The plane crashes of 9/11 were fabrications . . .

[James H. Fetzer]

9/11: Planes/No Planes and Video Fakery'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/...eo-fakery/

"9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attach is a fantasy" (with Dennis Cimino)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/...a-fantasy/

"The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?" (with Dean Hartwell)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/...flight-93/

[Jan Klimkowski]

Here's the crux of Prof Fetzer's no planes hit the Twin Towers hypothesis:

Since we all saw United Flight 175 hit the South Tower on televisionand many also claim to have watched it happen with their own eyeswhat was actually going on in New York City? What did we see on television or, assuming we take the witnesses at face value, with their own eyes? There are three alternative theories, which involve the use of computer generated images (CGIs), the use of video compositing (VC), or the use of a sophisticated hologram, respectively. That third alternative may sound "far out" until you realize that many witnesses claim to have seen a plane hit the South Tower with their own eyes, which would have been impossible if VC or CGIs had been the method that was used.

As Prof Fetzer acknowledges, the use of computer generated images (CGIs) and the use of video compositing (VC) is ruled out because of the numerous witnesses who saw planes hit the Twin Towers not on television, but with their own eyes in the streets of New York.

"Proof Plane that Hit was Hologram"

The mission required something that looked like a real plane but could perform feats that no real plane could perform by entering the building before it would explode, which would have been impossible with a real plane. And that had to be timed to coincide with explosions in the subbasements that, even with the most meticulous planning, would inadvertently take place 14 and 17 seconds before the planes appeared to hit the buildings. It was an audacious plan, brilliant in design, and nearly perfect in execution. But those who were working this out did not realize that they were also creating the image of a plane that would turn out to be traveling faster than a Boeing 767, violating Newton's laws, and passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its own length it air. As in the case of the Pentagon, they thereby violated laws of aerodynamics and of physics that gave their game away. And those blemishes, subtle as they may have been, have provided the opportunity to expose a fantastic fraud, which has been used to justify wars of aggression and constraints upon civil rights that our nation continues to endure to this day.

So Prof Fetzer's no planes hit the Twin Towers hypothesis basically reduces to the belief that hologram technology was used throughout the incidents to hide some other form of destructive attack.

Prof Fetzer - what is your evidence for hologram technology as of 2001 being able to achieve such a mass deception?

[Jeffrey Orling]

The holographic explanation has so many problems with it, that it is almost laughable. There was damage created to the face of the towers, there was debris flying off and landing on the streets and there were witnesses inside the tower who reported that they swayed after the *impact* implying that there was an impulse applied laterally as in a plane impact.

Too many people who call themselves researchers come up with some theory and then hunt around and cherry pick what they claim is supporting evidence of their theory, the facts be damned. Most of their *research* involves the use of *logic* applied to a set of questionable arguments which leads these researchers precisely where they want to go... the facts be damned.

Fetzer, I believe, has asserted that aluminum planes could not penetrate a steel facade such as in the twin towers. Yet every day cars at must lower velocities penetrate each other in what insurance companies pay for in damage claims.

Virtually all researches make the claim that the columns were too strong to be crushed and so had to be *destroyed* for the buildings to collapse. Of course this is not how they collapsed at all if one bothers to observe the event. The floors collapsed... then the core columns without lateral bracing were unstable and collapsed in the collapse event. The facade columns only show buckling at the initiating event and the rest of them fell off or were pushed outward by the massive debris of the floor collapse which they could not cage or contain. Observations show the facade panels or assemblies of panels clearly falling / tipping outward... not being explosively ejected from the towers... with the lightweight aluminum cladding popping off and being blown about in the turbulent air created by the collapse.

Virtually all *researchers* have no conception of what such a massive building collapse would look like because no one has seen one and no buildings have collapsed except when intentionally demolished. They have little to no understanding of how fast they would collapse or what the debris distribution would be, because they have no experience with this. All the claims are driven by rather naive understanding of and misapplication of physics. The towers did not have top blocks collapse down, but top sections which came apart when they lost axial support and crashed down on the the structure below coming apart into tens of thousands of tons of destructive material which crushed the floors below and upon which they fell. There was no longer axial column alignment post initiation and no way for the structure below to resist the tens of thousands of tons fall in the floors. The floors were overwhelmed and all collapsed in about .1 seconds each.

One can either accept the physics which is confirmed by the observations or make up some theory about holograms to explain a massive deception created by the government for the purpose of initiating some pretty nasty policy agendas.

Or those who were interested in initiating those nasty policy agendas could have used the events regardless of who or how they were caused to achieve their goals... the sort shock doctrine / disaster capitalism that Naomi Klein writes about.

There is historical basis for false flag operations as well as shock doctrine exploitation such as Katrina. And there is good reason to suspect that the CIA etc were inside of AQ, as double agents and so forth and could have participated in plots such as the Christmas bombing on the flight to Detroit. It may be hard to determine how extensive insider involvement in the event was, but it strains credulity to accept that the entire event was a massive deception and Hollywood show with created with holograms and a cast of thousands of actors (who had no dress rehearsal either). This is not research, but mental masturbation and distraction.

[Jan Klimkowski]

One can either accept the physics which is confirmed by the observations or make up some theory about holograms to explain a massive deception created by the government for the purpose of initiating some pretty nasty policy agendas.

Or those who were interested in initiating those nasty policy agendas could have used the events regardless of who or how they were caused to achieve their goals... the sort shock doctrine / disaster capitalism that Naomi Klein writes about.

There is historical basis for false flag operations as well as shock doctrine exploitation such as Katrina. And there is good reason to suspect that the CIA etc were inside of AQ, as double agents and so forth and could have participated in plots such as the Christmas bombing on the flight to Detroit. It may be hard to determine how extensive insider involvement in the event was, but it strains credulity to accept that the entire event was a massive deception and Hollywood show with created with holograms and a cast of thousands of actors (who had no dress rehearsal either). This is not research, but mental masturbation and distraction.

Jeffery - I concur.

I will add that mental masturbation does not constitute deep political research, and only serves the agenda of the Shock Therapists and criminal elements of the military-multinational-intelligence complex.

[Ed Jewett]

9-11 No Plane Manifesto - 100% Proof

18.5 minutes of video

http://factsnotfairies.blogspot.com/2012...proof.html

Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6VpzqYlP...r_embedded

Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3stfmqKpN...r_embedded

****

APR
4
Believe Your Own Eyes
Plane Brainwashing from Day 1 and Subliminals long long before...

http://factsnotfairies.blogspot.com/2012...-eyes.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDgyhIfTb...embedded#! (About 40 minutes, but the meat is in the first half)

[Jeffrey Orling]

I can't make too much sense of these videos... For someone who is into demonstrating visual fakery... their presentation lacks clarity. How'se that for irony?

[Jan Klimkowski]

9-11 No Plane Manifesto - 100% Proof

The only 100% proof I can discern in this illiterate garbage is the pure vodka the authors must have been glugging....

[Albert Doyle]

Did they also alter the videos taken from many directions and far-off places too randomly dispersed for CIA agents to scramble and collect all the loose footage?

[Ed Jewett]

Did they also alter the videos taken from many directions and far-off places too randomly dispersed for CIA agents to scramble and collect all the loose footage?

The presence of assumption in the above question suggests the need for time and renewed re-consideration in preparation for what Guy Claxton [ http://www.amazon.com/Hare-Brain-Tortois...0060955414] might term another cavalry charge.

As for the other comments -- erudite, insightful and deeply analytical as they are (in keeping with the act of "shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems" as part of "a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows") -- they seem to be dismissive, and lacking in any effort to discern or ascertain or describe specifically the issues, information, evidence, perception, errors in perception, or other logical or intuitive approaches.

Apparently, snide remarks constitute the best of attempts at discussion, dialogue and comprehension here.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Apparently, snide remarks constitute the best of attempts at discussion, dialogue and comprehension here.

Ed - the posting of garbage is also an insult, and wastes the time of this forum.

In post #2 above, I broke down Fetzer's latest offerings - the hypotheses which caused him to create this thread - and asked him a simple question which he has not responded to.

Fetzer wrote:

There are three alternative theories, which involve the use of computer generated images (CGIs), the use of video compositing (VC), or the use of a sophisticated hologram, respectively. That third alternative may sound "far out" until you realize that many witnesses claim to have seen a plane hit the South Tower with their own eyes, which would have been impossible if VC or CGIs had been the method that was used.

Ed - please explain whether you believe any of these three hypotheses - CGI, VC, holograms - and why.

Thanking you in advance.