9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job

[Kyle Burnett]

It appears to me that you are playing games by wanting me to summarize these sources so you can trivialize them.

Not even close. In reality, I was wanting you to specify what you are claiming as proof so I could be sure I wasn't overlooking it. I thank you for finally doing that, but your slandering me as incompetent and disingenuous in the same post gives me the impression you've no interest in hearing why I believe what you quoted falls short of proof. Am I right?

[James H. Fetzer]

Sorry to offend you, Kyle, but I have spent a lot of time on forums, and your coy moves here have struck me as both disingenuous and manipulative. If you have something to say, say it, but it seems to me you are simply playing games. The impossible speed has been established on multiple grounds: No Boeing 767 could have flown that fast at that altitude, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and John Lear, among others, have confirmed. There was nothing to "overlook" in what I presented. If you are sincere, then you really ought to listen to my interviews with John Lear on "The Real Deal".

It appears to me that you are playing games by wanting me to summarize these sources so you can trivialize them.

Not even close. In reality, I was wanting you to specify what you are claiming as proof so I could be sure I wasn't overlooking it. I thank you for finally doing that, but your slandering me as incompetent and disingenuous in the same post gives me the impression you've no interest in hearing why I believe what you quoted falls short of proof. Am I right?

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

Greetings, my friend! I (almost) always appreciate your posts. A member of Scholars some time back did a study of the 19 who allegedly made phone calls from the planes. He discovered that only one of their names appeared on the Social Security Death Index and none of their survivors had received money from the survivors fund: NONE. That sounds (almost) unAmerican to turn down free bucks! [emphasis added]

Jim,

Know that I'm 100% with you in terms of the 9-11 attacks being deep political events staged in support of multiple, despicable objectives.

Further, we agree that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were brought down not by the impacts of aircraft or debris, but rather via a form or forms of controlled demolition, and that a jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, and that the Pennsylvania crash -- or better, event -- did not take place as officially advertised.

There are many additional points of agreement, but I think you catch my drift.

In re the People Problem, I'd draw your attention to the above-quoted line in italics.

My question: If some of the alleged innocent victims of the staged attack did indeed perish -- or at least disappear -- on 9-11-01, then how were they killed and/or disappeared?

My question can be answered only with a hypothesis. Which is fine. But if you're positing the existence of kidnap/execution teams, I think you're adding layers of complexity that in the agregate topple the hypothesis.

For the record, please know that I understand that intelligence operations are designed to defeat and be supported by flawed shavings by Occam's Razor.

And if I accept the evidence which you present to prove that airliners such as those purported to have struck WTC 1 and 2 simply could not have done so in the manners indicated, then I will be lead inexorably to alternative explanations, including the hologram hypothesis.

If anyone can find fault with Jim's benchwork in terms of flight speeds, impact characteristics, etc., please come forward and do so in a manner that is informed by science and intellectual rigor but absent ad hominem attacks.

[Ed Jewett]

... intelligence operations are designed to defeat and be supported by flawed shavings by Occam's Razor.

Brilliant insight!

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles,

When you consider the evidence I have outlined in post #17, there appear to be excellent reasons for concluding that these have to have been phantom flights. I therefore agree with Barry in his observations about what happened to the people:

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE?

This is seemingly a huge problem with the whole "no plane" theory. Real people died on 9/11. There is no denying that. However, the passenger lists are actually supportive pieces of evidence to the idea of "no planes." The 4 planes all had low loads -- less than 200 people total were onboard, including the crew. It turns out that many of the names were employees of Boeing and other military contractors or were in the military itself. The government set up a compensation fund for families of the victims of 9/11. Each family would receive $2 million compensation. Only a small percentage of the families entitled to money came forward to collect! For one plane of 40 victims, only 6 families tried to claim the $2 million! Moreover, six of the alleged hijackers were seen after 9/11. One of them spoke in length with his father the next day. Another hijacker was interviewed on the BBC on 9/12! One must ask, "How can a pilot fly a plane into a building and do an interview on the BBC the next day?!"

While I do not agree with every point he makes in his blog, I think he is right on this one. If anyone else has an alternative explanation, which can accommodate all of the available evidence in a more elegant fashion, then I hope they will advance it.

Jim

Charles,

Greetings, my friend! I (almost) always appreciate your posts. A member of Scholars some time back did a study of the 19 who allegedly made phone calls from the planes. He discovered that only one of their names appeared on the Social Security Death Index and none of their survivors had received money from the survivors fund: NONE. That sounds (almost) unAmerican to turn down free bucks! [emphasis added]

Jim,

Know that I'm 100% with you in terms of the 9-11 attacks being deep political events staged in support of multiple, despicable objectives.

Further, we agree that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were brought down not by the impacts of aircraft or debris, but rather via a form or forms of controlled demolition, and that a jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, and that the Pennsylvania crash -- or better, event -- did not take place as officially advertised.

There are many additional points of agreement, but I think you catch my drift.

In re the People Problem, I'd draw your attention to the above-quoted line in italics.

My question: If some of the alleged innocent victims of the staged attack did indeed perish -- or at least disappear -- on 9-11-01, then how were they killed and/or disappeared?

My question can be answered only with a hypothesis. Which is fine. But if you're positing the existence of kidnap/execution teams, I think you're adding layers of complexity that in the agregate topple the hypothesis.

For the record, please know that I understand that intelligence operations are designed to defeat and be supported by flawed shavings by Occam's Razor.

And if I accept the evidence which you present to prove that airliners such as those purported to have struck WTC 1 and 2 simply could not have done so in the manners indicated, then I will be lead inexorably to alternative explanations, including the hologram hypothesis.

If anyone can find fault with Jim's benchwork in terms of flight speeds, impact characteristics, etc., please come forward and do so in a manner that is informed by science and intellectual rigor but absent ad hominem attacks.

[Kyle Burnett]

The impossible speed has been established on multiple grounds: No Boeing 767 could have flown that fast at that altitude, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and John Lear, among others, have confirmed.

The problem is, when I look at what you point to as confirmation, I don't find anything which even comes close. To start with, here is what you quoted from Pilots For 9/11 Truth:

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

The haphazard mixing of units and lack of citations for claims of fact aside, I've yet to find anything in the articles you linked our otherwise to support the notion that EA990 is a valid benchmark for the maximum equivalent airspeed for 767s. Rather, left to search for the circumstance of EA990 on my own, I've found competing hypothesizes on the details of why it went down, but none which contradict the general sequence of events recounted in this diagram. Specifically, plane went into a dive and the engines were throttled down before peak speed was achieved in what was essentially a free fall, which is a vastly different situation than planes being accelerated in controlled flight into targets as can be seen in the many videos of the WTC attacks and as recounted by many witnesses. So, on what basis can one justify using EA990 as a benchmark here?

[Malcolm Pryce]

It's surprising how often people are willing to accept that rogue elements in the US administration might have deliberately crashed the planes into the Towers, but react with horror when you suggest they might have taken the passengers away somewhere and executed them.

[Ed Jewett]

It's surprising how often people are willing to accept that rogue elements in the US administration might have deliberately crashed the planes into the Towers, but react with horror when you suggest they might have taken the passengers away somewhere and executed them.

I don't think "the investigators" are done figuring this thing out. Dealey Plaza is almost five decades in the past, 9/11 only one. And while I don't put it past the pathologically puerile punks to execute some people, I doubt it was wholesale. Too many messy details.... More like sleight-of-hand, etc.

[Malcolm Pryce]

It's surprising how often people are willing to accept that rogue elements in the US administration might have deliberately crashed the planes into the Towers, but react with horror when you suggest they might have taken the passengers away somewhere and executed them.

I don't think "the investigators" are done figuring this thing out. Dealey Plaza is almost five decades in the past, 9/11 only one. And while I don't put it past the pathologically puerile punks to execute some people, I doubt it was wholesale. Too many messy details.... More like sleight-of-hand, etc.

I agree. You'd think it would be relatively straightforward to find out if the victims listed on the flight manifests were real but there seems still a lot of confusion (and perhaps misinfo) about it.

[James H. Fetzer]

Then why don't you contact Pilots for 9/11 Truth and tell them they have their heads where the Sun does not shine? I know Rob Balsamo and have confidence in their competence. That is not true of you. Here's a link to their home page at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ I find it curious that you are not discussing John Lear's affidavit or "9/11 Intercepted", which both discuss this in some detail.

I am also struck that you have not address the impossible entry of the plane into the building or the fact that, in these videos, the plane passes through its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air, which you can verify for yourself using single-frame advance. Look at the Hezarkhani footage: http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/No-Planes

Do you really think this is a plane colliding with a massive, 500,000 ton steel and concrete building? Do you understand that it is intersecting with eight (8) floors, consisting of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and external support columns on the other, which were filled with 4-8" of concrete? At 208' across, we are talking about an acre of concrete apiece--and eight (8) of them!



What do you imagine would happen if a Boeing 767 had hit just one of these floors suspended in space? We know the damage that can be done by a tiny bird weighing a few ounces when hit by a commercial carrier. What about an acre of concrete on a steel truss? I don't know why you are pursuing this, Kyle, because you are not going to overcome the laws of aerodynamics, engineering and physics.

Notice, too, the relative spacing of the narrow windows, which were eighteen inches wide with the support columns separated by a meter, so they were less than 50% of the space between them. And of course the vertical space between floors was windowless. Which means that much less than 50% of the facade was made of glass. The plane should have crumpled and dropped to zero velocity.

While the engines might have been expected to enter the buildings, the wings and the tail should have broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. None of that happened. So I think that your preoccupation with an issue that Pilots and John Lear have already settled is curious by itself, I am even more surprised at your apparent lack of interest of multiple other indications of fakery.

The impossible speed has been established on multiple grounds: No Boeing 767 could have flown that fast at that altitude, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and John Lear, among others, have confirmed.

The problem is, when I look at what you point to as confirmation, I don't find anything which even comes close. To start with, here is what you quoted from Pilots For 9/11 Truth:

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

The haphazard mixing of units and lack of citations for claims of fact aside, I've yet to find anything in the articles you linked our otherwise to support the notion that EA990 is a valid benchmark for the maximum equivalent airspeed for 767s. Rather, left to search for the circumstance of EA990 on my own, I've found competing hypothesizes on the details of why it went down, but none which contradict the general sequence of events recounted in this diagram. Specifically, plane went into a dive and the engines were throttled down before peak speed was achieved in what was essentially a free fall, which is a vastly different situation than planes being accelerated in controlled flight into targets as can be seen in the many videos of the WTC attacks and as recounted by many witnesses. So, on what basis can one justify using EA990 as a benchmark here?