Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job
#1
9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/...nside.html

Jim Fetzer

Many sober citizens are reluctant to conclude that 9/11 was an "inside job" because they cannot bring themselves to believe that their own government would deliberately kill 3,000 of their fellow citizens to promote a political agenda for the sake of oil, Israel, and ideology. The evidence, however, extends to the apparent use of video fakery on 9/11, which, I now believe, was necessary to create a pseudo-explanation for explosions in the sub-basements of both Twin Towers. Either should be sufficient to make the point, but in combination they are devastating.

Two studies that initially seem far removed from one another turn out to be intricately interrelated. In "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an 'inside job'" (original), http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Artic...Proof.html (also republished in a slightly revised version that does not affect the key points), Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong followed up on the report of an explosion in the subbasement of the North Tower PRIOR TO reverberations from the alleged plane impacts by William Rodriguez, the senior custodian in the North Tower, which he had lived through.

Using seismic data from a laboratory run by Columbia University and FAA and military radar data to establish the relationship between these "events', they found that explosions in the subbasements of both towers occurred 14-17 seconds before "impacts". They were meticulous in their research and their conclusions are well-supported by their data.

[Image: v77b88.jpg]
Data Table from "Seismic Proof"

When Willie mentioned to me that the subbasement had filled with water, I realized the principal purpose of those explosions had been to drain the sprinkler systems of water. Since most of the jet fuel burned up in spectacular fireballs within the first 15-20 seconds, the modest fires that remained could have been easily extinguished by the sprinklers, had they not been drained.

Evidence that the videos of the airplane impacts were faked -- which I have summarized in several arguments in "New Proof of Video Fakeryon 9/11", http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Pro...9-132.html -- thus appears to have been to effect a precise temporal coordination of the "impacts" occurring prior to the intended subsequent explosions as their pseudo-cause.

The reason is that the perps needed a semi-plausible explanation for why they had occurred at all. The one they chose was to claim that jet fuel had fallen through the elevator shafts and exploded in those basements. There are several problems with this account, however, including that the primary elevators are staggered in the towers, which means the fuel could not have fallen through them into the subbasements.

Another is that, while there are one or two that extend all the way up and down the towers, a co-worker of Willie was in one of those in the North Tower. He survived the experience without having been burned alive, which would have been his fate if the official account were correct. And, of course, there was a human error in coordinating the "impacts" with the explosions, where Ross and Furlong confirmed that the explosions actually happened first.

[Image: 651zbp.jpg]

"Fight 175" entering the South Tower

The indications of fakery here include that the plane allegedly a Boeing 767 -- is traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed); it enters the building effortlessly with no loss of velocity, no impact, and no debris; and it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air impossible unless a 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air!

Now it might seem reasonable, on first consideration, to suppose that it would have been simpler to use real planes instead of resorting to video fakery. The problem, however, is that hitting a target that is only 208' on a side is a very daunting task. Pilots for 9/11 Truth, for example, has reported that many of their members, who were far more highly qualified than any of the alleged "hijackers", had made repeated attempts to hit a 208' wide tower using a 767 simulator without success.

The only one of whom I know had any success was Rob Balsamo, who had one success in ten tries, where the speed of the plane (at 560 mph as seen in those videos) made it extremely difficult, indeed. In their efforts to GUARANTEE that those impacts would occur at the times required to "explain" the subbasement explosions, therefore, it was necessary to resort to the tactic of video fakery, where how it was done--with CGIs, compositing, or holograms--is an open question.

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at UMD, is the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, http://911scholars.org.
Reply
#2
Jim,

There's a lot of problems in the logical construction of the arguments in your piece.

First there is issue of establishing when the events occurred. LDO's number include a time delay based on the material the wave is propagating through and that alone means that they have to factor in this delay when trying to establish the actual time of the event.

To do that some researchers have relied on the TV images. But of course there were not really except the Naudet video of the trade center and whose to say that their camera's clock stamp was calibrated to UTC.

I believe no one has reported explosions in the sub basements of tower 2 which apparently DID have a bunch of network cameras as the plane struck. Was there a seismic signature to the actual plane impact?

The of course the time of collapse is another issue which is hard to coordinate time wise. If we look at tower 1, the top section disintegrated shortly after the antenna began to tilt a but and drop. This would indicated that the hat truss or columns supporting it were "taken out". Was there a "seismic" signature which signaled the start of the antenna drop? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

So what WAS the first seismic signature of the actual collapse? Was it the top section disintegrating and collapsing down on floor 93 or so? Was it perhaps the first facade panels which feel or were pushed by whatever cause over the side and fell at free fall less wind resistance to the ground 1200 feet below. That would take 9-10 seconds to slam to the ground and make a seismic signature if it did. Then as the tower disintegrated from the 93 floor down debris feel outside and traveled at free fall acceleration until it slammed into the ground. The panels coming from the 50th floor would take about 6 seconds to hit the ground, but they weren't "released" from the structure for about 5 second after the tower began to be destroyed from floor 93.

I think you numbers are rather imprecise and there is no way to tell what the initial signatures of the collapse were. It's a very interesting problem, but the work I read on it is not convincing of establishing a time line.

And then there is the problem of the provenance of the videos... many of which seem to have been "played with" as they went out live... was there even some delay? I think it's entirely possible.

As far as the plane data... it's all digital and prone to manipulation and there's no reason to believe ANY of it. It all could have been produced in a simulator and transmitted "real time"... essentially inserting whatever information the perps wanted. That sounds like a DOD assisted MIHOP deal... as who might have such capability BUT the DOD? But intel groups do have such "signal" intel capability so who knows who put on the show. It seems as if the ATC and many on the DOD WERE caught flat footed and confused by the data as there WAS a couple of hijack exercises underway and they DO insert digital data onto screens of ATC , civilian AND military. Bottom line... RADES and other data means nothing at all. No way can it be determined whether it was real or faked and with the speeds reported it does seem fake.

But the plane's image on the vids CAN be traced and computed. Again that would be of an image on a video... and a video where no positive ID of the plane is possible. How convenient was that!

It's really hard to build a case on such unreliable data. The only one seems to be that the data doesn't add up.
Reply
#3
Or read the studies that I cite. For someone who insists that the Twin Towers came down in a special form of collapse -- which is refuted even by the gross observable evidence, as I have explained in "New 9/11 Photos Released", archived at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/...eased.html -- this is quite a stunning stretch. I have never seen anyone as disrespectful of the data as Jeffrey Orling. You can spare us your preposterous defense of the official account!

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jim,

There's a lot of problems in the logical construction of the arguments in your piece.

First there is issue of establishing when the events occurred. LDO's number include a time delay based on the material the wave is propagating through and that alone means that they have to factor in this delay when trying to establish the actual time of the event.

To do that some researchers have relied on the TV images. But of course there were not really except the Naudet video of the trade center and whose to say that their camera's clock stamp was calibrated to UTC.

I believe no one has reported explosions in the sub basements of tower 2 which apparently DID have a bunch of network cameras as the plane struck. Was there a seismic signature to the actual plane impact?

The of course the time of collapse is another issue which is hard to coordinate time wise. If we look at tower 1, the top section disintegrated shortly after the antenna began to tilt a but and drop. This would indicated that the hat truss or columns supporting it were "taken out". Was there a "seismic" signature which signaled the start of the antenna drop? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

So what WAS the first seismic signature of the actual collapse? Was it the top section disintegrating and collapsing down on floor 93 or so? Was it perhaps the first facade panels which feel or were pushed by whatever cause over the side and fell at free fall less wind resistance to the ground 1200 feet below. That would take 9-10 seconds to slam to the ground and make a seismic signature if it did. Then as the tower disintegrated from the 93 floor down debris feel outside and traveled at free fall acceleration until it slammed into the ground. The panels coming from the 50th floor would take about 6 seconds to hit the ground, but they weren't "released" from the structure for about 5 second after the tower began to be destroyed from floor 93.

I think you numbers are rather imprecise and there is no way to tell what the initial signatures of the collapse were. It's a very interesting problem, but the work I read on it is not convincing of establishing a time line.

And then there is the problem of the provenance of the videos... many of which seem to have been "played with" as they went out live... was there even some delay? I think it's entirely possible.

As far as the plane data... it's all digital and prone to manipulation and there's no reason to believe ANY of it. It all could have been produced in a simulator and transmitted "real time"... essentially inserting whatever information the perps wanted. That sounds like a DOD assisted MIHOP deal... as who might have such capability BUT the DOD? But intel groups do have such "signal" intel capability so who knows who put on the show. It seems as if the ATC and many on the DOD WERE caught flat footed and confused by the data as there WAS a couple of hijack exercises underway and they DO insert digital data onto screens of ATC , civilian AND military. Bottom line... RADES and other data means nothing at all. No way can it be determined whether it was real or faked and with the speeds reported it does seem fake.

But the plane's image on the vids CAN be traced and computed. Again that would be of an image on a video... and a video where no positive ID of the plane is possible. How convenient was that!

It's really hard to build a case on such unreliable data. The only one seems to be that the data doesn't add up.
Reply
#4
Jim,

Kindly comment on my post. There are many researchers who see the destruction as a gravity driven collapse. Have you read the work at the 911 Free Forum? ROOSD is not an understanding unique to me. I didn't even come up with the acronym.

Let's discuss seismic data as means to prove whatever you are trying to prove.

What are you trying to prove? Don't seismic signals come from the earth shaking from heavy stuff falling on it... as happened on 9/11? What WAS all that data... lots of explosions?
Reply
#5
Between the three studies I have cited -- "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job", "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", and "New 9/11 Photos Released" -- there is more than enough proof to put your mindless meanderings to rest permanently. So spare us more of the same, Jeffrey. You are a baloney salesman and we aren't buying.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jim,

Kindly comment on my post. There are many researchers who see the destruction as a gravity driven collapse. Have you read the work at the 911 Free Forum? ROOSD is not an understanding unique to me. I didn't even come up with the acronym.

Let's discuss seismic data as means to prove whatever you are trying to prove.

What are you trying to prove? Don't seismic signals come from the earth shaking from heavy stuff falling on it... as happened on 9/11? What WAS all that data... lots of explosions?
Reply
#6
I read the "Seismic Proof" paper years ago, and it seems well reasoned to me. On the other hand, I've yet to see anything even vaguely resembling a solid argument for video fakery.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:the plane allegedly a Boeing 767 -- is traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed)
How are you suggesting this was confirmed?

James H. Fetzer Wrote:impossible unless a 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air!
Buildings are mostly air, as is the plane. Well there's a lot of jet fuel in the planes too, but that doesn't hold together much better than air. Furthermore, even a sold wall didn't slow down this plane done much:



Obviously a wall of mostly glass interspersed with steel beams would provide even less resistance.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:The problem, however, is that hitting a target that is only 208' on a side is a very daunting task.
Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems addresses that issue well.
Reply
#7
Jim,

Readers know you consider anything I write in this forum nonsense. However, you still need to respond to specific points raised. You love to quote work done by others which you apparently have very little understanding of. When challenged about a point you make or the author makes or might have missed you simply ignore it and attack me.

Let's stick to the substance.

Explain how the collapse speed is determined from the seismic record with precision.
Reply
#8
Kyle,

Thanks for replying by offering reasons for your skepticism, which I appreciate. I am glad you like "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job", which Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong have expanded twice, where their latest version may be found at http://www.journalof911studies.com/ . So I will focus on your other objections.

Have you read "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", where I lay out (what I have taken to be) the strongest reasons for concluding that the video has to have been faked, since it displays effects that are aerodynamically or physically impossible? I shall assume that that is a sufficient condition for inferring something is wrong.

The question thus becomes whether the speed (of 560 mph), which is the cruising speed of a 767 at 35,000 feet, is impossible at 700-1,000 feet; whether its entry into the building occurs in violation of Newton's laws; and whether a plane can pass its length into the building in the same number of frames it does though air.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done several studies of the speed shown in the videos, including "Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed" http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed and its new documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", which not only confirms that the plane was flying at an impossible speed but that it would have been unmanageable in flight and actually come apart.

Your claim about the building being mostly air suggests to me that you are not familiar with the design of the Twin Towers. Each had 47 massive core columns and 240 external steel support columns. They were connected by concrete floors on steel trusses that were connected to the core columns at one end and to the support columns at the other. Each floor represented about an acre of concrete.

Flight 11, which allegedly hit the North Tower, intersected the building at an angle that impacted with seven (7) of those floors, while Flight 175 intersected with eight (8). Those represented tremendous horizontal resistance. Imagine one of those floors suspected on the horizontal in space, where it was hit by a plane traveling at 560 mph. What do you think would have been the physical effects?

We know the damage done to commercial carriers by impacts with tiny birds that only weigh a few ounces. So imagine an impact with a massive steel laden with an acre of concrete. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

Yamasaki's design for the World Trade Center, unveiled to the public on January 18, 1964, called for a square plan approximately 208 feet (63 m) in dimension on each side.[17][23] The buildings were designed with narrow office windows 18 inches (46 cm) wide, which reflected Yamasaki's fear of heights as well as his desire to make building occupants feel secure.[24]

Here's an abstract diagram that shows the support columns were one meter apart:

[Image: 2u9s3uf.jpg]

which means that the 18 inch wide windows were less than half the width of their separation--and of course there were no windows between the floors vertically. It is reasonable to calculate, therefore, that less than 50% of each 208' side was of glass. So at the most, less than 50% of the plane could have entered the building. But of course what we actually witness is 100% of the plane entering the building.

Moreover, you do not mention the point that 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 implies that this massive steel and concrete structure posed no more resistance to its flight trajectory than air. This is the argument that I found most convincing. I presume you will admit this is a physical impossibility.

Another article, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entr...ade_Center, discusses the design and includes diagrams of the buildings which display the off-set of the elevators, which I mentioned as the first reason why the falling jet fuel explanation really won't do. The few that ran from the bottom to the top did not experience falling jet fuel, where the explosions occurred prior to the "impacts".

Here is a copy of the Hezarkhani video of Flight 175 entering the South Tower, http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9189/...icumv3.gif Notice that there is no crumpling of the fuselage, no breaking of the wings, the tail does not snap off, and no bodies, seats, or luggage falls from the plane. Damage to the side of the building does not appear until after it is completely inside of it.

As for the use of remote controlled aircraft, of course that is a possibility, but even a remotely controlled aircraft could not have entered the building in violation of Newton's laws or passed through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air. We are left with the conclusion of fakery, where how it was done--CGIs, video compositing, or hologram--is open to debate.

Kyle Burnett Wrote:I read the "Seismic Proof" paper years ago, and it seems well reasoned to me. On the other hand, I've yet to see anything even vaguely resembling a solid argument for video fakery.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:the plane allegedly a Boeing 767 -- is traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed)
How are you suggesting this was confirmed?

James H. Fetzer Wrote:impossible unless a 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air!
Buildings are mostly air, as is the plane. Well there's a lot of jet fuel in the planes too, but that doesn't hold together much better than air. Furthermore, even a sold wall didn't slow down this plane done much:



Obviously a wall of mostly glass interspersed with steel beams would provide even less resistance.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:The problem, however, is that hitting a target that is only 208' on a side is a very daunting task.
Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems addresses that issue well.
Reply
#9
Jim, before delving into your response, I'm still wondering; how are you suggesting the speed of the plane was confirmed as aerodynamically impossible? I've read quite a bit from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, but I've not seen anything from them or anyone else to rightly substantiate this claim.
Reply
#10
Kyle,

Not only have I offered two sources from Pilots for 9/11 Truth in this paragraph,

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done several studies of the speed shown in the videos, including "Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed" http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed and its new documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", which not only confirms that the plane was flying at an impossible speed but that it would have been unmanageable in flight and actually come apart.

but you can access a more detailed discussion in the affidavit of John Lear at http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-in-the

Kyle Burnett Wrote:Jim, before delving into your response, I'm still wondering; how are you suggesting the speed of the plane was confirmed as aerodynamically impossible? I've read quite a bit from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, but I've not seen anything from them or anyone else to rightly substantiate this claim.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  NEW Proof of Controlled Demolition of WTC-7 Peter Lemkin 6 2,126 19-04-2020, 05:27 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Making things appear [that are not there] and disappear [that are] on video in real-time! Peter Lemkin 1 3,575 28-02-2018, 08:40 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Seismic Evidence of Controlled Demolition of WTC Towers [all three] Peter Lemkin 0 3,027 12-01-2018, 09:59 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  9/11 - The Toronto Hearings (Laurie Manwell) (video: 1:02:58) Ed Jewett 6 4,330 23-09-2011, 04:33 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  New Pentagon video Magda Hassan 84 58,704 16-09-2011, 10:13 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  Paul Craig Roberts on the 9/11 10th Anniversary - Video Peter Lemkin 0 5,553 07-09-2011, 09:43 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Fireman's video Bernice Moore 0 1,784 03-09-2011, 03:52 AM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  The 9/11 TV News Archive: 3,000 Hours of Video News Coverage of 2001 Attacks Peter Lemkin 0 4,843 25-08-2011, 06:25 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Good 12 Part Video Lecture On 911 Nanothermite! Peter Lemkin 4 2,722 20-08-2009, 05:49 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  new 9-11 book, video at end of article. Dawn Meredith 1 2,279 28-06-2009, 05:24 PM
Last Post: Dawn Meredith

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)