Deep Politics Forum
An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - 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: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" (/thread-7191.html)

Pages: 1 2

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - James H. Fetzer - 03-08-2011

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 brakes.

[Image: 651zbp.jpg]
"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,

"Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11"

"Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"

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"

[Image: 2ilzii9.jpg]
"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.

[Image: 9qd4ax.jpg]

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:

[Image: v77b88.jpg]

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

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - Kyle Burnett - 03-08-2011

James H. 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.
From Anthony Lawson's 9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New-York Theory:

Quote:But Mr. Keith did not even design the "shaker system" as he admitted in his long e-mail, within that same series as Dr. Fetzer's reply, which Dr. Fetzer either didn't bother to read, or which he chose to ignore. This is the opening to Joseph Keith's e-mail.
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=2811&stc=1&d=1312360026]
Where Boeing enters the story is difficult to work out, from the rest of the e-mail, but the above seems to indicate that the "big shakers" already existed before Keith joined Ling...

Quote:Yes, I was recruited from Interstate Electronics by Ling Electronics, because of my expertise of the Fast Fourier Transform, to automate their [Ling's] big shakers...
So Joseph Keith did not develop a "Big Shaker" he worked on the software for them.


An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - James H. Fetzer - 04-08-2011

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

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - Kyle Burnett - 04-08-2011

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Joe Keith is a retired aerospace software engineer

Do you mean he has a degree in aerospace software engineering and spent a career in the aerospace industry, or are you contending that working the automation software for a single aerospace project qualifies one as an aerospace software engineer?

James H. Fetzer Wrote:who created the software for Boeing's "shaker" system to determine when airplanes will fall apart.
The software as a whole, not just the automation software he mentions in his email to Lawson? Also, is it true that he "actually designed the shaker system" itself, or were you just shading the truth when made that claim?

James H. Fetzer Wrote:This article is archived at http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/
Thanks for the link. Given that, particularly the linked video which reportedly demonstrates the immutability of "Joe's Law", I'm left with the impression Joe's just having a laugh on those of you who buy into the TV fakery claims. I don't suppose you've bothered to ask any of the scores of indisputable aerospace engineers at AE9/11T what they make of Joe's arguments, have you?

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - James H. Fetzer - 04-08-2011

Do you have any grasp at all of the nature of physics? of Newton's laws? of the design of the Twin Towers? Your questions are so trivial and irrelevant that I am at a loss as to whether I am supposed to suppose you are serious. You are a waste of time--and quite possibly either very young or very uneducated or both. If you have an argument as to why what he has explained so clearly, then present it. Do you think a real plane could pass its entire length into this massive building in the same number of frames it passes its entire length in air--which is what happens in both the Hezarkhani and Fairbanks' videos--then you must be completely unqualified to address these questions. So what in the world are you doing here? It wouldn't matter if he were a soda jerk, his points are simply impeccable. Deal with them or cease and desist, because you are taking up time and space that is meant for serious discussion.

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - Kyle Burnett - 04-08-2011

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Your questions are so trivial and irrelevant that I am at a loss as to whether I am supposed to suppose you are serious.
You're the one who chose to lead your article with the claim "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", so that's where my questions start. Now, it seems that actually not true, is it? If it isn't true, I recommend you edit your post, as there is a rule against knowingly posting false information on this forum.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:If you have an argument as to why what he has explained so clearly, then present it.
As long as you remain incapable of coming to terms with the simple fact that designing automation software for the big shaker system is not the same thing as designing system itself; I see no point in attempting to discuss far more complicated matters with you.

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - Charles Drago - 04-08-2011

Kyle Burnett Wrote:As long as you remain incapable of coming to terms with the simple fact that designing automation software for the big shaker system is not the same thing as designing system itself; I see no point in attempting to discuss far more complicated matters with you.

Evasion. Pure and simple. Such nonsense isn't worthy of a high school cheat.

Rather than attacking the messenger, Mr. Burnett, why don't you try attacking the specific message in question?

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - Kyle Burnett - 04-08-2011

The message in question, Fetzer's article, starts with the claim "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". Yet, according to Joe's account in his email to Lawson, that isn't actually the case. Why do you defend Fetzer posting misinformation in violation of the rules of this forum?

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - Kyle Burnett - 04-08-2011

By the way, does anyone know an alternate link for this video?:
Quote:(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI
A video showing that Joe's Law is immutable.
I was going to show a friend who just dropped by, but between yesterday and now YouTube pulled it.

An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities" - James H. Fetzer - 04-08-2011

He designed the SOFTWARE for the shaker system for Boeing. Maybe this guy is a holdover from the last century, but his repeated posts about this deserve a penalty. The harassment of members of this forum should not be tolerated. This guy has no business being here.

Kyle Burnett Wrote:The message in question, Fetzer's article, starts with the claim "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". Yet, according to Joe's account in his email to Lawson, that isn't actually the case. Why do you defend Fetzer posting misinformation in violation of the rules of this forum?