Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images)

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Printable Version

+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) (/thread-6974.html)

Pages: 1 2

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - James H. Fetzer - 14-07-2011

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity.html

More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity

Jim Fetzer

My 4th of July article, "Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11", raised questions about the events of 9/11 and whether more may have been involved than the official account of nineteen Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial carriers, outfoxing the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrating these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan.

These are the first plane crashes in its history that have not been investigated by the NTSB. An FBI official, when asked why not, replied, "It wasn't necessary because we saw them on television." But we did not see what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville "on television"and what we have seen on TV does not look right.

We have no videos of the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville and only the five frames from the Pentagon of Flight 77. We have familiar footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower and less familiar footage of Flight 11 impacting with the North Tower. Since it was not broadcast that day, that footage raises interesting questions about George W. Bush's public remarks that, when he watched the plane hit the North Tower, he thought to himself, "There's one terrible pilot!"

His comment, after all, only makes sense assuming it occurred before the second hit, after which anyone should have realized this was no accident but a deliberate occurrence. Bush added that "the TV was obviously on", but since the public broadcasts did not show it at that time, the thought has crossed my mind that he may have actually seen it "live" on a closed Secret Service channel, which would be stunning evidence that 9/11 was indeed an inside job.

Since I've made several observations about the Pentagon, I want to discuss some troubling aspects of the other crash sites. For those who want more on the Pentagon, I recommend "Pandora's Black Box", from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, as well as "National Security Alter" from Citizens Investigation Team, both of which support the existence of a large planepresumably, a Boeing 757that flew toward the Pentagon but did not crash into it, consistent with my earlier study.

(1) Flight 11 hitting the North Tower

(a) Remarkably Jules Naudet, a French filmmaker, just happened to be in the vicinity doing a modest documentary about New York Firemen out looking for a "gas leak". As Leslie Raphael has explained--http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm--that a cameraman should have been in precisely the right position to film this event depended upon a rather large number of conditionseither as a matter of coincidence, as the government would have us believe, or by design. If this occurred by chance, it's improbability is astonishingly small. An odd flash occurs just as the flying object makes contact with the building http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/index.htm:

[Image: 314xxjb.jpg]

(b) While the image is too blurry and indistinct to be identifiable as a 767, a time-sequence of the image i motion as it approaches the towerprepared by Rosalee Grabledoes not bear even a faint resemblance (see http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html):

[Image: 2ilzii9.jpg]

© And when you compare the pattern at the time of impact with what we see subsequently, there does not seem to be lot of room for doubt that they do not appear to be the same. So the question arises, why not?

[Image: bbg1s.jpg]

(2) Flight 175 hitting the South Tower

The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies, including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed, an impossible entry into the building (in violation of Newton's laws), and even passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in airwhich is impossible, unless this 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its trajectory in flight than air. The structure of the building, moreover, meant that it actually intersected with eight different floors as follows:

[Image: 9qd4ax.jpg]

Each of those floors consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the steel support columns. They were filled with 4-8" of concrete (deeper in the v-shaped grooves) and posed enormous horizontal resistance. (Imagine what would happen to a plane encountering one of them suspended in space!) The windows were 18" wide and the support columns one meter apart, while there were no windows between floors, which means far less than 50% if the plane should have entered via them. But as Jack White shows here, that is not what the videos display:

[Image: 2gu9rw4.jpg]

Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, since its fuel is stored in its wings, they should have exploded on entrywhich is comparable to the failure of the 757 at the Pentagon to have its fuel explode when its wings hit those lampposts. And while some have sought to support the claim that this was a real 767 based upon the engine found at Church & Murray, it did not come from a 767 and, if this FOX News footage is authentic, appears to be a plant, as another of Jack's studies reveals:

[Image: 33uqwxz.jpg]

So how can a Boeing 767 travel at am impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed), enter a steel and concrete building in violation of Newton's laws, pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, and not have its fuel explode as it makes contact with that massive edifice? Even the frames from the Pentagon show a huge fireball upon impact. If that was true of the 757 there, why is it not also true of the 767 here? It looks as though, in this respect, Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than Flight 175 fakery.

(3) Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville

[Image: a11mox.jpg]

(a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125' and a tail that stands 44' above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites (http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html) to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved. "This is the most errie thing", the coroner observed at the scene. "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."

[Image: 9h4293.jpg]

(b) The reporter for FOX News had similar observations, which I have also verified from the taped interview (http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/old/flight93_2.htm):

FOX News reporter: It looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.

Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that's right. The only thing you can see from where we where, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn't much left.

Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?

Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.

Reporter: Smoke? Fire?

Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces..." - FOX (09/11/01)

[Image: sqta46.jpg]

© An alleged eyewitness, Val McClatchey, who resides less than two miles from the purported crash site, claims to have taken a photo showing a plume of smoke from the crash site. Like the smoke coming from the series of dumpsters at the Pentagon, alas, there are good reasons to suspect that her photo was faked. The plume resembles those from detonation explosions more than it does fires from crash sites (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html)--and estimates of the location of the plume place it over a pond, which suggests that this is yet another fake photograph in the 9/11 inventory. Indeed, there are many good reasons to suspect that 9/11 was staged with Hollywood-style special effects.

Planes or No-Planes?

Serious students of 9/11 are therefore placed in a dilemma. If they are committed to truth, as the name "9/11 Truth" implies, then they have to confront the evidence that supports the conclusion that all four of the plane crashes--one way or another--appear to have been faked. To put it more precisely, there is no credible evidence of a plane crash in Shanksville nor at the Pentagon, while the evidence for the New York events appears to support video fakery. In a circumstance like this, the best move may be to take a step back and ask yourself if there is any circumstantial evidence that might help to resolve the question in your own mind. Here I would observe that the following considerations be borne in mind, namely:

(i) Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html), has shown that the government has never actually proven that the hijackers were aboard any of those planes;

(ii) David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners" (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924/index.php?context=va&aid=16924), has shown that the evidence shows that all of the alleged phone calls from all four of the airplanes were faked;

(iii) Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, of the millions of uniquely identifable component parts from those four airplanes, the government has yet to produce even one;

(iv) John Lear, among our nation's most distinguished pilots, has observed that, before a pilot can pull away from a terminal, he must submit an envelope (with a flight plane, check list, and passenger data), yet none of those envelopes has ever been produced; and,

(v) FAA Registry data shows that, for the four planes allegedly involved in crashed on 9/11, the planes corresponding to Flights 11 and 77 were not deregistered until 01/14/2002 and those for Flights 93 and 175 not until 09/28/2005, which suggests that at least two of those planes were still in the air long after 9/11.

What this suggests to me (and others more expert than I in matters of this kind) is that 9/11 was a staged event designed as a psy-op that was intended to instill fear in the American people to manipulate us to support political policies--including wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq--that we otherwise would never have considered. Since that is the objective of terrorism, the weight of the evidence that students of 9/11 have discovered supports the conclusion that the Bush/Cheney administration has been practicing terrorism on the American people. So take your time and sort this out for yourself. We are talking about the pivotal event of the 21st Century, whose effects--for better or for worse--are enduring to this day.

Jim Fetzer founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and maintains its web site at http://911scholars.org.

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Peter Lemkin - 14-07-2011

Jim, I quite agree, almost nothing in the 'official version' is true or accurate or complete. The truth on almost all points 'lies' elsewhere. It was a smoke and mirrors; shock and awe show of impressive extent! this 'Made For Hollywood' production, sadly, fooled most...although some saw through it from the start, or are slowly coming out of their stupor now. I have to admit having 'fallen for' parts of it for a few days...but when one looks into it, just a little, the 'official story' falls apart completely....made all the more suspicious by the phony 'investigations' - WC style, Mark II. It was all used to install the unPatriot Act and similar 'legislation' and light the fuse for an endless war - inside and outside the Heimat. With Obama doing Bush in blackface we are in deep shit now, IMHO. He was 'sold' as part of the same plan. I personally do not believe the system can be forced to do a real investigation, so it is left to we citizen investigators [as with Dallas]. Carry on! We do not all agree on every detail....but the Truth movement is united on the fact that the official version is a total fiction...ONLY the day of the event is correct, IMO. We have much work to do and little time to do it....they have nothing short of a police state inside, and endless wars for profit and resources out, in 'mind'. Not a pretty picture Spy

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Ed Jewett - 14-07-2011

Peter Lemkin Wrote:... I personally do not believe the system can be forced to do a real investigation, so it is left to we citizen investigators [as with Dallas]. Carry on! We do not all agree on every detail....but the Truth movement is united on the fact that the official version is a total fiction.... We have much work to do and little time to do it....

Well said, and a good summary. As I noted elsewhere to someone else, the focus on Dealey Plaza -- while valid and good -- needs to be set aside in some sense for a re-focus on today. Perhaps it is better to say it this way: some synapses and groups of them need to be focused on Dealey, some on 9/11, some elsewhere, and others need to be attentive to today and tomorrow.

We need somehow to invent [is it here at at DPF already?] a bi-cameral global mind with a functional corpus callosum that looks backwards, and to some extent into the future, but which remains mostly attentive to the now of today.

Even 9/11 is past history now.

We must simultaneously learn to appreciate how the culprits think and act so as to stymie them when and where possible but, perhaps more importantly, we need to build our own resilient regenerative systems of freedom, liberty, life, etc.

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Peter Lemkin - 15-07-2011

The engine on Murrey St is one of my favorite 'how many things wrong can you find with this photo' game re: 911 [though there are MANY, MANY others - some of which Jim has kindly posted]. That engine, besides being the wrong type and size and not even matching itself later at Fresh Kills is sitting 'nicely' UNDER a scaffold, not having damaged anything. It came [they say] flying from near the top of a building and propelled forward due to the energy of the crash [somewhat attenuated]. Give me and Physics a break!...it would have made quite a dent in the road, curb, sidewalk and/or scaffolding. It didn't. Someone should do a book on 911 anomalies...it would be a very large book! Even if it didn't always offer answers or alternative explanations, it might open a few more eyes [and minds].

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Jeffrey Orling - 20-07-2011

Lemkin,

That engine photo is rather bizarre but so is your logic. Of course it had enormous energy if it separated from a fast flying craft and plunged 1000 feet to the ground with considerable momentum. But it could have landed bounced, rolled for quite a distance giving up its energy horizontal impulse in various collisions with objects on the ground before coming to its final resting place under a scaffold. Hard to believe, but certainly possible.

The single photo taken out of time context can be deceiving and Judy Wood is masterful at that!

There was so much manipulation of images apparently it's hard to know what is real and what is memorex.

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Ed Jewett - 20-07-2011

rob balsamo

US Govt agencies refuse to release information pertaining to serial numbers/part numbers in order to positively identify the aircraft used on 9/11.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149

http://www.911blogger.com/node/12818

There has never been a proper investigation into the attack on Sept 11 and none of the aircraft reportedly used have been positively identified as those claimed by the US Govt. Lawsuits have been filed.

NTSB Investigation Report Sept 11, 2001
(Its the same for all 4 aircraft)

dMz

The "time change" and other serialized/marked aircraft parts are covered by the NTSB/FAA FAR Title 14, Part 45, Subpart B--IDENTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT AND RELATED PRODUCTS

PART 45--IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3e4d3012436607150c25d62b24945b28&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr45_main_02.tpl

Subpart B--IDENTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT AND RELATED PRODUCTS
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3e4d3012436607150c25d62b24945b28&rgn=div6&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.22.2&idno=14

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t10458.html

**** ****

"... the NTSB indicates that it possesses no records indicating how wreckage recovered from the 4 aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was positively identified as belonging to the 4 planes reportedly hijacked that day or even if such wreckage was positively identified at all....."

http://911blogger.com/node/16762

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Jeffrey Orling - 20-07-2011

We know that the official story stinks and the US government is covering up and holding back evidence. That is not evidence of anything other than producing a cover up and withholding evidence. It may look suspicious as hell, but it is not proof of anything.

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Charles Drago - 20-07-2011

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:We know that the official story stinks and the US government is covering up and holding back evidence. That is not evidence of anything other than producing a cover up and withholding evidence. It may look suspicious as hell, but it is not proof of anything.

Identical to the fallback cover story designed into the JFK conspiracy.

ITEM -- The "lone assassin" Oswald has links to sensitive intelligence operations, so while a full investigation would confirm the LN story, it also would expose material that must never see the light of day.

ITEM -- The "al Queada conspiracy" has links to sensitive intelligence operations and diplomatic relationships, so while a full investigation would confirm the 19-guys-with-boxcutters story ...

Yeah, but ...

Who stripped security on 11/22/63 and 9/11/01?

Who prevented untainted post mortem examinations of the victims?

For starters.

Jeffrey, you have neither the talent nor the expertise to understand, let alone conduct, deep political analyses. This is not an indictment, merely a statement of demonstrated fact.

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Jeffrey Orling - 20-07-2011

Charles,

You probably are right that I am not able to conduct a "deep political analysis". If there is proof that X removed security as opposed to someone claiming this, then it would be important evidence.

So who DID send the command or directive to remove security? Where is the actual proof of this directive?

I am not alleging that this was not the case. I just haven't seen what I would call reliable evidence as opposed to hear say.

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity (with images) - Charles Drago - 20-07-2011

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:So who DID send the command or directive to remove security? Where is the actual proof of this directive?

I am not alleging that this was not the case. I just haven't seen what I would call reliable evidence as opposed to hear say.

Jeffrey,

You will find a "directive" ordering the standing down of air defense security on 9-11 within approximately 39 hours of finding a "directive" ordering the standing down of motorcade security on 11-22-63.

In re the former, we are left with two conflicting inferences: Either al Queada got lucky and executed their attacks at the precise time when multiple air defense exercises created optimum conditions for successful strikes, OR -- if you'll excuse the technical jargon -- the fix was in.

In re the latter, we are left with two conflicting inferences: Either Oswald got lucky and executed his attack during the "uniquely insecure" presidential public appearance when multiple protection procedures were withdrawn for benign purposes yet to be revealed, OR -- if you'll excuse the technical jargon -- the fix was in.

If you abandon the positions of the Coincidence Conspiracist and instead choose to conduct a deep political inquiry -- that is, one based upon the conclusion that the event under scrutiny is of a deep political nature -- you must eschew the naif's question and ask the specialist's question.

The naif's question: Who ordered the security stripping?

The specialist's question: Who could have ordered the security stripping?

Then follow the specialist's question with the unavoidable variation: Who among the suspects could not have ordered the security stripping?

Charles