questions that are involved here. Have you read “Joe’s Law” yet?
Joe Keith is a retired aerospace software engineer, who created the software for Boeing’s “shaker” system to determine when airplanes will fall apart. His article “Joe’s Law” is archived athttp://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/ Give it a shot. Show us that you actually still have a functional brain, if you can.
-
-
-
-
-
“Official Government” story…FOR THE RECORD : the “Official Government” for the inhabitants of the North American Continent = CONUS= …CEASED TO EXIST in 1860…Since then the Captives of the Economic Terrorists {Class A Stockholders of the Federal Reserve} have had a “Zionazi” Economic Terrorist CABAL, AKA “Zionist Occupied Government” = ZOG !!…completely inconsistent with the So-called “Constitution”, and or any semblance of common sense, mainly attributable to TALMUDVISION…and the braindead gullible goy{s} penchant for avoiding responsibility and NOT BEING ABLE TO “THINK”..or study history & economics..{see 3AUG11- price of gold in FRN’s}…which is why the hard sciences always convict the Economic Terrorist{s} of their CRIMES…Like JFK, WACO, OKC, 9/11..and the “Jewish” State.*Talmudia*..where no turko-mongolian proselytes to talmudic Judaism ever lived…apparently the noose is tightening in cyberspace.. and the psychopaths are gittin’ the heebie jeebies..[http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/norway-changing-role-of-jew.html]….90% of “Jews” don’t have to be !! [http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-israel-supreme-court] If I had Bob De Niro’s phone number I’d call him up and tell him what I think about his covinous complicity with the Talmudic terorists and their NARRATIVE/Myth..which resulted in many many innocent people being murdered for economic terrorists “hegemony”…aren’t you glad the Zionazi porch munkey and the Crack whores raised the debt limit ? ? [http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Dov_zakheim.htm] ..where did the “money” go ? ? [http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Zakheim_surplus.htm] How can Americans be so blind and stupid ? [http://blackexile.net/zakheim.htm]…???
-
spktruth200
How many believe that Obama or any of the democrats would ever reopen the 911 Commission. I have read so much information about “what has been left out of this charade”, starting with the Head Janitor who heard explosions before the plane hit. Or the police officers who said the same thing. Does anyone actually believe Guilani and his in prison side kick Bernard Kerik werent part of this tragedy. Why did John Oneil the FBI guy run around DC two months before 911 trying to find someone to listen to him and no one would. Oneill ended up as the Head of Security at the WTC and died on that day. If you polled the american people, the majority would state they dont believe the official version, they believe it was an inside job….but NONE of our legislators state or federal would ever agree to start a new investigation because they believe the costs would be too high. TOO high for Israel to be sure. Those young “movers” caught on King Street with their van permitted to leave the country for Israel the day after 911…why did Bush permit the Bin Laden family to fly on 911, when no one was permitted to fly, not even medical people carrying live hearts….there is no doubt according to the Head Janitor (never questioned by the 911 Commission that he had too much information about what happened for 3 months prior to 911. He witnessed men coming into the building at all hours of the night, and as head janitor was curious as to why HE wasnt told what the hell they were doing there and why! Look at zionist Larry silverman who made billions off the insurance money from AIG, he had only bought the bldgs a few months before they went down. How did the “terrorists” passports end up on top of all that burning debri….too many questions and no answers from the “insiders”. Why did Panetta state he was in the bunker with Cheney when the plane was headed for the Pentagon, and was told to STAND down! Why were there military jets all over the east coast on “training missions” at the same time as the attack, why didnt cheney order those jets to take down those planes…cuz HE was part of it….they needed a reason to attack Iraq….they needed the american people behind them…and they used 911 as the pretext to attack the muslims, villify the Iraqis, steal their oil and leave their country in ruins….
-
spktruth200
Anthony: I tried to get some of the sites you mentioned and they wouldnt come up on google or yahoo…can you paste them for us all to see. I am most interested in the Dov Zakheim piece. I saw that rat bastard on Cspan the other day as part of a committee, and wondered why he hasnt been arrested for the $3.9 trillion missing from the Pentagon? We know that he immediately went to Israel after he left the Pentagon…with all that money in tow. Building all those illegal settlements must be costing Israhell a fortune, unless of course they are using our money.
-
Jim Fetzer
Joe Keith is a retired aerospace software engineer, who created the software for Boeing’s “shaker” system to determine when airplanes will fall apart. This article is archived at http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/
JOE’S LAW
Posted on June 13, 2008 by Morgan Reynolds
“Joe’s Law”
Joseph Keith
Retired Aerospace Engineer
June 13, 2008
Revised and updated on July 24, 2008
Joe’s Law. It’s immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren’t immutable, I wouldn’t have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: “Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected.” The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: “Truth goes through three stages; first it’s violently opposed, then it’s highly ridiculed, and finally it’s accepted as an obvious fact.” Adolph Hitler once wrote: “Little people tell only little lies. They don’t dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth.”
At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force’s NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.
Now, let me get on by explaining Joe’s Law. Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: “AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!” By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe’s Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here’s how to apply Joe’s Law in order to find the truth: Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do.
However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don’t have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane’s nose and then use your remote’s single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of!
You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton’s first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton’s third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe’s Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!
Now, you may ask: “What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job.” Well, here’s what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers(2) are: Michael Hezarkhani, Evan Fairbanks, and Luc Couchesne. The Media’s defense will be: “We didn’t fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!” The question now is: When this fakery is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?
For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.
(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI
A video showing that Joe’s Law is immutable.
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt4XGnqtm-E
Freelancer’s videos in real time and slow motion -
– http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Dov_zakheim.htm – http://blackexile.net/zakheim.htm –http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Zakheim_surplus.htm- Try w/o brackets..I was in California, in late August of 01, in a building of ONI CID, {not public} pulled this up.. “A group of “American” business and political leaders are building a pro-Israel media “war room” in Washington, D.C. The group will be called “Emet” —which in Hebrew means “truth.” Emet will try to address biased media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also make the case that the conflict, while serious and important, pales in comparison to the larger geo-strategic threat posed to the United States and the West by Iran and Iraq, both of whom are trying to build and/or acquire weapons of mass destruction. Funding Emet is Leonard Abramson; he sold U.S. Healthcare to Aetna in the mid-1990s for $8.9 billion. Abramson has recruited a powerful board of directors, including Bernie Marcus, founder of Home Depot; Les Wexner, founder of The Limited; Edgar Bronfman Sr., who once owned Seagram’s; and Lou Ranieri, a major Wall Street player who now co-owns one of Israel’s largest banks. Also joining the board are Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and Jack Kemp. {18Aug01}…reported by Joel C. Rosenberg, in Worldmag.com –http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-07-04/discussion.cgi.150.html – * Friday 7 Sept, There was an Incident East of LA, as I passed by, an Individual was in a house, claimed to be a US Marshal, Helicopters were all around, there were houses full of Bullets fired by “FEDS” & “LAW ENFORCEMENT”..by the time I got to Simi Valley, the House was burned down and the lot bulldozed flat, before sundown. …saw it. somewheah…is a copy of the episode…seemed to remind me of Waco. Hope those links work…don’t google, bing..try again. {use judicial inc & Zakheim}, Joe Vialls, had also Fortress America & Operation Shekinah {Shock & awe}…someone might have saved his stuff…Thanks Jim, for the Physics, There were explosions down below, also..there are photo’s of the subway nearby with damage on the support structures, {see also Die Hard With a Vengeance} & Independence Day…Very “Khazarian”..but the special effects..CGI is there, and of course in case you missed it the “Stephenville lights”..[http://www.stephenvillelights.com/]…
-
Stop the infighting and focus on getting the truth out there!
-
Jim Fetzer
We can’t get the truth “out there” until we know what the truth is. I am far from the only one who has concluded that we were subjected to video fakery in New York on 9/11. Here’s an analysis by Richard Hall. So if you think I have something wrong, give some thought to the prospect that he might be right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4VQs57m4So&list=FLeSyPop-KciE&index=2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1650zz-2EA&list=FLeSyPop-KciE&index=1 -
Anthony Lawson
You can’t focus on the truth, until people stop telling lies. For example:
Fetzer wrote: “Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight.?
There is no such system. Joseph Keith worked on the software for ground-based stress testing devices know as shakers. He didn’t develop a shaker, they have been around for years. I have an e-mail from him which explains that:
“Other than the big shaker system, I don’t claim to know airplanes.”
James Fetzer is the one telling lies, but you can’t stop him.-
Jim Fetzer
Anthony, Have you read “Joe’s Law” here? Because he makes more contributions to understanding what happened on 9/11 in that single piece than you have with your collective works. I like “This is an orange”, but we knew that already. What you did was present familiar information in an engaging style. And “9/11: The Towers of Dust”, was simply your voice on someone else’s work. Joe developed the software. He was a software engineer. More importantly, he has dealt with video fakery in a far more candid and honest fashion than have you. When, after all, are you going to answer my question: Do you believe that a real plane could pass its own length into a massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames that is passes through its own length in air? Because, as Joe explains, that’s what we have in these videos. And your obsession with disproving something that has been proven is embarrassing.
To put it most kindly, this is not your best work. I am sorry to say it, Anthony, but you really need to get a grip. You don’t even understand the meaning of the world “lie”, which you love to toss around like popcorn in a theater. As I have explained to you at least a half-dozen times before, to commit a lie, someone must be (a) making an assertion (b) that is not only false, but (c) that they know to be false (d) with the intention to mislead. I am making assertions, Anthony, but you have not shown that they are false, where I am convinced they are true. I have no interest in misleading anybody. But I do not believe the same can be said of you, including, for example, your perverted use of the term “lie”. It is a shame, Tony, but you really are creating a scene here and embarrassing yourself. Why don’t you calm down, use language as it is meant to be used, and come to grips with the consequence that you are not only wrong but that I have proven it over and over again?
-
-
-
SpinderellasNightmare
wow. This is still unclear? (or is it? Mr. lawson seems much too logical to fall for this elementary deception)
Jims right. Also Like an archeologist, I dust off the dry bones for data. 1) People @wtc, reporting live on the phone had to be told by media figures that planes had hit bldgs? .Really? Maybe b/c.. 2)No sound of aircraft (a BOEING FCS!) approach (over phone, videos)
Plane would have been heard well before seen. Ask anyone living near an airport.
FYI David handschuh nypost snapped a pic of the 2nd “impact..” Google it! TGF jimfetzer! Thanks. -
Earlaiman
While speaking of absurdities….
What in hell does it matter whether there were or were not airplanes used in New York on that day.? Does it really matter how it was done? What did it? Where the planes went if there were planes? What it was done with if there were no airplanes? What happened and where the people went if there were airplanes?
All of that is bullshit and distracting detail, arguments which are being used and intended to be used to distract from the key and only issue, who in hell did it? The names, faces and actual roles they each of them played, questions which have become the focus in so many other issues lately.
We know that the buildings were wired. We know that it was a long-time pre-planned project. We have a pretty good idea of who was behind it all , and why it was done. All that is left is to inform the rest of the ignorant of the truth, and get them to ask an insist on answers of how and why the perpetrators (new spelling “perpetraitors”) are being allowed to get away with it.
THAT IS ALL WHICH MATTERS, AND THIS PISSING CONTEST BETWEEN ANTHONY AND FETZER IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ADOLESCENT PISSING CONTEST… A WASTE OF TIME, BRILLIANT MINDS AND ENERGY,
I admire both of these men for their acute vision and their bravery for standing and trying to bring to light this crime and its criminals, but they are both rapidly losing esteem in my book for this petty pissy issue.
Let us put these what and how questions aside for the moment and concentrate on getting the who and whom into court or before a public tribunal and perhaps we will find the conclusive answer to the details of what and how.
Now, goddammit, Tony, and you too, Fetzer, get back on he goddamned wagon and lets get this train moving again!
Both you guys are losing momentum in your arguments and, to use a nautical metaphor, riding well above your Summer Load Line Plimsoll marks, while the season is changing into winter. Not a good way to put to sea in foundering boats already carrying too much top-hamper.
Earlaiman.
–-
Jim Fetzer
Well, as I have explained, the evidence is on my side. Unless you believe that a real plane could pass through its own length into a massive building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, which occurs in this film, we are witnessing video fakery. You sort it out. If you don’t care about how it was done, why it was done, and by whom, I don’t understand why you are posting here. I suggest you steer Anthony away from these rocky shoals–where his boat has crashed!–and move on.
-
-
Free fall collapse speed through undamaged steel structure is impossible.
Therefore 9/11 was an inside job.
Whatever else “Jimmy” is trying to sell is irrelevant to the problem.
I guess they call it “disinfo”
Gord ? WTF ?-
Jim Fetzer
This is bizarre. Some of us want to know how it was done. Yes, we have enough to disprove the official account, which can be found many places, such as “Why doubt 9/11?’, http://911scholars.org.
Have you ever heard the phrase, “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? That’s what this is about. The use of video fakery implies complicity by the media and the government at the highest levels.
On a personal level, it’s very simple. If I am right, then Anthony is wrong–and even though the evidence is on my side, for reasons about which I can only speculate, he does not want to admit that he is wrong.
Unless you think that a real plane can pass its whole length through a massive steel and concrete building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length through air, he is wrong and I am right. It’s that simple.
-
-
Jim – As David Niven said – ‘the moon’s a balloon.’
It doesn’t really matter what your TV fantasies are.
The truth speaks in physics.
Oh – by the way – I’m not entirely familiar with your ‘studies.’
Have you ever googled “Urban Moving Systems” or “the Dancing Israelis” ?
What’s with that ?
Do you think this Dominc Suter guy who disappeared and abandoned his business shortly after 9/11 was just some sort of ‘video – techie guy’ ? Adobe AfterEffects – type guy ?
What’s the overall point exactly ?
To feed the morons ?-
Jim Fetzer
Bink,
Has it ever occurred to you that video fakery on 9/11 not only exonerates 19 Islamic terrorists and Osama bin Laden from responsibility but points the finger at the US government and the media? Do you have any idea how the American people, who exist in a film/video visual culture, would react to the discovery that they had been bamboozled by video fakery? I really think you haven’t given this much thought. And try my “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” or “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, not to mention my “Seven Questions about 9/11″, which was published as my first column here on Veterans Today. The truth may not set us free, but it can certainly help.
Jim-
Quantity beats quality, eh, Jim? We’ll have to call you Farmer Jim from now on.
-
-
-
Jim – Who Cares ?
Prove it in a court of law.
(Well. ok. The hard part seems to be the supposed ‘Court of Law’ part because of the oligarchy.)
Ok, Jim, let’s face it – I believed in Santa for a time….in retrospect…I can’t say I’m proud of that..
So.Prove it. Do you need an inquiry ? To prove you’re not a shill ?
You didn’t really answer any questions about those ‘Urban Moving System ‘ guys and how they – like -what ?
– faked planes going into the two towers and brought down three buildings.
= Got NORAD to stand down.
Produced Nano thermite and molten metal in the ruins…etc…
Where do the ‘Urban Moving System’ boys exactly work into your scenario ?
ETC…
Inside job ? -
I think Jim could be consulting back to ‘headquarters’ Bink.
-
Jim Fetzer
Are you and Bink so intellectually impoverished that you can spew ad hominems for which you have no evidence but are incapable of challenging even one of the arguments for which I have abundant proof? I really did not expect this degree of childishness here at Veterans Today. But the two of you show I was obviously mistaken.
-
” I really did not expect this degree of childishness here at Veterans Today.” – Jim Fetzer
“I really did not expect this degree of” unintended irony from you, Jim. Do please let us all know when you’ve “worked it out”, we’re all just breathless in anticipation. I’m mean, it’s not every day we get to bait an old pseud has-been for such a worthwhile cause as historical truth.-
Jim Fetzer
And Peter Wakefield Sault clearly belongs in your company! Fascinating. Try reading my columns here for openers, Peter Wakefield Sault. Their content alone no doubt exceeds your lifetime output. And are you ever going to actually produce an argument that shows any of mine are wrong? Your posts are unbelievably boring.
-
No. I am simply going to repeat my personal opinion of you as a person along with all your auto-scripted, software-generated bs. I do this just to be sure that everyone understands.
Let me ask you all, is there anyone out there who needs any further confirmation or sign that I think Jim Fetzer sucks?
Is there anyone out there that thinks I should waste a single precious moment of my life validating Jim Fetzer’s schizophrenic ramblings by engaging with them? -
Jim Fetzer
And now you impersonate a psychiatrist? In my experience, persons who make posts like these turn out to have the kinds of inadequacies they project onto others. You have not shown that any of my research is mistaken–in fact, you haven’t even discussed it! That is quite remarkable, all things considered. I believe you are going to change more minds about you than you will about me! Now THAT is ironic.
-
I don’t need to be a psychiatrist to recognize a problem like yours. 9/11 mass-murder is just an excuse for you to wave your gigantic preening ego about and to spout obnoxious, obscene lies.
Psychopath is probably nearer the mark. -
Jim Fetzer
Peter Wakefiled Sault, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. Enough is enough! Your posts are convincing evidence that you deserve the title of the most superficial and inane contributor of vacuous posts in VT’s history, which, I have no doubt, you are going to continue to demonstrate here!
-
-
-
-
-
Jim – Sorry.
i believe in gravity.
I believe in resistance.
I believe mass murder has occurred.
Fake planes ? Who cares ?
Inside jOB ? Ever heard of Richard Gage Jim ?
And – You seem to avoid – much like all those ‘Loose Change’ Movies – the “dancing Israelis ”
questions etc.
U Merican ?-
Jim Fetzer
You are so ignorant I can’t believe it. I discuss the “dancing Israelis” in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, and even–by implication–in “Seven Questions about 9/11″. If you are going to continue with this drivel, why don’t you actually study some of my work. For an easy introduction, try “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621 and report back what I say about them.
-
Well – Ok Jim. You unfortunately seem to be defined by the ‘no planes’ thing .
I’m a bit of a NewBee. But.
If I were you would lose the “no planes” thing for a while. Maybe save it , for say 2014, or so.
It doesn’t seem to be working currently (Like – no one with an IQ over 12 is going to read your crap any further type thing)
To an outside observer -you’re completely useless disinfo. Are you happy with that ?
Are you supporting the Building Seven group on my link ?
-
-
-
Predictably, your unequalled intellect entirely misses the point, Jim Fetzer, which is that I wish the whole world to be in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about what I think of you. What they do with that knowledge is entirely their own affair and frankly I couldn’t give a flying duck what you take seriously, you doubletalking sob.
-
Jim Fetzer
I am quite sure everyone on this thread will swoon when you actually produce an argument in lieu of ad hominems. Who cares what you think? You haven’t given any good reason to doubt my research at all. When logic and the evidence are against you, call your target names! I had no idea you were this intellectually inept. Pathetic!
-
That’s not the way to change my opinion of you.
-
Jim Fetzer
You clearly have no arguments, as I thought. What more blatant confirmation could we have expected?
-
You finally worked that much out! And what exactly have I been telling you all along? If you’d listened to me you’d have known right from the start. Silly old robot! You just weren’t programmed well enough to respond meaningfully to the plain and simple statements of personal opinion concerning your personal integrity.
-
Or lack of it, I should say.
-
-
-
-
-
So Sault. Don’t really get what you saying…
u Merican ?
Inside job?-
English.
How many levels of “inside” are we talking?
-
-
Jim Fetzer
Because of my difficult fathoming what Peter Wakefield Scott has published here, I have visited his web site and read his study of the Pentagon, http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html#S01 which I regard as quite brilliant! While I agree with most of what he presents, that does not mean I agree with it all. But his take on Mike Walter, his citation of April Gallop, and many other aspects of this event are right on the mark.
This leads me to speculate that Peter is not so much offended by my replies to Anthony Lawson, whom, in my opinion, has long since lost his way, but upset that I have never acknowledged his work. Let me therefore set the record straight. This is an excellent study that is far superior to almost everything else I have read about the Pentagon, including the attempts by another computer expert, Jim Hoffman, to do his best to convinced us not to go there.
I therefore infer that he is less concerned about the content of my exchange with Anthony than he is with my observations about the Pentagon, where, in “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”, for example, I offered evidence in support of the possibility that an A-3 or other small plane may have hit the building, even though there is no support for a Boeing 757. (See “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon” and “Seven Questions about 9/11″.)
Because photos of the excavation of the collapsed portion of the building display no signs of damage from fire, I am inclined to believe that the early frames showing the enormous fireball are probably faked, which has also led me to question whether the additional frame–conveniently labeled “plane”–may also be fake. He raises questions of his own based upon the blurring of the tail that should have occurred, where I myself have noted the white plume is not from engine exhaust but could be from a missile.
The “sizing” problem I raise is still entirely appropriate, but I am certainly willing to entertain that this image is also fake. We also agree that the debris is planted, where I conjecture that it was dropped onto the lawn by the C-130 that was circling the building. That seems to me a far superior hypothesis to those that would have the debris photoshopped in, but I do regard some of his points about the photos as very interesting. Jack White has made similar observations.
One point I would like to discuss with him is taking the lamppost damage seriously. In my view, had a plane traveling at more than 500 mph hit a stationary lamppost, it would have ripped off the wing and ignited the fuel stored there, while causing the plane to pivot violently off its trajectory and breaking the tail from the fuselage. His reasoning here appears to me to be flawed and the photo he shows of a wing having ripped off the top of a small vehicle is unconvincing.
A lamppost is a narrow, relatively dense object, which is not comparable to the relatively flimsy top of the vehicle in question. The plane involved appears to be a fighter jet and not a commercial carrier, certainly not a Boeing 757. So I think there are more differences than similarities here and that his comparison with what is alleged to have happened at the Pentagon in this specific respect is based upon a faulty analogy, but one that does not invalidate most of his other arguments.
Think about it. We know from Newton that the impact of a plane traveling more than 500 mph and hitting a stationary lamppost would be the same as a lamppost traveling more than 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. Think about the damage made by a tiny bird when commercial carriers encounter them in flight. Then ask yourself what would happen if a plane flying at that speed were to encounter a single lamppost suspended in the air during flight. Here Peter lost his way.
But most of the rest of his study is simply excellent. In my analysis in “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’”, I based my inferences about a small plane on the frame (which may be fake) and a study by A.K. Dewdney and G.W. Longspaugh, cited in note 45 of http://www.st911.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm I would be glad to discuss these issues with Peter here or elsewhere, because I think we have far more to contribute together as colleagues than as adversaries. -
Jim Fetzer does not understand basic physics, despite his claims to the contrary. For example, he apparently does not understand the effects of velocity on penetrating power of one object into another object. For example. if you take a bullet in your hand and throw it at someone, the bullet will bounce off the other person without any penetration. Now, if you take a sling shot and accelerate the bullet to 300 feet per second,, the bullet will penetrate a little further and possibly barely break the skin and draw some blood. Now, of you put the bullet in a gun that accelerates it to 2000 feet per second, the bullet sill be able to penetrate not only into anyone’s soft tissue, but also into certain hard bone structures as well in some cases (you would think that with Jim Fetzer’s extensive research on the JFK assassination and analysis of the bullet wounds in JFK’s body, that he would understand this concept). The same concept is at work when a hollow airplane flies into the side of a hollow steel building at 500 mph. At that velocity, the relatively light weight airplane acts like a much more massive and hardened object, like a bullet, and the inertia will propel it into the building with very little deceleration on the outside, allowing it to penetrate well into the structure before significant deceleration takes place.
The problem with Jim’s pseudo-scientific arguments along the lines of, “there was not enough deceleration observed when the plane impacted the tower”, is that he fails to take into account the effects of velocity and inertia in relation to the shape of the objects and where the mass is distributed at the point of impact. When the plane is traveling at a relatively slow speed, it will largely bounce off the steel structure and decelerate before penetrating. However, as the plane is accelerated to very high velocity, the plane behaves like it is a much heavier and hardened object in relation to the steel structure, which is designed to resist primarily vertical forces, not horizontal forces. The relatively thin steel perimeter columns will give way when a heavy object pushes against it horizontally. Compared to a 100 ton airplane flying into the steel columns from the side with only 20 feet or so diameter to distribute the mass, and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, the relatively thin steel perimeter columns will give way fairly easily to the much more massive high velocity object. The rate of deceleration of the plane as it impacts the steel structure at the point of impact and penetration will be less and less as the velocity of the plane increases.
So, the long and short of it is that what seems “right” or “intuitive” as far as the behavior of two objects impacting each other as relatively low velocities suddenly cannot be relied upon when high velocities and high inertia is involved, at which point people need to take into account the physics calculations of mass distribution and inertia to understand what to expect in those situations, because the behavior of objects impacting at very high velocities often seem to defy intuitive expectations. Just think about the issue of the danger of space dust to astronauts and the space station and why it is such a concern to NASA. Even tiny tiny particles can be deadly to astronauts when traveling at thousands of miles an hour in relation to the astronauts. Likewise, even small space debris only an inch across can severely threatn the space station at those velocities, even though one would think that such a small piece of debris would just bounce off the space station.
I hope this helps people understand why the videos of the planes impacting the towers slowed down to a frame by frame analysis may seem impossible and non-intuitive, with seemingly inadequate crumpling and deceleration, even though basic physics can account for the phenomena when taking into account mass distribution and inertia at high velocities.-
Jim Fetzer
Keenan Roberts must have missed the memo where we learn that the plane intersected with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were covered with 4-8″ of concrete, which, at 208′ x 208′, represented an acre of concrete and steel apiece. They would have posed enormous HORIZONTAL resistance. (See the diagram, “Figure 6-8″, above.) Does Keenan have any idea what would happen to a plane in flight were it to encounter just one of these massive floors suspended in space? One of us may not understand the physics involved here, but it ain’t me.
-
-
It is true that the horizontal concrete floors will add resistance to the penetrating plane flying into the side of the building, but again, the faster the plane is traveling, the further into the relatively thin floors the plane will penetrate before crumpling and decelerating. Some of the plane will be shredded and travel around and past the relatively thin floors, while a smaller percentage of the plane will crumple against the floors, which themselves are also crumbling and giving way at the same time.
The point is, when slowing down the video to observe what is happening, one must take into account the fact that the velocity of the penetrating object is orders of magnitude faster, perhaps even 100 times faster than what is happening in the slow motion video, and the phenomena observed does not seem “right” when looking at it at the much slowed down speed. But just because something “doesn’t look right” in a slowed down video, that does not make it a scientific argument. Only taking into account the physics of the velocity, inertia, and mass distribution can one determine of it is “right” or not.-
Jim Fetzer
Keenan, why don’t you answer the question? Do you have any idea what would happen to a plane in flight were it to encounter just one of these massive floors suspended in space? And, to reiterate the question that neither you nor Anthony Lawson nor Peter Wakefield Sault and others appear to be willing to answer: Do you actually believe that a real plane could pass through its own length in entering a steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air? Because that implies that this massive building posed no more resistance to its flight path than air, which, I trust you can agree, is impossible. So unless we are willing to believe impossible things, we must conclude that it’s faked.
-
Here is a jet crash test at roughly the same speed but into several feet of PURE concrete… note how the plane goes all in, seeming to disappear into the object:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM-
Jim Fetzer
We all know about the Sandia test. The comparison is a faulty analogy. The plane in that case was mounted on a railway frame and run into a solid reinforced concrete nuclear-blast-resistant barrier. It has to have been made of some synthetic material, since it blasts apart into millions of tiny pieces. Flight 175 disappears into the building, but this plane does NOT “disappear into the object”. Are you implying that this aluminum commercial carrier, which is supposed to be a Boeing 767, blasts apart into millions of tiny pieces? Because it obviously does not. It should have crumpled upon impact, with its wings and tail breaking off and bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. That did not happen. What is there here you do not understand?
-
-
-
-
“Do you have any idea what would happen to a plane in flight were it to encounter just one of these massive floors suspended in space?”
The fact that the floors are 208′ x 208′, representing an acre of concrete and steel apiece, is irrelevant. The only relevant part is the part the floors in the impact/crumple zones, not the entire floors. Even if the floors were 208 miles by 208 miles across, it would not make any difference. Only the material in the relatively small percentage of the floor that was in the impact/crumple zone is relevant.
Further, to answer the question “what would happen to a plane were it to encounter these floors” depends on the size of the plane, the mass, and the velocity. What would happen to the plane traveling at 50 miles an hour is very different than what would happen to a plane traveling at 500 miles an hour, which would be very different to what would happen at 5000 miles an hour, etc.
Think again about the problem with space dust and debris threatening astronauts and space vehicles. Velocity is everything.
“And, to reiterate the question that neither you nor Anthony Lawson nor Peter Wakefield Sault and others appear to be willing to answer: Do you actually believe that a real plane could pass through its own length in entering a steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air?”
First of all, there is some deceleration happening in the frames, just not as much as you feel should have been observed. Again, “passing through its own length” means nothing without taking into account the velocity involved and distribution of mass. A piece of space junk traveling thousands of miles an hour can pass through several multiples of its own length (and several multiples of its own mass) through a space vehicle and come out the other side with very little deceleration. Think about that.
“Because that implies that this massive building posed no more resistance to its flight path than air, which, I trust you can agree, is impossible. So unless we are willing to believe impossible things, we must conclude that it’s faked.”
Again, a small amount of deceleration WAS observed in the videos, just not enough for your taste.
It might help to think about it in terms of kinetic energy. The ability of on object to penetrate another object depends on the kinetic energy involved. Kinetic Energy
Kinetic Energy For A Particle
The kinetic energy for a particle is given by the following scalar equation: T = 1/2 mv^2
Where:
T is the kinetic energy of the particle with respect to ground (an inertial reference frame)
m is the mass of the particle
v is the velocity of the particle, with respect to ground
The ability of an object to penetrate a larger object depends on the mass (and distribution of mass) of the penetrated object and the kinetic energy of the penetrating object. As the kinetic energy increased, the ability to damage and penetrate the larger object increases. You can increase the kinetic energy either by increasing the mass of the object, or by increasing the velocity. The mass and velocity are interchangeable. If you triple the velocity, it is equivalent to tripling the mass. So for example, a plane traveling at 500 miles per hour has ten times the kinetic energy as a plane traveling at 50 miles an hour. It’s like that 100 ton plane suddenly has a mass of 1000 tons. So, a 1000 ton plane impacting at 50 miles an hour is equivalent to a 100 ton plane impacting at 500 miles an hour.-
Jim Fetzer
This has gone beyond the realm of reason into absurdity. There was no deceleration at all. It has nothing to do with my opinion. The plane passes through its own length into this massive building, which had an intricate lattice structure, in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. CASE CLOSED! The only reason for your ongoing drivel appears to be to save some face with this blizzard of nonsense. The effect of the plane flying into the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as the building hitting the stationary plane at 560 mph. You can continue to make these meaningless posts, but the situation is clear. We are witnessing events that are physically impossible. If you want to believe impossible things, that’s fine with me. But don’t try to con the rest of us. OK?
-
-
Oops, I mean a plane traveling at 50 miles an hour has 100 times the kinetic energy of a plane traveling at 500 miles an hour, not 10 times, so it is an exponential relationship.
Think about that: the Kinetic Energy it 100 TIMES BIGGER at 10 times the velocity!
a 100 ton aircraft traveling at 500 miles per hour is equivalent to a 10,000 ton aircraft traveling at 50 mph! -
Let’s do that again. a A plane traveling at 500 miles an hour has 100 times the kinetic energy of a plane traveling at 50 miles an hour.
The Kinetic Energy is 100 TIMES BIGGER at 10 times the velocity!
A 100 ton aircraft traveling at 500 miles per hour is equivalent to a 10,000 ton aircraft traveling at 50 mph! -
grandma caesar
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS! we just need to get a new, honest and transparent investigation going. in my opinion the BEST way to do that is to focus like a laser on wtc7. building 7 is the linch-pin; it’s easy to see and understand the probs with the “collapse” of wtc7—47 stories, under seven seconds, falls straight down, “pull it”, many cameras pointing directly at the building because people had been told to “keep an eye on that building…it’ll be coming down soon.” rather than infighting on “planes or no planes at wtc”, let’s pull together to get the friggin’ investigation on wtc7 going, and with that momentum, we can discover all the intracacies of the day. (you will never get anywhere telling people no planes hit the twin towers that day. people will think you are a nut, and they will shut you out.)
-
Jim Fetzer
The proof that we were subjected to video fakery is abundant and compelling. Everyone knows about WTC-7 and nothing has come of it. If the American people realized that they were bamboozled on 9/11 by the media and the government USING VIDEO FAKERY, then this lazy attitude about it might change. I can assure you that ignoring proofs like these is not going to advance the cause of 9/11 Truth at all
-
-
“The effect of the plane flying into the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as the building hitting the stationary plane at 560 mph. You can continue to make these meaningless posts, but the situation is clear. We are witnessing events that are physically impossible. If you want to believe impossible things, that’s fine with me. But don’t try to con the rest of us. OK?”
No Jim, it is you who wants to believe in fairy tales.
The overall size of the building is irrelevant. The only relevance is the amount of mass in the impact zone, and the distribution of mass at the point of impact. This “massive” building is designed to resist the gravitational force of several multiples of its own mass, but relatively little horizontal force compared to its overall mass. So, when you say that “The effect of the plane flying into the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as the building hitting the stationary plane at 560 mph” is a bit misleading, because you imply that the full mass of the building is impacting the plane. But only a very tiny percentage of the building’s mass is involved in resisting the plane, and that mass is thinly distributed at the point of impact, with the plane entering the building like a bullet, in which there is a very small cross section – perhaps 20 feet across – of a few steel columns only a few inches thick and a few floors a few inches thick to resist that very large kinetic energy of the 100 ton plane, which acts like a much more massive object at the velocity it is traveling.
Sorry if you don’t like the physics involved Jim, but you can’t get away from it. The more you ignore the physics of kinetic energy, and pretend that it doesn’t matter, the more silly and irrelevant you make yourself to the movement.
You keep stating that there was NO deceleration at all. But your claim is disputed by others who have analyzed the videos and have observed some deceleration in some of the videos. However, in some cases, there are not enough frames and not a good angle to make a determination at all one way or the other regarding the deceleration.-
Jim Fetzer
You are wrong–and it shows how little you know about this. Eric Salter made that claim, but Rick Rijter showed he had used two different frames of reference. Get over it! There is no deceleration–and the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That not only proves that there was no deceleration but that the videos are fake. You are welcome to believe impossible things; I am not. You have never even faced up to the considerations that (a) a plane encountering just one of these floors suspended in space would be smashed and crumpled and (b) that the effects of the plane hitting the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as those of the building hitting the stationary plane at 500 mph. And just as the roots of a tree ground it and make it immobile to the effects of a car hitting it–even at high speed–the grounding of the upper floors in the core columns and external support columns connected by steel trusses connected to both and grounded in bedrock makes a difference here. This building was not segmented like a tree that had been sawed into sections and then stacked. Your incompetence becomes more and more manifest with each of your posts. Keep it up. You are doing a great job of discrediting yourself. Keep ‘em coming, Keenan!
-
-
Jim, can you agree that the inertial mass of an object is a function of its velocity, and that it is an exponential relationship? Can you agree that the kinetic energy of an object is multiplied by a factor of 100 when increasing the velocity by a factor of 10?
For you to keep stating that “a plane encountering just one of these floors suspended in space would be smashed and crumpled” without taking into account the mass of the plane, velocity of the plane, and the distribution of mass at impact, is a completely useless statement. It’s like you are just trying to use sound bites to persuade people. It shows that you don’t care about physics. It shows that you prefer to remain ignorant. -
Jim, let’s see if you can go beyond sound bites and back up your claims with math and physics. Until then, why should we take you seriously?
-
Jim Fetzer
Because practically everyone can understand my arguments, and practically no one can understand yours. You are doing a razzle-dazzle here, Keenan, which is really inappropriate on this forum. If you can’t address the simple questions I have posed–when I point out that there is no deceleration and the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air–then admit them. They not only prove that there was no deceleration but that the videos are fake. You are welcome to believe impossible things; I am not. You have never even faced up to the considerations that (a) a plane encountering just one of these floors suspended in space would be smashed and crumpled and (b) that the effects of the plane hitting the stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as those of the building hitting the stationary plane at 500 mph. It would have been mashed.
And just as the roots of a tree ground it and make it immobile to the effects of a car hitting it–even at high speed–the grounding of the upper floors in the core columns and external support columns connected by steel trusses connected to both and grounded in bedrock makes a difference here. This building was not segmented like a tree that had been sawed into sections and then stacked. Your incompetence becomes more and more manifest with each of your posts. When you will not answer simple questions that everyone can understand and want to appeal to calculations that nobody here is going to follow, it becomes obvious why you are here and what you are doing. I am sorry, Keenan, but you are doing this forum a disservice and disgracing yourself. I am not appealing to “sound bites” but to data everyone can verify for themselves by doing a frame-by-frame advance to confirm it! There is no good reason to take you seriously, under these conditions.
-
-
Jim Fetzer
Joe Keith is a retired aerospace software engineer, who created the software for Boeing’s “shaker” system to determine when airplanes will fall apart. This article is archived at http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/ and bears repeating. When some smooth talking con man tries to deceive you about this, just reread what Joe has explains here. There are reasons why Keenan is not answering my simple questions.
JOE’S LAW
Posted on June 13, 2008 by Morgan Reynolds
“Joe’s Law”
Joseph Keith
Retired Aerospace Engineer
June 13, 2008
Revised and updated on July 24, 2008
Joe’s Law. It’s immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren’t immutable, I wouldn’t have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: “Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected.” The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: “Truth goes through three stages; first it’s violently opposed, then it’s highly ridiculed, and finally it’s accepted as an obvious fact.” Adolph Hitler once wrote: “Little people tell only little lies. They don’t dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth.”
At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force’s NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.
Now, let me get on by explaining Joe’s Law. Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: “AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!” By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe’s Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here’s how to apply Joe’s Law in order to find the truth: Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do.
However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don’t have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane’s nose and then use your remote’s single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of!
You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton’s first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton’s third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe’s Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!
Now, you may ask: “What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job.” Well, here’s what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers(2) are: Michael Hezarkhani, Evan Fairbanks, and Luc Couchesne. The Media’s defense will be: “We didn’t fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!” The question now is: When this fakery is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?
For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.
(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI
A video showing that Joe’s Law is immutable.
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt4XGnqtm-E
Freelancer’s videos in real time and slow motion -
Jim, is it too much to ask you to back up your claims with scientific calculations? You say that it would be impossible for a plane to fly into a single floor of the WTC tower, that the floor would totally resist the plane and stop it from smashing the floor, right? Show me that you understand the physics involved. Specifically, show me that you understand the kinetic energy involved and that it would by physically impossible for a jumbo jet traveling at 500 mph to crash through one of those floors without totally bouncing off or crumpling first. The equations are not that complicated. If you need help, let me know.
-
Jim, let’s say that you are in space and there is a bullet that is stationary and you are traveling at 2000 feet per second towards the bullet. What do you think will happen when you impact the bullet? Will you bounce the bullet away from you, or will you get punctured by the bullet as you keep moving past the bullet at a high velocity?
Keenan Roberts
By the way Jim, when you resort to insults and name calling and questioning my motivations, while ignoring my very reasonable requests for you to back up your claims, you are showing people that it is you who are doing this forum a disservice and disgracing yourself, not I.
Please keep this discussion civil. I will kindly ask the mods to remind Jim Fetzer of the forum rules and to stop with the insults and the questioning my motives.
I noticed that you are refusing to answer any of my questions so far, even though I have addressed your questions multiple times.
Let’s start with the question about how you measured the change in velocity of UA175 into WTC2. Did you measure it from the tail end of the aircraft, or the center of mass? This is a very important question about your methodology, Jim.