Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity

[James H. Fetzer]

By way of a response to Helen, here's an extract from a thread about all this:

Give the quantity and quality of evidence that suggests there were very
strange things going on with regard to the planes, I have pointed out
that, so far as I have been able to determine, something hit the North
Tower, but it was not a 767; that video fakery was used in lieu of a
767 instead of an actual hit on the South Tower; that a 757 flew toward
the Pentagon but swerved over it and did not hit it, although there are
indications of a much smaller plane having hit the building; and that
no plane crashed in Shanksville, but one may have been shot down or
else landed in Cleveland! And I take it we have even more evidence to
substantiate that in the form of these studies by Phil Jayhan, namely:

http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-conspirat...20893.html
http://letsrollforums.com/mystery-passen...20439.html

I am a bit puzzled by some of the comments from Anthony and Ed, which
suggest they do not understand the nature of scientific reasoning, on
the one hand, or what I actually say during my public presentations,
which has been--with perhaps one exception in which I emphasized the
reporters reports about no planes at the Pentagon and at Shanksville
and showed the Hezarkanhi and Fairbanks vidoes--very restrained about
video fakery in mentioning key points but not belaboring them. They
are the basic evidence about video fakery, since (a) the plane shown
is traveling faster than aerodynamically possible, (b) it enters the
South Tower in a fashion inconsistent with Newton, and © it travels
its length into the building in the same number of frames it travels
its length in air. Even if it were a "special plane", which could be
alleged to travel faster than a 767, it still could not do (b) or ©.

Moreover, the laws of physics and of aerodynamics constrain what even
a "special plane" can do with respect to (a). John Lear, one of our
nation's most distinguished pilots, has offered very precise and very
relevant discussions of the physical limits of engines at altitudes
like these. These considerations appear to make it impossible for any
plane--no matter how "special"--to fly at around 560 mph at 700-1,000
feet altitude. Not only have they given us no reason in the world to
believe there exists such as "special plane", but their idea of one,
in light of Lear's observations, appears to be a fantasy. Consider:

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blo...vit-on-the
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blo...vit-in-the

Some of Ed's statements have puzzled me. After I provide this list,

Elias Davidsson, "No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11"
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.ph...Itemid=296

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=16924

James H. Fetzer, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Pro...9-132.html

Regarding the speed of Flight 175, here's an interview with an aeronautical
engineer, which you can hear http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pf_011909.mp3

John Lear, among our nation's most distinguished pilots, even submitted
an affidavit in a lawsuit, which, along with many other statements he has
made, can be found at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth forum, using this link:

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blo...vit-on-the and
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blo...vit-in-the

Here are some studies about the passenger lists, which are incoherent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze5Fg9Nw9YA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0qbhOUcO...re=related

Ed makes these observations, which may hold the key to our differences:

[Hide Quoted Text]
The above are INFERRED to prove--yet none are direct evidence of video fakery. I can't
see video fakery in the seven or so videos of the plane striking and passing through the
South Tower. These videos show the same phenomenon occurring. One video is a live
broadcast with eyewitnesses to a plane flying toward the towers--and that video of the
damage is consistent with the other six videos I've watched over and over. What is the
"smoking gun" of video fakery that starts the collection of evidence supporting video
fakery, Jim?

Well, they offer different kinds of evidence about the planes and what
was going on on 9/11. But Ed seems to think that, if various videos
are CONSISTENT, then they are not FAKED. But the simplest and most
telling indication of VIDEO FAKERY is that they should record events
that CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE OCCURRED. Laws of physics, chemistry, and
aerodynamics, for example, cannot be violated and cannot be changed.
I have offered three examples of violations of laws of physics and of
aerodynamics in the form of points (a), (b), and ©. Unless Ed and
Anthony can explain how the laws of physics and of aerodynamics were
changed on 9/11--actually suspended for the during of this flight--
their position, fro a logical point of view, is simply absurd. The
videos may be CONSISTENT, but what they are showing is IMPOSSIBLE.
Videos showing impossible events cannot be genuine and must be fake.

Maybe that's too difficult for Ed and Anthony to understand. Perhaps
they are fans of "Superman" or "Spiderman" and believe that the events
shown in those movies are also real! I don't know, but it should be
clear to one and all that EITHER the content of these 9/11 videos has
been staged (so you could have a real video of a staged event) or the
footage itself has been fabricated (by compositing during a live feed
or by computer-generated-images or whatever). Since Anthony and Ed
both claim some expertise in relation to photographs and films, they
should know the kinds of techniques that could be used to bring about
the effects that are present in these films. But THE SMOKING GUN IS
THAT THESE VIDEOS REPRESENT IMAGES OF PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
EVENTS. I am stupefied if they haven't understood this, because it is obvious.

As for the features of Ground Zero after 9/11, I highly recommend the
study of http://drjudywood.com, where she has compiled a massive and
detailed photographic record of the sequence of events thereafter. I
spend an enormous amount of time with Judy, who is a former professor
of mechanical engineering at Clemson and, in my opinion, the one who
has done the most to explain the explanandum, which is the evidence we
have to explain if we are to be successful in establishing what really
happened on 9/11. I find Judy's work quite fascinating and believe we
can learn a great deal about what happened in New York through studying
her work. That does not mean that we therefore agree with her about
everything, including the use of a directed energy weapon on the Twin
Towers, but it is certainly an hypothesis that goes beyond the use of
thermite/thermate/nano-thermate and MIGHT be able to explain what we
see in the observable data. So I have long encouraged the study of
directed energy weapons along with mini-nukes, lasers, masers, etc.

Here are some of key points to deal with what happened to the towers:

"Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition"
http://www.infowars.com/top-construction...emolition/

"New 9/11 Photos Released"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/...eased.html

"9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Destruction"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...h-and.html

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...tagon.html

"Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...attle.html

"An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"
http://911scholars.ning.com, enter the title

Ed has raised questions about the molten metal and others are raising ones
about Shanksville and the Pentagon, where no planes appear to have crashed,
as even the reporters first on the scenes emphasized. My sugggestion is
that, until you can explain away the physically impossible events (a), (b)
and © that are present in the South Tower videos, there is no point in
turning to other issues, which simply function as distractions. Indeed, I
am increasingly disposed to believe that this entire discussion was based
upon exaggerations of my position, because when Ed offers the observations,

[Hide Quoted Text]
Unless Fetzer gets the package of information together, i would rather he trumpet the
solid evidence of controlled demolition and nanothermite. While will, by his nature,
have to mention his other pet hypotheses, he should qualify this with a statement such
as "We have a prima facie case that 9/11 is a lie through the evidence and experts
supporting controlled demolition. These additional areas MAY enhance the case--however,
nine years hence, we MUST focus on WHO DID IT. Motive, means, opportunity and
connections to keep the cover-up going point to Zionists and Israeli involvement."

The fact of the matter is that this is very much what I do during my public
presentations. I make that kind of case. Most of my time is devoted to the
demolition of the Twin Towers and the damage to the World Trade Center, not
observations that are related to the possibility of video fakery. Look at
any of my presentations and count the number of slides I devote to matters
OTHER THAN video fakery and you will find it is on the order of 100 to 10.
Since I simply observe that there are reasons why some students of 9/11 are
inclined to believe that video fakery occurred in relation to the hit on the
South Tower--especially, (a), (b), and ©--that is virtually all I say about
it. So perhaps the lesson of this exercise is that Ed and Anthony have shown
they do not understand a principle that I have taken for granted throughout,
namely: THAT ANY VIDEO THAT SHOWS IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS HAS TO BE A FAKE VIDEO,
EITHER BY FAKING WHAT IT IS RECORDING OR BY FABRICATING THE VIDEO ITSELF, as
I take it should be apparent to everyone by now. With that, I rest my case.

I haven't read this entire thread and probably won't. Personally I think remote-controlled military planes flew into the WTC and that a large plane flew over the Pentagon before it was hit by a tomahawk missile.

My real question is, is the John Lear mentioned above the same John Lear who appeared on John Judge's radio program with William Cooper when the latter two were travelling the country trying to sell the idea that Greer shot Kennedy? The Lear who flew drugs and arms during Iran/Contra, the son of the Lear of Lear jet fame...

EDIT: I read through the thread anyway, minus the links. Regarding possibly missing passengers in Cleveland/PA, see Operation Northwoods documents: they provided for removal of civilian passengers I guess.

One thing that caught my attn recently was a series of photos on cryptome.org of LANDING GEAR after the first "crash" at WTC, but over at the Greek Orthodox street. A wheel was embedded in WTC "wheat chex" material, lying across a street. The surrounding streets had been partially police-taped off and were full of bits of meat, blood and garbage.

From what I gathered, it would've been very strange for the wheel and wall section to make it to that location after the first crash. And why the concentration of supposedly human remains right there? There were no more plane parts there as far as I could see from the photos.

This also makes me wonder about all the people who allegedly jumped from the building. Did anyone get to do an autopsy on the more integral corpses? If someone was faking evidence by the Greek Orthodox church, couldn't they toss corpses out of windows as well? I find it suspicious because it is so graphic, and there is the story of the one Indian (or Sri Lankan) man who saw a plane approaching, hid under his desk and ended up on the next floor down, and escaped. If he didn't jump out a window, why did others? He would've been right there in the eye of the hurricane.

My approach to 9/11 is that I don't know what physically happened, that there is a conspiracy at work and I need to keep an open mind. I agree thermate can't explain the total collapse of WTC in itself, so am open to other ideas, DEWs, nukes, suitcase-nukes, exotic new weapons technologies.

I have to agree that if the "no planes" school of thought was supposed to discredit 9/11 truth, they've failed to spring the trap so far. Lear's presence on any side of the issue is troubling, if it's the same Lear I'm thinking of, and my guess would be that the operation in play isn't to discredit 9/11 truth but to divide and conquer through internal dissent.

Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com basically calls "no-planes-at-the-Pentagon" people dupes but hasn't presented any good evidence there were planes, beyond his contention that he plays flight simulators and knows the manoeuvres were completely possible, plus he believes the black box data presented. Mike Rivero routinely gets facts wrong, though; last broadcast of his radio/internet show had him talking about the BCCI scandal, which he thought happened in the 1970s.

Kenn Thomas, who has a much longer parapolitics pedigree, also thinks "no-planes-at-the-Pentagon" is a distraction, based on his survey/interviews of eye-witnesses close to the time of the event. Did any of Thomas's witnesses see the plane hit, or did they just see it barrelling low along one of the streets up the hill? I don't know.