Official Jim Fetzer 9/11 theory thread

[ChumpDumper]

My serious question to you is -- what do you think really happened on 9/11?

I'm not looking for a bunch of links to poorly written articles and YouTubes with spooky synth music. I'm looking for one person who can say, in some credible detail, who they think did it, how they did it and why. Your articles are lacking a real definitive theory. After a full decade of research dedicated to this subject, I really think you should be farther along than your articles indicate.

Thanks in advance for taking this seriously and actually producing a theory and narrative that explains it all to the people in the world you are trying to convince.

[Jim Fetzer]

You offer no indication whatsoever that you have read even one of them. So if you think I have something wrong, then explain what I claim, why I claim it, and the explain what I have wrong and how you know. Your response to four articles, whose links you have not even carried forward, is disturbing and, in fact, since I discuss those who had the motive, means, and opportunity to pull it off, are noticeably non-responsive to what I have actually written. So give this another go: identify what I claim and why I claim it (so I can tell whether you do or do not understand my position), explain what I have wrong and why. Here are some of my studies:

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

“Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/peeling-the-911-onion-layers-of-plots-within-plots/

“9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”
http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/ToolBarTopics/Articles/Other_Topics/9-11_Anomalies/Dr._James_H._Fetzer_2008-04-22_9-11_and_the_Neo-Con_Agenda.html

“Is 9/11 Research ‘anti-Semitic’?”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html

“Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job” (Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf

“20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/

“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11" http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html

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

Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True”
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesNelson26Apr2006.html

“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

A few are authored by others, but it would be silly to ask me to boil them down into a few words, which would miss the details, the photos and the graphs that make such a difference to understanding. I don't care where you or anyone else begins, where the last of these articles may be the best lay- out of (what is often called) NPT ("No Plane Theory"), but which might well be better put as "No 'Official Plane' Theory" or "No Big Boeing Theory". I am not going to waste my time here if you are not serious. So begin anywhere, but study one or more these articles and explain what I or other authors have claimed and why we have claimed it, then what we have wrong and how you know. That should work. So the intellectual 9/11 ball is now in your court.

[Nbadan]

Hey Jim, glad you could make it...I've read some of your stuff and look forward to reading many others, in case you don't know already, I share many of your ideas on both 911 and the JFK conspiracy.....shared them over and over again in this forum

...anyway, just wanted to welcome you to the forum and ask ya to give Chumpy and RG a fair chance..they troll, grasp at straws and are very susceptible to group-think....just don't let them get under your skin....anyway, good to have you around...

[Galileo]

Looks like the Chump Dumper has met his match.

[Nbadan]

Looks like the Chump Dumper has met his match.

If this is the real Jim Fetzer, Chumpy was never in 'his league'


Biography

James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California, in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School.[6] He went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962.[6] After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.[6]

Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[1] At the University of Kentucky, he received the first Distinguished Teaching Award from the UK Student Government.

Works

Fetzer has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence and cognitive science.[1] He also founded the international journal, Minds and Machines, which he edited for eleven years, the professional library, Studies in Cognitive Systems, which includes thirty volumes, and the professional organization, The Society for Machines & Mentality.[7] The Society for Machines & Mentality has been accepted as a special interest group (SIG) of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy (IACAP).[8] His first article in the philosophy of computer science, "Program Verification: The Very Idea", Communications of the ACM (1988), ignited an international debate that has not subsided to this day.[9][dead link]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

[Vici]

Couldn't go a paragraph without finding an error.

From the 9/11 anti-Semitic article:

The comparison with Holocaust deniers is patently false, of course, because Holocaust deniers deny that the (German) government committed atrocities, while 9/11 investigators affirm that the (American) government committed them.

Holocaust deniers can still believe that the holocaust happened, was terrible, but they believe that it was not as of large of scale as is reported. Technically, most scholars of the holocaust are considered deniers as there is not sufficient proof that as many Jews were killed as reported. This is mostly due to the Soviets who used the concentration camps as propaganda during the war. They actually knew something horrible was going on while the rest of the allies thought it was exaggerated. The Soviets pushed enormous numbers out there, and when the camps became liberated, who was going to deny the numbers were lower than reported? Regardless, if you believe the numbers of actual murdered are below what was reported, you are considered a denier.

[Galileo]

If this is the real Jim Fetzer, Chumpy was never in 'his league'




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

ChumpDumper does not have a ghost of a chance.

:wow

[Galileo]

Couldn't go a paragraph without finding an error.

From the 9/11 anti-Semitic article:

The comparison with Holocaust deniers is patently false, of course, because Holocaust deniers deny that the (German) government committed atrocities, while 9/11 investigators affirm that the (American) government committed them.

Holocaust deniers can still believe that the holocaust happened, was terrible, but they believe that it was not as of large of scale as is reported. Technically, most scholars of the holocaust are considered deniers as there is not sufficient proof that as many Jews were killed as reported. This is mostly due to the Soviets who used the concentration camps as propaganda during the war. They actually knew something horrible was going on while the rest of the allies thought it was exaggerated. The Soviets pushed enormous numbers out there, and when the camps became liberated, who was going to deny the numbers were lower than reported? Regardless, if you believe the numbers of actual murdered are below what was reported, you are considered a denier.

you sound like a holocaust denier. How dare you make such claims.

[Nbadan]

Fetzer's 911 theories are out there...


Fetzer also believes the hijackings were staged and that calls from passengers to relatives and operators were faked.


Fetzer supports the assertion that elements within the U.S. federal government orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks for political and economic gain and that World Trade Center One and Two were destroyed using a novel form of controlled demolition from the top down, while World Trade Center Seven was brought down by a conventional controlled demolition from the bottom


Fetzer encourages the study of the possibility that high-tech weapons, including ground or space-based directed-energy military weapons, may have been used to bring down the Twin Towers.


He has not endorsed any specific hypothesis about the destruction of the WTC, but he has expressed skepticism that conventional explosives, including thermite/thermate, could have brought about such devastating effects.


In his most recent work as a columnist for Veterans Today, "Seven Questions about 9/11" and "More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity", he has presented evidence that all four of the plane crashes on 9/11 were faked, where no planes crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon and one or another form of fakery was used in New York.


Even more strikingly, in collaboration with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, he has challenged "the myth of nanothermite" by explaining that it does not have the gas-expansion properties of explosives and, with a detonation rate of 895 m/s, cannot have destroyed the concrete or the steel in the Twin Towers, which would require rates in excess of 3,200 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel, which has contradicted perhaps the most widely held belief within the community about how the towers were destroyed and accented his disagreements with Jones.[


Fetzer has been impressed by their efforts to clarify the extent of devastation at the World Trade Center and mentions a wide range of theories, including that a "satellite-mounted military weapon" may have been used to destroy it, as among those that deserve investigation. He has written that "the range of alternative explanations that might possibly explain the explanandum must include non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using mini-nukes, and . . . non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using directed energy weapons. . . . The specific weapons used to destroy the WTC could have been ground based or space based." [

Lots of starting points for Chumpy and RG....

[Vici]

Chumps question was never answered. Anyone can link articles, but he asked for an explanation. Even some of the most complex answers van be shortened to a few sentences if you understand what you are saying. It actually would have been shorter if 'jim' had actually just answered the question as opposed to link articles.

[Galileo]

Fetzer's 911 theories are out there...















Lots of starting points for Chumpy and RG....

Good work, NBaden.

[Vici]

you sound like a holocaust denier. How dare you make such claims.

?

[Nbadan]

Chumps question was never answered. Anyone can link articles, but he asked for an explanation. Even some of the most complex answers van be shortened to a few sentences if you understand what you are saying. It actually would have been shorter if 'jim' had actually just answered the question as opposed to link articles.

ok, but...


but it would be silly to ask me to boil them down into a few words, which would miss the details, the photos and the graphs that make such a difference to understanding.

[Vici]

ok, but...

Thats a weak cop out. Explain what you think happened, then supply the links with details. This isn't hard stuff. I wish i could go to my boss and be like 'here are some links, there is too much detail to explain how DNS works'. If he doesnt know then say so. If he does, it really isn't hard to explain.

[SA210]

Looks like the Chump Dumper has met his match.

:lmao:rollinEpic ownage in the process

[ChumpDumper]

...it would be silly to ask me to boil them down into a few words, which would miss the details, the photos and the graphs that make such a difference to understanding.No one is limiting you at all. go into as much detail as you feel is necessary. You may use photos and graphs, but don't vomit a bunch of links to disconnected articles and YouTubes. That is simply lazy. You showed this laziness right off the bat here. I'm offering you another chance.

Give us a narrative of what you think really happened on 9/11 saying who did it, how they did it and why. Do it in your own words. The reluctance of anyone in the truth movement to do something as simple as this after a full decade of purported research is a big reason the truth movement can be discounted out of hand. You simply don't give your intended audience anything to positively believe.

The the "intellectual 9/11 ball" is and has always been in your court. You simply never realized what it would take to hold serve. Now you do.

I'll wait for your narrative. Thanks again for not wasting our time with a bunch of disparate, unconnected crap like everyone who has been asked before. All I need is a narrative that explains what you think really happened on 9/11. You can start out simply if you like. I'll be glad to ask you questions about it so you can flesh it out if you need that kind of help.

[Galileo]

No one is limiting you at all. go into as much detail as you feel is necessary. You may use photos and graphs, but don't vomit a bunch of links to disconnected articles and YouTubes. That is simply lazy. You showed this laziness right off the bat here. I'm offering you another chance.

Give us a narrative of what you think really happened on 9/11 saying who did it, how they did it and why. Do it in your own words. The reluctance of anyone in the truth movement to do something as simple as this after a full decade of purported research is a big reason the truth movement can be discounted out of hand. You simply don't give your intended audience anything to positively believe.

The the "intellectual 9/11 ball" is and has always been in your court. You simply never realized what it would take to hold serve. Now you do.

I'll wait for your narrative. Thanks again for not wasting our time with a bunch of disparate, unconnected crap like everyone who has been asked before. All I need is a narrative that explains what you think really happened on 9/11. You can start out simply if you like. I'll be glad to ask you questions about it so you can flesh it out if you need that kind of help.

I back the single "lone nut" theory of 9/11. A single lone nut pulled off 9/11 and kept it a secret. It wasn't a conspiracy.

:lmao

[Blake]

He (Jim Fetzer) has not endorsed any specific hypothesis about the destruction of the WTC

probably never will.

[Blake]

I back the single "lone nut" theory of 9/11. A single lone nut pulled off 9/11 and kept it a secret. It wasn't a conspiracy.

:lmao

No doubt that you won't give your hypothesis either

[ChumpDumper]

I back the single "lone nut" theory of 9/11. A single lone nut pulled off 9/11 and kept it a secret. It wasn't a conspiracy.

:lmaoYou have your own thread, Rolf. Tell us what you think really happened on 9/11 there.

[johnsmith]

So, did anyone ever give their explanation?

I'll give mine to get the ball rolling:

On September 11th, 2001, multiple terrorists from various middle Eastern countries hijacked several airplanes using box cutters. They killed or subdued the pilots, took over control of the planes and flew them into the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon. One plane that was taken over was then crashed into a field after passengers fought back.

Afterwards, over the next decade, several people went on Spurstalk.com and explained that they believe there is more to the story than I described above. However, they've never actually explained what they believed to have happened.....mostly because they're pussies.

[clambake]

box cutters are very underrated, tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

So, did anyone ever give their explanation?

I'll give mine to get the ball rolling:

On September 11th, 2001, multiple terrorists from various middle Eastern countries hijacked several airplanes using box cutters. They killed or subdued the pilots, took over control of the planes and flew them into the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon. One plane that was taken over was then crashed into a field after passengers fought back.

Afterwards, over the next decade, several people went on Spurstalk.com and explained that they believe there is more to the story than I described above. However, they've never actually explained what they believed to have happened.....mostly because they're pussies.Not even one YouTube link?

You disgust me.

[Bill_Brasky]

I hate truthers

[CuckingFunt]

box cutters are very underrated, tbh.

So says Gus.

[CuckingFunt]

Fetzer's 911 theories are out there...

Doubt is not a theory.

Disbelief is not a theory.

[FromWayDowntown]

It might just be me, but on issues where I've developed sufficient belief to allow me to take a strong position, I've got at least an elevator speech to explain that position.

I have to say that it's fascinating to me that people who have devoted some portion of a decade insisting upon the incorrectness of the common belief about something can't at least come up with an executive summary of their view about what actually happened.

[Winehole23]

lazy nihilism rulz

[Jim Fetzer]

Well, since I have already laid out the evidence and arguments related to so many of these issues, it would be STUPID to ignore what is already out there. I can appreciate the desire for simplification on the part of those who do not understand the evidence, so their minds are not overly taxed.


Chumps question was never answered. Anyone can link articles, but he asked for an explanation. Even some of the most complex answers van be shortened to a few sentences if you understand what you are saying. It actually would have been shorter if 'jim' had actually just answered the question as opposed to link articles.

[Jim Fetzer]

Well, if any of you did any research, even on the net, you would know that I have made hundreds of interviews and given many public lectures and TV appearances. For a simple over-view, you can check out what I have here:

"Ouch! Ed Schultz is a phony and a fraud!"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/05/ouch-ed-schultz-is-a-phony-and-a-fraud/

For those who are willing to invest more time in understanding the events of 9/11, there is a nice summary-overview, which is linked in that article:
"False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State" (9 September 2011)


It might just be me, but on issues where I've developed sufficient belief to allow me to take a strong position, I've got at least an elevator speech to explain that position.

I have to say that it's fascinating to me that people who have devoted some portion of a decade insisting upon the incorrectness of the common belief about something can't at least come up with an executive summary of their view about what actually happened.

[Jim Fetzer]

Well, since there are varying strengths of "Holocaust denying", you can wimp out by trading on the equivocation. The point is that, in the strong sense of those who deny the Holocaust, they are denying that the German government committed these atrocities, while 9/11 Truthers are affirming that the American government was complicit in the crime. The differences mean that those who are making that charge are committing an obviously faulty analogy, although it is apparently good enough to take in some here.


Couldn't go a paragraph without finding an error.

From the 9/11 anti-Semitic article:

The comparison with Holocaust deniers is patently false, of course, because Holocaust deniers deny that the (German) government committed atrocities, while 9/11 investigators affirm that the (American) government committed them.

Holocaust deniers can still believe that the holocaust happened, was terrible, but they believe that it was not as of large of scale as is reported. Technically, most scholars of the holocaust are considered deniers as there is not sufficient proof that as many Jews were killed as reported. This is mostly due to the Soviets who used the concentration camps as propaganda during the war. They actually knew something horrible was going on while the rest of the allies thought it was exaggerated. The Soviets pushed enormous numbers out there, and when the camps became liberated, who was going to deny the numbers were lower than reported? Regardless, if you believe the numbers of actual murdered are below what was reported, you are considered a denier.

[CuckingFunt]

Well, since I have already laid out the evidence and arguments related to so many of these issues, it would be STUPID to ignore what is already out there. I can appreciate the desire for simplification on the part of those who do not understand the evidence, so their minds are not overly taxed.


Well, if any of you did any research, even on the net, you would know that I have made hundreds of interviews and given many public lectures and TV appearances. For a simple over-view, you can check out what I have here:

"Ouch! Ed Schultz is a phony and a fraud!"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/05/ouch-ed-schultz-is-a-phony-and-a-fraud/

For those who are willing to invest more time in understanding the events of 9/11, there is a nice summary-overview, which is linked in that article:
"False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State" (9 September 2011)


Doubt is not a theory.

Disbelief is not a theory.

Incidentally, neither is dickish condescension.

So, by my count, you've still failed to answer the one question asked of you in this thread.

[Jim Fetzer]

Well, I guess you don't understand that I WROTE MOST OF THOSE ARTICLES, where I took pains to spell out the evidence and explain the conclusions that follow from it. A great place to begin is with "NPT" or "No Planes Theory".

To being with, "NPT" does not mean that no planes were involved. We know that a plane flew toward the Pentagon, but then flew over it. What is means is "No 'official conspiracy' Planes" or, better, "No Big Boeings"; thus,

(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

Consider: Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11, while the planes associated with Flights 93 and 175 were no de-registered by the FAA until 28 September 2005. How can planes that were no in the air have crashed or planes that crashed have still been in the air four years later?

Moreover, Pilots for 9/11 Truth had established that Flight 93 was in the air but over Champaign-Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville, and that Flight 175 was also in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be effortlessly entering the South Tower.

Since I have explained all of this and presented the evidence in this study,
let's start with this explanation of NPT:

“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

If that is not enough, check out the earlier study about the four crash sites,
explain what you think I have wrong and why:

"9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/


Chumps question was never answered. Anyone can link articles, but he asked for an explanation. Even some of the most complex answers van be shortened to a few sentences if you understand what you are saying. It actually would have been shorter if 'jim' had actually just answered the question as opposed to link articles.

[Jim Fetzer]

"Disconnected articles and YouTubes"? That's a bit much. Every one of the article I have listed, most of which I authored, are directly related to NPT, which is crucial to understanding the events of 9/11. If those four crash sites were fabricated, as the evidence shows, there is no possibly way that 19 Islamic terrorists were responsible, while the proof of governmental complicity is overwhelming. I hope that is not too much for you to grasp.


No one is limiting you at all. go into as much detail as you feel is necessary. You may use photos and graphs, but don't vomit a bunch of links to disconnected articles and YouTubes. That is simply lazy. You showed this laziness right off the bat here. I'm offering you another chance.

Give us a narrative of what you think really happened on 9/11 saying who did it, how they did it and why. Do it in your own words. The reluctance of anyone in the truth movement to do something as simple as this after a full decade of purported research is a big reason the truth movement can be discounted out of hand. You simply don't give your intended audience anything to positively believe.

The the "intellectual 9/11 ball" is and has always been in your court. You simply never realized what it would take to hold serve. Now you do.

I'll wait for your narrative. Thanks again for not wasting our time with a bunch of disparate, unconnected crap like everyone who has been asked before. All I need is a narrative that explains what you think really happened on 9/11. You can start out simply if you like. I'll be glad to ask you questions about it so you can flesh it out if you need that kind of help.

[Jim Fetzer]

Since an outline of my position was presented in post #9, I guess it was my mistake to suppose that those posting here are even reading this thread.


It might just be me, but on issues where I've developed sufficient belief to allow me to take a strong position, I've got at least an elevator speech to explain that position.

I have to say that it's fascinating to me that people who have devoted some portion of a decade insisting upon the incorrectness of the common belief about something can't at least come up with an executive summary of their view about what actually happened.

[ChumpDumper]

It's amazing how pretty much every truther, even the minor celebrities of the truth movement, can't produce when asked the questions raised in this and the other threads I started. When a midlevel poobah like Jim Fetzer reduces himself to childish insults and linkbombing on a basketball message board, it's time to seriously reconsider the whole thing.

This is why the truth movement is an impotent joke to most people. They had a full decade to put together a narrative that fits all the disjointed contentions they have made. Apparently, that never occurred to one person in the entire truth movement because it has never happened -- nor has any one of them realized what a powerful tool it would be to actually convince other people.

Really, Jim. I'm calling you out just like I have other truthers in the past -- and for all your education and research and writing, you really have nothing to show after all these years. All that time and energy you spent was for nothing because now you are either too lazy or wholly incapable to connect the dots you have presented to people over the last decade. "Truth" be told, I suspect the latter. Just like any other truther, you seem to be afraid to even attempt a narrative because you know it will be picked apart pretty easily by the likes of New York City tour guides and anonymous basketball message board posters.

Your arrogant bluster and condescension are not helping you convert anybody. Of course, that may not even be your goal. As long as you have some supporters, you can maintain your speaking engagement, radio appearances and other trappings of conspiracy celebrity without doing much more than you already have. If that is your reason for avoiding rather simple questions from a simple man for whom you claim to be fighting, just say so. I would respect that much more than what you are currently doing here.

[Jim Fetzer]

What's wrong with post #9? Are you even reading the posts on this thread?


Incidentally, neither is dickish condescension.

So, by my count, you've still failed to answer the one question asked of you in this thread.

[Jim Fetzer]

Well, when I came here, I suspected I would encounter childish phonies and frauds. You have not disappointed me, ChumpDumper. You are a nice example of the kinds of puerile attitudes displayed on many other threads. A sketch of my views was presented in post #9. It got the idea across -- and I have suggested beginning with NPT. If you want to show that I am mistaken, then cite some claim I have made, explain why I have made it, and then explain what I have wrong and how you know. Is that too much for you? Did you miss post #33? Or is that just too much for you, too? Does anyone take you seriously?


It's amazing how pretty much every truther, even the minor celebrities of the truth movement, can't produce when asked the questions raised in this and the other threads I started. When a midlevel poobah like Jim Fetzer reduces himself to childish insults and linkbombing on a basketball message board, it's time to seriously reconsider the whole thing.

This is why the truth movement is an impotent joke to most people. They had a full decade to put together a narrative that fits all the disjointed contentions they have made. Apparently, that never occurred to one person in the entire truth movement because it has never happened -- nor has any one of them realized what a powerful tool it would be to actually convince other people.

Really, Jim. I'm calling you out just like I have other truthers in the past -- and for all your education and research and writing, you really have nothing to show after all these years. All that time and energy you spent was for nothing because now you are either too lazy or wholly incapable to connect the dots you have presented to people over the last decade. "Truth" be told, I suspect the latter. Just like any other truther, you seem to be afraid to even attempt a narrative because you know it will be picked apart pretty easily by the likes of New York City tour guides and anonymous basketball message board posters.

Your arrogant bluster and condescension are not helping you convert anybody. Of course, that may not even be your goal. As long as you have some supporters, you can maintain your speaking engagement, radio appearances and other trappings of conspiracy celebrity without doing much more than you already have. If that is your reason for avoiding rather simple questions from a simple man for whom you claim to be fighting, just say so. I would respect that much more than what you are currently doing here.

[ChumpDumper]

"Disconnected articles and YouTubes"? That's a bit much. Every one of the article I have listed, most of which I authored, are directly related to NPT, which is crucial to understanding the events of 9/11. If those four crash sites were fabricated, as the evidence shows, there is no possibly way that 19 Islamic terrorists were responsible, while the proof of governmental complicity is overwhelming. I hope that is not too much for you to grasp.I'm asking you what you think really happened on 9/11. If you believe that all four crash sites were faked, say you believe all four crash sites were faked and go on from there.


I hope that is not too much for you to grasp.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, when I came here, I suspected I would encounter childish phonies and frauds. You have not disappointed me, ChumpDumper. You are a nice example of the kinds of puerile attitudes displayed on many other threads. A sketch of my views was presented in post #9. It got the idea across -- and I have suggested beginning with NPT. If you want to show that I am mistaken, then cite some claim I have made, explain why I have made it, and then explain what I have wrong and how you know. Too much for you?Why do we have to do the work for you?

You are the one who wants to change our minds, remember?

We don't want sketches. We don't want hedges. We don't want stonewalling. We don't want condescension. We don't want insults.

We want a narrative showing what you think really happened on 9/11.

Too much for you?

[Jim Fetzer]

Dumber than a post! That much should have been obvious to anyone who has read post #9 or post #33. If you aren't going to read them, just leave!

There is no reason to humor someone like you when they are farting around. I have produced proof after proof of that contention. If you think I'm wrong,

then cite what I claim, explain why I claim it (so I can tell you understand my position), then explain what you think I have wrong and why. Try it.


I'm asking you what you think really happened on 9/11. If you believe that all four crash sites were faked, say you believe all four crash sites were faked and go on from there.

I hope that is not too much for you to grasp.

[ChumpDumper]

Dumber than a post! That much should have been obvious to anyone who has read post #9 or post #33. If you aren't going to read them, just leave!

There is no reason to humor someone like you when they are farting around. I have produced proof after proof of that contention. If you think I'm wrong,

then cite what I claim, explain why I claim it (so I can tell you understand my position), then explain what you think I have wrong and why. Try it.You haven't answered any question that has been put to you in this thread. Are you having trouble understanding what is being asked of you? I'd love to help you out.

[ChumpDumper]

Here is a reminder. Let me know what part you don't understand, Jim.
My serious question to you is -- what do you think really happened on 9/11?

I'm not looking for a bunch of links to poorly written articles and YouTubes with spooky synth music. I'm looking for one person who can say, in some credible detail, who they think did it, how they did it and why. Your articles are lacking a real definitive theory. After a full decade of research dedicated to this subject, I really think you should be farther along than your articles indicate.

Thanks in advance for taking this seriously and actually producing a theory and narrative that explains it all to the people in the world you are trying to convince.

[Jim Fetzer]

I have ALREADY GIVEN detailed explanations of my positions, which you are refusing to read. Well, that's your choice, but there is no point in my rewriting what I have already explained. I have suggested two articles to begin with related to NPT. You can respond to them or not, but for you to make these arrogant and condescending posts as though your were wroth listening to is just a bit too much. Does ANYONE HERE take you seriously?


Why do we have to do the work for you?

You are the one who wants to change our minds, remember?

We don't want sketches. We don't want hedges. We don't want stonewalling. We don't want condescension. We don't want insults.

We want a narrative showing what you think really happened on 9/11.

Too much for you?

[ChumpDumper]

I have ALREADY GIVEN detailed explanations of my positions, which you are refusing to read. Well, that's your choice, but there is no point in my rewriting what I have already explained. I have suggested two articles to begin with related to NPT. You can respond to them or not, but for you to make these arrogant and condescending posts as though your were wroth listening to is just a bit too much. Does ANYONE HERE take you seriously?Yeah, you still don't understand what was asked of you initially. You have never written anything like that before and I think you never will. I know that is why I ultimately can't take you seriously and suspect that is one reason others don't either.

Is calling people dumber than a post, a phony and fraud the way you win people over to your way of thinking?

Seems rather counterproductive for a public figure such as yourself.

[Jim Fetzer]

Well, if you are reading the posts, both #9 and #33 should have given you a good idea of my position. And in "Ouch! Ed Shultz is a phony and a fake!" I provided an overview, which I why I recommended it. Here is what I wrote there as a summary.

In late 2005, I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization for experts and professionals across a broad range of disciplines, including but not limited to physicists, engineers (aeronautical, mechanical, structural) and pilots, too, although today many of these have their own societies, such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. During the course of our research, we have discovered that virtually everything the government has told us about 9/11 is provably false and, in many cases, is not even physically possible. The fires in the Twin Towers, for example, burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt; there were explosions in the subbasements that took place before either “plane” hit them, which drained their sprinkler systems of water, which would otherwise have extinguished the rather modest fires that remained after those spectacular fireballs; the government has never been able to place those 19 “hijackers” aboard any of those four planes; the purported phone calls from passengers aboard them were faked; Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day, while Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville, and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be hitting the South Tower. Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission, had as his area of academic specialization the creation and maintenance of public myths–yes, public myths! And that is precisely what The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) provided. Proof of the claims I have made may be found in the articles I have listed previously on this thread.


Yeah, you still don't understand what was asked of you initially. You have never written anything like that before and I think you never will. I know that is why I ultimately can't take you seriously and suspect that is one reason others don't either.

Is calling people dumber than a post, a phony and fraud the way you win people over to your way of thinking?

Seems rather counterproductive for a public figure such as yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if you were to read the posts, both #9 and #33 should have given you a good idea of my position. And in "Ouch! Ed Shultz is a phony and a fake!" I provided an overview, which I why I recommended it. Try this:

In late 2005, I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization for experts and professionals across a broad range of disciplines, including but not limited to physicists, engineers (aeronautical, mechanical, structural) and pilots, too, although today many of these have their own societies, such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. During the course of our research, we have discovered that virtually everything the government has told us about 9/11 is provably false and, in many cases, is not even physically possible. The fires in the Twin Towers, for example, burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt; there were explosions in the subbasements that took place before either “plane” hit them, which drained their sprinkler systems of water, which would otherwise have extinguished the rather modest fires that remained after those spectacular fireballs; the government has never been able to place those 19 “hijackers” aboard any of those four planes; the purported phone calls from passengers aboard them were faked; Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day, while Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville, and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be hitting the South Tower. Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission, had as his area of academic specialization the creation and maintenance of public myths–yes, public myths! And that is precisely what The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) provided. Proof of the claims I have made may be found in the articles I have listed previously on this thread.Yeah, that wasn't what I asked. You just threw out a bunch of disjointed talking points. You're getting better -- there weren't any YouTubes or insults.

I know from experience that this is really, really hard for truthers to do. In fact, to my knowledge no truther has ever been able to put together a workable narrative of events that fit alternative conspiracy thinking. Imagine what a breakthrough for your movement this would be!

[Jim Fetzer]

You are being ridiculous. 9/11 was an "inside job". It was fake from beginning to end. Is that simple enough for you? 9/11 was a contrived event intended to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate us to promote the Bush/Cheney political agenda: wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, taking control of Iraqi oil and dismantling the sophisticated Arab states that were inhibiting Israel from dominating the Middle East, and contracting civil rights here in the US in advancing the agenda of (what is turning out to be) a fascist police state, where the creation of some 300 FEMA camps, recruiting for personnel to man them, the deployment of 30,000 drones to spy on the American people, and the acquisition of 450,000,000 rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammunition by the Department of Homeland Security--ammo that is not even permissible for use in warfare under the Geneva Conventions--all suggest that the culmination of 9/11 may soon be upon us, where the American government may be going to war against the American people. You appear to be faking reasons in order to avoid confronting the evidence.

[Jim Fetzer]

Conspiracies are as American as apple pie, where the
"official account" is the most outrageous of them all.

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

Attempts were made to blame the Palestinians and to
make it look as though it had been an inadvertent event.

“Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08...-within-plots/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/peeling-the-911-onion-layers-of-plots-within-plots/)

It was driven principally by US/Israel citizens in the DoD,
who were motivated with oil, Israel and the neo-con agenda.

“9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”
http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPag...on_Agenda.html (http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/ToolBarTopics/Articles/Other_Topics/9-11_Anomalies/Dr._James_H._Fetzer_2008-04-22_9-11_and_the_Neo-Con_Agenda.html)

Faulting the actions of the Israeli government is not anti-
Semitic; there are many indications of Mossad involvement.

“Is 9/11 Research ‘anti-Semitic’?”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-...090615-95.html (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html)

There were explosions in the sub-basements of the towers
that occurred 14 and 17 seconds before the "plane hits".

“Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job” (Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ongAndRoss.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf)

The "official account" is based upon false claims, many of
which actually involve violations of laws of physics, etc.

“20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09...-911-is-wrong/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/)

9/11 research would be light-years ahead on how the towers
were destroyed but for the myth of "explosive nano-thermite".

“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011...ld-to-911.html (http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html)

Indeed, the government has never been able to prove that any
of the alleged 19 Islamic terrorists were aboard any of the planes.

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11" http://www.opednews.com/articles/The...00811-366.html (http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html)

David Ray Griffin, building on the prior research of A.K. Dewdney, has
shown that all of the phone calls alleged to have been made were faked.

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=16924 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924)

An expert has observed, that of the millions of uniquely
identifiable aircraft parts, the US has yet to produce one.

Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True”
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/A...26Apr2006.html (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesNelson26Apr2006.html)

All four of those crash sites appear to have been fabricated,
which is proven on the basis of records and on-site evidence.

“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02...-video-fakery/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/)

Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL when it was supposed to be
crashing in Shanksville, PA; and 175 was over Pittsburgh
when it was supposed to have been hitting the South Tower.

“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04...f-rob-balsamo/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/)

There is more, but this should give you the general idea: 9/11
was a fabricated attack meant to manipulate the American public.

[ChumpDumper]

You are being ridiculous. 9/11 was an "inside job". It was fake from beginning to end. Is that simple enough for you? 9/11 was a contrived event intended to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate us to promote the Bush/Cheney political agenda: wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, taking control of Iraqi oil and dismantling the sophisticated Arab states that were inhibiting Israel from dominating the Middle East, and contracting civil rights here in the US in advancing the agenda of (what is turning out to be) a fascist police state, where the creation of some 300 FEMA camps, recruiting for personnel to man them, the deployment of 30,000 drones to spy on the American people, and the acquisition of 450,000,000 rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammunition by the Department of Homeland Security--ammo that is not even permissible for use in warfare under the Geneva Conventions--all suggest that the culmination of 9/11 may soon be upon us, where the American government may be going to war against the American people. You appear to be faking reasons in order to avoid confronting the evidence.You seem to be faking reasons in order to avoid answering the question I initially posed.

There is nothing ridiculous about recognizing the potential power of a strong narrative for something like the truth movement. You are either ignorant of that potential, wrongly dismissive of it or incapable of providing a worthy narrative.

[ChumpDumper]

Conspiracies are as American as apple pie, where the
"official account" is the most outrageous of them all.

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

Attempts were made to blame the Palestinians and to
make it look as though it had been an inadvertent event.

“Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08...-within-plots/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/peeling-the-911-onion-layers-of-plots-within-plots/)

It was driven principally by US/Israel citizens in the DoD,
who were motivated with oil, Israel and the neo-con agenda.

“9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”
http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPag...on_Agenda.html (http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/ToolBarTopics/Articles/Other_Topics/9-11_Anomalies/Dr._James_H._Fetzer_2008-04-22_9-11_and_the_Neo-Con_Agenda.html)

Faulting the actions of the Israeli government is not anti-
Semitic; there are many indications of Mossad involvement.

“Is 9/11 Research ‘anti-Semitic’?”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-...090615-95.html (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html)

There were explosions in the sub-basements of the towers
that occurred 14 and 17 seconds before the "plane hits".

“Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job” (Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ongAndRoss.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf)

The "official account" is based upon false claims, many of
which actually involve violations of laws of physics, etc.

“20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09...-911-is-wrong/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/)

9/11 research would be light-years ahead on how the towers
were destroyed but for the myth of "explosive nano-thermite".

“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011...ld-to-911.html (http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html)

Indeed, the government has never been able to prove that any
of the alleged 19 Islamic terrorists were aboard any of the planes.

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11" http://www.opednews.com/articles/The...00811-366.html (http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html)

David Ray Griffin, building on the prior research of A.K. Dewdney, has
shown that all of the phone calls alleged to have been made were faked.

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=16924 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924)

An expert has observed, that of the millions of uniquely
identifiable aircraft parts, the US has yet to produce one.

Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True”
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/A...26Apr2006.html (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesNelson26Apr2006.html)

All four of those crash sites appear to have been fabricated,
which is proven on the basis of records and on-site evidence.

“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02...-video-fakery/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/)

Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL when it was supposed to be
crashing in Shanksville, PA; and 175 was over Pittsburgh
when it was supposed to have been hitting the South Tower.

“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04...f-rob-balsamo/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/)

There is more, but this should give you the general idea: 9/11
was a fabricated attack meant to manipulate the American public.Again, you were asked explicitly to not regurgitate a bunch of links.

If you are wholly unable to write new material in a narrative form, just say so. We can wrap things up here pretty quickly.

[CuckingFunt]

Well, if you are reading the posts, both #9 and #33 should have given you a good idea of my position. And in "Ouch! Ed Shultz is a phony and a fake!" I provided an overview, which I why I recommended it. Here is what I wrote there as a summary.

In late 2005, I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization for experts and professionals across a broad range of disciplines, including but not limited to physicists, engineers (aeronautical, mechanical, structural) and pilots, too, although today many of these have their own societies, such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. During the course of our research, we have discovered that virtually everything the government has told us about 9/11 is provably false and, in many cases, is not even physically possible. The fires in the Twin Towers, for example, burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt; there were explosions in the subbasements that took place before either “plane” hit them, which drained their sprinkler systems of water, which would otherwise have extinguished the rather modest fires that remained after those spectacular fireballs; the government has never been able to place those 19 “hijackers” aboard any of those four planes; the purported phone calls from passengers aboard them were faked; Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day, while Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville, and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be hitting the South Tower. Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission, had as his area of academic specialization the creation and maintenance of public myths–yes, public myths! And that is precisely what The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) provided. Proof of the claims I have made may be found in the articles I have listed previously on this thread.

There is nothing here that even hints at a theory of what you think actually happened on 9/11.

[IWantsACuatro]

Fetzer being a Lakers fan denies all credibility, TBH.


Fetzer's using ST to advertise his works. Shame on you, Fetzer :nope.

True academics do so though. "Here are all my references to others' works in my research study. Here is my credibility. Here is my hypothesis. To see my research methods and conclusion, please buy my book!"

[Vici]

Fetzer being a Lakers fan denies all credibility, TBH.


Fetzer's using ST to advertise his works. Shame on you, Fetzer :nope.

True academics do so though. "Here are all my references to others' works in my research study. Here is my credibility. Here is my hypothesis. To see my research methods and conclusion, please buy my book!"

Yup. It would be far less effort to actually just post a theory. I'm also still waiting for the "ownage".

[FromWayDowntown]

My favorite part of this is Fetzer demanding that any one of us do some research on him before talking to him about this.

I'm going to start demanding that of anyone who asks me questions; it's a pretty convenient trick to avoid ever giving an answer to anything.

[FromWayDowntown]

d/p

[Jim Fetzer]

Just take the sentences explaining what you find in those articles and you will have what you are asking for. This is about as cheap a maneuver to defer addressing proof that this was an "inside job" as I can imagine. You really ARE a piece of work. The crash sites were fabricated; the phone calls were faked; the NTSB never investigated any of the alleged crashed; the alleged 19 terrorist hijackers were never proven to be on any of those planes; the account of the "collapse" of the building was impossible; the media was used to cover it up. If you can't read, I can't help you. But you have proven that you are not a serious person, no matter what the subject.


Again, you were asked explicitly to not regurgitate a bunch of links.

If you are wholly unable to write new material in a narrative form, just say so. We can wrap things up here pretty quickly.

[Nbadan]

My favorite part of this is Fetzer demanding that any one of us do some research on him before talking to him about this.

I'm going to start demanding that of anyone who asks me questions; it's a pretty convenient trick to avoid ever giving an answer to anything.

Petty. If this is the real Jim Fetzer, and I'm having serious doubts....his stuff is readily out there...Chumpy just wants a regurgitation of a theory which is available on our fine internets.....typical Chumpy deflection move.....

[Jim Fetzer]

Well, what surprises me is that there appears to be no interest in proof that the "official account" is false. We know that there was a stand-down of the USAF, that multiple anti-terrorist drills were taking place that morning, that even after there were reports of hijackings, the fake blips were left on the ATC screens, which would not have happened had this not been a op; the flights and the crash sites were fabricated and faked in different ways; . . .

I have explained this in many places. There is a simple account that is provably false according to which 19 Isalmic terrorists hijacked four commercial carriers and outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, but the government has never shown that they were aboard any of those planes; two of them were no even scheduled to fly that day; the planes associated with the other two were not deregistered by the FAA for for more years; . . .

It appears to have been planned by neo-cons who wanted to create "a new American century" by launching wars of aggression against countries that had never attacked us, especially by basing American military power in the Middle East and projecting it outward, but they worried that the American public would not support them and seize the unique opportunity provided
by the demise of the Soviet Union unless there were a catalyzing, traumatizing event, such as a "new Pearl Harbor"; . . .

But I have explained all of this in articles that no one here appears to have read. Chumpy seems to like to play games and to care less about the truth of these historic events, which are leading to the loss of life and of liberty and the corruption of what is left of a once-great Constitutional system of government, which has now deteriorated into a new version of the kinds of fascist states that we have seen before, where governments control our lives and what we can and cannot do or say; . . .


Petty. If this is the real Jim Fetzer, and I'm having serious doubts....his stuff is readily out there...Chumpy just wants a regurgitation of a theory which is available on our fine internets.....typical Chumpy deflection move.....

[Nbadan]

Hey Jim, have you ever addressed the Iron Microspheres which were found at the WTC site?

[ChumpDumper]

Petty. If this is the real Jim Fetzer, and I'm having serious doubts....his stuff is readily out there...Chumpy just wants a regurgitation of a theory which is available on our fine internets.....typical Chumpy deflection move.....On the contrary -- there is no theory.

You don't have one.

Rolf doesn't have one.

"Jim Fetzer" doesn't have one.

No truther I have seen has one.

After a full decade, none of you has even one working theory.

If you actually have one, post it in the thread I made for you. I'll bump it.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, what surprises me is that there appears to be no interest in proof that the "official account" is false.WE KNOW YOU THINK THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT IS FALSE.

We want to know what you actually believe happened on 9/11.

You have completely failed to provide a narrative of the events of 9/11. All your "work" and "research" means nothing. You are a fraud and a phony and as dumb as a post for not understanding the simple task that was put to you in the OP. You were given multiple chances to make your case. You simply chickened out like every other truther I have ever asked this question. Just like all the others, you simply don't believe your own bullshit. It's funny that all of you have at least that minimum amount of shame that keeps you from going full retard and committing yourself to an actual theory. I can understand in your case since you put a name to your insanity in the first place and try to make money and some kind of warped reputation off of this.

[Jim Fetzer]

No, what your specious posture in asking for a "narrative" reveals is that you have honed a novel "straw man" by imposing an exaggerated demand on those of us who care about the truth and who have taken the time and the effort to expose the lies that the government has peddled about 9/11, which have been proven to be false, where even the stories it has told us about the planes, the hijackers, and the crash sites are pure fabrications.

I really had not expected to encounter someone of your calibre here. Even the first of the articles that Rolf linked, "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda", already provided an explanation of who was responsible and why. I have seen no indications that you have read even one of my studies, but have acquired the indelible impression that you are here to deceive and mislead those who might--even on this forum, which is about politics, after all--who could stumble over the truth about 9/11 and how we have been deceived.

I don't know how many you influence here, but I certainly hope that their number is small. The official account is simple, but it is also provably false, while the truth is complex. Those committed to the Project for the New American Century were involved in this, many of whom had positions in the DoD, where they were able to influence the course of events. Dick Cheney appears to have been the "chief executioner" on 9/11, as I explained in my interview on "Hannity & Colmes", which by themselves revealed more truth about 9/11 than anyone is ever going to hear from you! What a disgrace!


WE KNOW YOU THINK THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT IS FALSE.

We want to know what you actually believe happened on 9/11.

You have completely failed to provide a narrative of the events of 9/11. All your "work" and "research" means nothing. You are a fraud and a phony and as dumb as a post for not understanding the simple task that was put to you in the OP. You were given multiple chances to make your case. You simply chickened out like every other truther I have ever asked this question. Just like all the others, you simply don't believe your own bullshit. It's funny that all of you have at least that minimum amount of shame that keeps you from going full retard and committing yourself to an actual theory. I can understand in your case since you put a name to your insanity in the first place and try to make money and some kind of warped reputation off of this.

[Jim Fetzer]

April 22, 2008 at 10:56:31

View Ratings | Rate It
Permalink
View Article Stats (36 comments)
9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda

Tell A Friend

SAVE AS FAVORITE
VIEW FAVORITES

By Jim Fetzer (about the author)
Page 1 of 7 page(s)

opednews.com

Abstract. During a “Freedom Rally” in recognition of Ron Paul, (R-TX) and in opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth explained why the anti-war movement and the 9/11 truth movement should be more closely linked, since exposing the truth about 9/11 destroys the justification for those wars. While a clip of a part of his presentation has been posted on YouTube, here is a summation (with corrections) of his remarks in Washington, D.C., 15 April 2008. When it comes to 9/11, however, Ron Paul himself, alas!, doesn’t have a clue.

We cannot support the troops by “staying the course” when the Commander-in-Chief is marching them over a cliff.
—Jim Fetzer (15 April 2008)

I speak in praise of Ron Paul, who believes in the Constitution and in ending these illegal and immoral wars, which the Bush administration obviously does not.

There is a crucial link between the anti-war movement and the 9/11 truth movement, because exposing the truth about 9/11 destroys the justification for those wars.

We are told not to discuss conspiracy theories, but if 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four planes, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy off in a cave in Afghanistan, then 9/11 involved a conspiracy.

If we can’t talk about conspiracies, we can’t talk about 9/11. Why would this administration want to suppress public discussion of 9/11? To conceal the truth about the war or to conceal the truth about 9/11?

Lies about the War

We were told big lies about the war, including, first, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But during a press conference, Bush himself had to admit that Saddam had “nothing” to do with 9/11.

We were told, second, that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda. But several investigations have revealed that not only was Saddam not in cahoots with al Qaeda, but he was actively tracking down its leaders to incarcerate or even kill them.

Moreover, honest generals have told us al Qaeda is not responsible for more than 10% of the opposition to US presence in Iraq and that our presence there is the greatest recruiting tool al Qaeda possesses.

In fact, an admiral—who may face imminent demotion—was quoted in The New York Times (11 April 2008) observing that no more than 40-50 foreign fighters were entering the country each month. How great a threat can that represent?

Political hacks tell us differently. Compare what General William Odom, who is retired, has said, with the words of General David Petraeus, who is not.

Third, we were told that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But our FBI—our own FBI!—has acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11.

You thought there was “a confession tape”? But in his first video, which is the only one that appears to be authentic, Osama said that he had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the killing of innocent women and children is contrary to the tenets of Islam.

He said that he opposed the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina—the two most holy sites in Islam—and our one-sided stance regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

The so-called “confession tape” involves a different “Osama” who does not look the same and has a different voice. It is the product of an intelligence agency.

(1 of 7)

[Jim Fetzer]

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda
Add this Page to Facebook!

Tell A Friend

SAVE AS FAVORITE
VIEW FAVORITES

By Jim Fetzer (about the author)
Page 2 of 7 page(s)

opednews.com
Lies about 9/11

And we have been told lesser lies about 9/11. You don’t have to have read the books of David Ray Griffin to know these things, but it helps.

At the Twin Towers, the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. Jet fuel is primarily kerosene, most of which burned up in those spectacular fireballs. If it could have such effects, our Coleman lanterns and camping stoves would melt when we use them.

The towers were pulverized from the top down. Each floor stands motionless awaiting its destruction. They were turned into very fine dust and the buildings were destroyed to below ground level. There were no “pancakes”.

WTC-7 was destroyed by a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM. All of its floors fell together in a complete, abrupt, and symmetrical collapse in about 6.5 seconds. When it was over, there was a stack of about 7 floors of “pancakes”. Their modes of demolition were quite different.

Earlier, at 4:57 PM, the BBC reported that WTC-7 had collapsed, 23 minutes before the event occurred. If anyone wonders whether there is any collusion between the intelligence agencies, the government, and the mass media, I cannot imagine a better example.

The Pentagon presents many oddities. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has taken the black box data that the National Transportation Safety Board says came from the plane that hit the building and discovered that the data corresponds to a flight with a different approach and altitude than the official account describes.

It was too high at 300 feet to have taken out any lampposts and, one second from the building, it was 100 feet too high to have impacted with it. Such a plane may have swooped over the Pentagon, but it could not have hit it.

Moreover, two lime-green civilian fire trucks were on the scene almost immediately and extinguished the fires in the first 15-20 minutes. The billowing black clouds that were later observed from the Capitol came from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of the building rather than from the building itself. They were a special effect. We are being played for saps.

Apologists for the government insist that there is so little debris at the crash site in Shanksville because the plane crashed into an abandoned mine shaft!

Well, we know what to do with miners trapped in mine shafts: We bring out the heavy equipment and work non-stop in the hope that someone may have miraculously survived. But that was not done in Shanksville.

An Air Force officer who is an expert on plane crashes, Colonel George Nelson (retired), has told me that it looked to him as though someone had taken a bulldozer, dug a trench, filled it with trash, and blown it up!

We are not alone in our concerns with what we have been told by our government about 9/11. Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader are two of the latest to join us. If you want to know why hundreds of military officers, intelligence experts, pilots, scientists, and members of the families of survivors support 9/11 truth, visit Patriots Question 9/11.

Why All These Lies?

According to the Center for Public Integrity, prominent members of the administration made nearly 1,000 lies to induce Americans to support a war in Iraq. These were made by George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others. Why were they lying to us?

One reason may be because real national security depends upon (a) a sound economy, (b) military strength, and (c) our moral standing in the world. Bush has vitiated all three. (a) The war alone is estimated to run $1-3 trillion and the nation is bankrupt.

[Jim Fetzer]

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda
Add this Page to Facebook!

Tell A Friend

SAVE AS FAVORITE
VIEW FAVORITES

By Jim Fetzer (about the author)
Page 3 of 7 page(s)

opednews.com

These ongoing rotations are (b) weakening our military and are not sustainable, as general after general has observed. And if you doubt the morality of this practice, view the film “Stop-Loss”.

By launching wars of aggression in violation of international law, the UN Charter, and the US Constitution, combined with the practice of torture, (c) the US has lost its moral standing in the eyes of the world. Instead of being the most admired and respected of nations, we are now—together with our ally, Israel—the most despised and reviled.

Since our greatest source of security from attack has been our moral standing, for Bush to describe himself as “the security president” is no more than a sick joke.

The Real Reasons for War

Do they want to conceal the real reasons for going to war? There appear to be three: oil, Israel, and ideology.

OIL: It’s easier to steal their oil than it is to find it ourselves. For a war that was supposed to pay for itself, we are shelling out $1 billion a week for gasoline to move our equipment around in Iraq.

I haven’t heard that ExxonMobile is offering to provide that gas for free to support our troops! Where do you suppose those profits are going?

After Dick Cheney’s latest visit to the Middle East, al Maliki rushed to Basra to oversee an attack on the militia forces of al Sadr. Basra is not just the second largest city in Iraq but sits astride the large oil fields in south and eastern Iraq.

Without pacifying the conflict there, ExxonMobile, Shell, BP and other companies will not be comfortable taking oil from that region. I have no doubt that the Bush-Cheney “benchmark” for success in Iraq is that the country has been pacified sufficiently for that purpose. That’s their bottom line.

ISRAEL. Israel has had a long-standing interest in weakening the influence of its political rivals in the region. Before 9/11, Iraq was the most modern and sophisticated among the Arab states, with a fine national health-care system, a strong program of public education, and an excellent infrastructure.

Anyone who wants to appreciate one of the real reasons for 9/11 should think about a clip of cheering Palestinians that played as the towers were being destroyed.

I asked myself, “Is there an enormous large-screen, outdoor television in the West Bank that would enable Palestinians to view these events as they are happening?”

It turns out to be archival footage from 1993 of rejoicing after some students had given an olive branch to the Israeli soldiers and thought that peace was "just around the corner", which just happened to be introduced at the point of maximum revulsion about what we were seeing on the screen.

IDEOLOGY. An influential group known as “Project for the New American Century” has formulated a plan for creating an empire greater than any the world has ever seen.

Now that the US is the only superpower, they advocate moving aggressively into the Middle East to seize control of its oil, support Israel, and exert influence outward from that geopolitically strategic area.

Those who have signed on to its principles include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Eliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, “Scotter” Libby, Eliot Cohen, and even Jeb Bush, many of whom assumed powerful positions in the Bush administration.

[Jim Fetzer]

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda
Add this Page to Facebook!

Tell A Friend

SAVE AS FAVORITE
VIEW FAVORITES

By Jim Fetzer (about the author)
Page 4 of 7 page(s)

opednews.com

To get a handle on the “mind set” that drives this conception, which is now being justified as part of the “war on terror”, try reading The Shell Game. It is undemocratic, anti-American, and perverted.

Yet it exerts a powerful grip upon this administration. It is a mind set that must not just be changed but completely destroyed!

When Basra is pacified and that oil is transported, it will be through a series of pipelines that reach the Mediterranean Sea by way of Israel.

“Follow the Money”

The motives for mass murder must have been powerful. What happens when we “follow the money”?

Larry Silverstein took control of the World Trade Center on 24 July 2001 and promptly insured it for $3.5 billion against terrorist attacks. When there were two planes, he claimed “double indemnity” and asked for $7 billion, settling for $4.6. Not bad for a six week’s investment of $114 million.

Security and Exchange Commission records stored in WTC-7 were destroyed when that building was brought down. They not only included documents from the Enron case but many other major investigations of financial and banking interests.

The fines and penalties could have totaled hundreds of millions, even billions. But information necessary to conduct those investigations has now been destroyed.

Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged the day before 9/11 that the Pentagon had lost track of $2.3 trillion. He did that on a Monday, which was very odd for an experienced politician, who would know that reporters would dog him all week and the story would “grow legs”.

Ordinarily, you would wait until Friday with a story like this, hoping that it might be lost among weekend sports and other news. It is as if he knew that something would occur to wipe this from consciousness so he could waltz back into the halls of Congress and ask for hundreds of billions more in defense spending—which is exactly what he did!

Halliburton of course is profiting mightily from $100 billion, no bid, cost-plus contracts, which mean that, no matter how much you spend on a project, you can add your profit on top of it.

Dick Cheney still has some 400,000 shares of stock in Halliburton in a not so blind “trust”.

And the gas and oil industry is benefiting immeasurably. Consider the case of Afghanistan as an illustration.

Before 9/11, we negotiated on behalf of Unocal with the Taliban over a pipeline to be built in northern Afghanistan, telling them that if they allowed it, we would bathe them in gold, and if not, we would bathe them in bombs. They didn’t and, after 9/11, we did.

Today that pipeline is under construction, there are two permanent bases ideally positioned to support it, the President of Afghanistan is a former Unocal oil official, and our Ambassador to Afghanistan is another Unocal oil official. This is not rocket science.

Condoleezza Rice asked the Taliban to turn Osama over to the United States for prosecution. They replied that they would do that on the condition that she produce proof that he had been involved. She said she would but never got around to it. She must have had more pressing engagements.

[Jim Fetzer]

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda
Add this Page to Facebook!

Tell A Friend

SAVE AS FAVORITE
VIEW FAVORITES

By Jim Fetzer (about the author)
Page 5 of 7 page(s)

opednews.com

What about Israel?

But could Israel have been involved? There are disturbing indications. The five “dancing Israels” were observed on a roof across the Hudson in New Jersey drinking and celebrating as they filmed the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Complaints by neighbors led to their apprehension in a van. The driver told the arresting officer, “We are not your problem. The Palestinians are your problem!” They would be incarcerated for 71 days until an assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft directed their release.

They returned to Israel where three of them appeared on Israeli TV and explained they were there to document the destruction of the Twin Towers. Obviously, they could not have done that without knowing the Twin Towers were going to be destroyed.

The man who directed their release was Michael Chertoff, now our Director of Homeland Security, who is a joint US/Israeli citizen.

The Controller of the Pentagon at the time $2.3 trillion went missing was Dov Zokheim, another joint US/Israeli citizen.

Others in the administration with dual citizenship include Paul Wolfowitz, Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_ Abrams, Richard Pearle, Douglas Feith, “Scooter” Libby, Eliot Cohen, and John Bolton. Do any of these names sound familiar?

An especially interesting case is Michael Mukasey, our new Attorney General, who was also the judge on litigation between Larry Silverstein and insurance companies over the events of 9/11.

Who runs this country? About two weeks after 9/11, Ariel Sharon said, “We own America, and the Americans know it”.

If Israel was involved in 9/11, the American people are entitled to know.

Conflicting Loyalties

I will be accused of anti-Semitism for telling you facts in the public domain. But it is not “anti-Semitic” to criticize the state of Israel, the government of the state of Israel, or the policies and actions of the state of Israel.

Anti-Semitism involves discounting or belittling persons on the basis of their religious orientation or their ethnic origins.

It is not anti-Semitic to object to the expansion of illegal settlements, the starvation and killing of the Palestinian people, or the butchering of a peace activist with a bulldozer! For these gross violations of human rights, we have the government of Israel to thank.

We need laws to keep dual citizens from decision-making and policy-shaping position in the US government. Who knows whose loyalty they respect?

I call upon those with joint citizenship to resign their positions in the interests of the nation—the United States of America!

[Blake]

No, what your specious posture in asking for a "narrative" reveals is that you have honed a novel "straw man" by imposing an exaggerated demand on those of us who care about the truth and who have taken the time and the effort to expose the lies that the government has peddled about 9/11, which have been proven to be false, where even the stories it has told us about the planes, the hijackers, and the crash sites are pure fabrications.

I really had not expected to encounter someone of your calibre here. Even the first of the articles that Rolf linked, "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda", already provided an explanation of who was responsible and why. I have seen no indications that you have read even one of my studies, but have acquired the indelible impression that you are here to deceive and mislead those who might--even on this forum, which is about politics, after all--who could stumble over the truth about 9/11 and how we have been deceived.

I don't know how many you influence here, but I certainly hope that their number is small. The official account is simple, but it is also provably false, while the truth is complex. Those committed to the Project for the New American Century were involved in this, many of whom had positions in the DoD, where they were able to influence the course of events. Dick Cheney appears to have been the "chief executioner" on 9/11, as I explained in my interview on "Hannity & Colmes", which by themselves revealed more truth about 9/11 than anyone is ever going to hear from you! What a disgrace!

roflmao

Why is Cheney your prime suspect? How did Cheney execute the plan?

[Jim Fetzer]

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda
Add this Page to Facebook!

Tell A Friend

SAVE AS FAVORITE
VIEW FAVORITES

By Jim Fetzer (about the author)
Page 6 of 7 page(s)

opednews.com

If you think that’s “in your face”, consider this. Michael Hayden, our Director of the CIA, like General Petraeus, still wears his uniform. That means he is still in the chain of command and under the control of the President as Commander-in-Chief. We are being played for suckers!

I call upon him to resign his commission or to resign his position!

An Attack on Iran?

We who support Ron Paul want to end this war. They want to expand it.

The last time Cheney visited the Middle East, we attacked Iraq. This time may presage an attack on Iran. A Saudi newspaper has reported that the kingdom has been warned to prepare to cope with “sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards”, the source no doubt Cheney himself.

Estimates of casualties run as high as 1 million dead Iranians and as many as 35 million collateral casualties in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, who will incur cancer as a result of exposure to radioactivity.

If we—or “our ally”, Israel—undertake such an action, it will be the greatest act of mass murder in history, which will inevitably lead to attacks in kind on the US and on Israel, leading to its annihilation.

Those who would attack Iran are betraying this country. As a former Marine Corps officer, I remind commissioned officers of the American military that they not only have an obligation to refuse illegal orders but have the duty to take into custody those who issue them.

Iran is not in Iraq. Our own National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran abandoned its development of nuclear weapons in 2003. It has the right to develop nuclear energy.

Even if it had a bomb, Iran could not use it for offensive purposes without committing national suicide. Israel alone has more than 200 nulcear weapons. Did we learn nothing from the Cold War?

I call upon the officers of our armed forces to take into custody those who would direct the commission of further war crimes.

Parting Reflections

Here in Washington, we have a crime syndicate masquerading as an administration.

And Bush is talking about another 9/11, even suggesting its source!
Someone should sit down and ask him how he could possibly know.

I say, Support the Constitution! Stand with Ron Paul! End these wars!

Study 9/11! And remove these liars, cutthroats, and thieves from office!

The Commander-in-Chief is marching our troops off a cliff!

[Blake]

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda
Add this Page to Facebook!

Tell A Friend

SAVE AS FAVORITE
VIEW FAVORITES

By Jim Fetzer (about the author)
Page 4 of 7 page(s)

opednews.com

To get a handle on the “mind set” that drives this conception, which is now being justified as part of the “war on terror”, try reading The Shell Game. It is undemocratic, anti-American, and perverted.

Yet it exerts a powerful grip upon this administration. It is a mind set that must not just be changed but completely destroyed!

When Basra is pacified and that oil is transported, it will be through a series of pipelines that reach the Mediterranean Sea by way of Israel.

“Follow the Money”

The motives for mass murder must have been powerful. What happens when we “follow the money”?

Larry Silverstein took control of the World Trade Center on 24 July 2001 and promptly insured it for $3.5 billion against terrorist attacks. When there were two planes, he claimed “double indemnity” and asked for $7 billion, settling for $4.6. Not bad for a six week’s investment of $114 million.

Security and Exchange Commission records stored in WTC-7 were destroyed when that building was brought down. They not only included documents from the Enron case but many other major investigations of financial and banking interests.

The fines and penalties could have totaled hundreds of millions, even billions. But information necessary to conduct those investigations has now been destroyed.

Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged the day before 9/11 that the Pentagon had lost track of $2.3 trillion. He did that on a Monday, which was very odd for an experienced politician, who would know that reporters would dog him all week and the story would “grow legs”.

Ordinarily, you would wait until Friday with a story like this, hoping that it might be lost among weekend sports and other news. It is as if he knew that something would occur to wipe this from consciousness so he could waltz back into the halls of Congress and ask for hundreds of billions more in defense spending—which is exactly what he did!

Halliburton of course is profiting mightily from $100 billion, no bid, cost-plus contracts, which mean that, no matter how much you spend on a project, you can add your profit on top of it.

Dick Cheney still has some 400,000 shares of stock in Halliburton in a not so blind “trust”.

And the gas and oil industry is benefiting immeasurably. Consider the case of Afghanistan as an illustration.

Before 9/11, we negotiated on behalf of Unocal with the Taliban over a pipeline to be built in northern Afghanistan, telling them that if they allowed it, we would bathe them in gold, and if not, we would bathe them in bombs. They didn’t and, after 9/11, we did.

Today that pipeline is under construction, there are two permanent bases ideally positioned to support it, the President of Afghanistan is a former Unocal oil official, and our Ambassador to Afghanistan is another Unocal oil official. This is not rocket science.

Condoleezza Rice asked the Taliban to turn Osama over to the United States for prosecution. They replied that they would do that on the condition that she produce proof that he had been involved. She said she would but never got around to it. She must have had more pressing engagements.

How much money did Silverstein make off of 9/11?

[Jim Fetzer]

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda
Add this Page to Facebook!

Tell A Friend

SAVE AS FAVORITE
VIEW FAVORITES

By Jim Fetzer (about the author)
Page 7 of 7 page(s)

opednews.com

Enough is enough! Enough is enough!

And that is just as true here on Spurstalk as it was then with Bush and Cheney, where some of you may have noticed that these wars have still not ended! And for Chumpy to continue to move the goalposts is such an obvious attempt to deceive and mislead you into believing that, unless we know every detail about how it was done, we have no idea how it was done, is a sure sign that he is a phony and a fraud. He's only out for to promote his image.

This guy could care less about the truth of 9/11. He only cares about preserving his images as "the smartest guy at Spurstalk!" Well, I can see through him. You should be able to, too. I have answered every reasonable question he has posed. But he has made his demands increasingly unreasonable, again and again! Next he will want notes from the secret meetings where these events were planned! Give us a break. Give truth a break. Enough is enough!

[Blake]

Give truth a break. Enough is enough!

You aren't the real Jim Fetzer

lol truth

[Blake]

How did Silverstein know that Cheney was going to blow up the WTC Towers?

Were the firemen in on WTC7?

[ChumpDumper]

No, what your specious posture in asking for a "narrative" reveals is that you have honed a novel "straw man" by imposing an exaggerated demand on those of us who care about the truth and who have taken the time and the effort to expose the lies that the government has peddled about 9/11, which have been proven to be false, where even the stories it has told us about the planes, the hijackers, and the crash sites are pure fabrications.No, you don't know what a straw man is. And this is not an exaggerated demand. It's a very simple request. You seem to at least hint at whom you think is responsible -- though you throw in possibility after possibility, piling on conspirators until it isn't clear which conspirators you actually think are responsible.

Who do you think is actually responsible? Bush? Cheney? Cabinet members? Members of the military? Larry Silverstein? Unocal? Enron? Dancing Israelis? Nondancing half-Israelis? Pick what you think is most likely after all your exhaustive research.

Now, the closest you came to an actual claim in the execution of the plan was to say that huge dumpsters were used to make the smoke at the Pentagon after the non-plane strike. That in itself is the kind of hilarious ridiculousness I was hoping for. So go further -- what do you think actually hit the Pentagon? Why would they use something other than a plane when they actually had a plane? How did they scatter American Airlines parts all over the lawn and inside the building and how did they put a bunch of charred bodies in airliner seats the actual impact zone. Who were those bodies? Why use burning dumpsters outside in plain view (though no pictures of actual dumpsters exist -- more special effects!)?

And as for Shanksville, you made a fundamental error characterizing the crash site as "an abandoned mine shaft" when anyone with even a cursory knowledge of this area knows it is a reclaimed strip mine. Surely a serious scholar obsessed with the truth would want to retract a grossly erroneous and misleading characterization such as the one you have propagated here. Your credibility takes an enormous hit here if you really want to be taken seriously. As of now, it is a lie that makes you a liar -- you need to correct this and stop repeating it.

As for the rest, you haven't really said anything. Nothing about how you think the WTC buildings were brought down beyond saying you think they were controlled demolitions of some kind. Big deal. I expect more from a scholar who has dedicated himself to the truth for over a decade.

This is all weak sauce.


I really had not expected to encounter someone of your calibre here. Even the first of the articles that Rolf linked, "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda", already provided an explanation of who was responsible and why. I have seen no indications that you have read even one of my studies, but have acquired the indelible impression that you are here to deceive and mislead those who might--even on this forum, which is about politics, after all--who could stumble over the truth about 9/11 and how we have been deceived.Ah, yes -- I disagree with you, so I must be a paid government shill or something similar. This is the kind of ad hominem attack that truthers resort to when they are put on the defensive and can't explain their own real position, most of the time because they really don't have one. If you are Jim Fetzer, you're just another failed truther who can't withstand any criticism.


I don't know how many you influence here, but I certainly hope that their number is small.I'm not here to influence people.

You are -- and you are doing a piss poor job of it. You and all other truthers fail miserably in giving those you are trying to convert something to positively believe in. I can only conclude you refuse to connect your disparate and conflicting dots because deep down you know any finished product is going to be a completely unbelievable pile of shit.


The official account is simple, but it is also provably false, while the truth is complex.So give us an account that is not provably false. you could have been working on one all this time rather than vomiting link after link and whining about my being a disinformation agent.


Those committed to the Project for the New American Century were involved in this, many of whom had positions in the DoD, where they were able to influence the course of events. Dick Cheney appears to have been the "chief executioner" on 9/11, as I explained in my interview on "Hannity & Colmes", which by themselves revealed more truth about 9/11 than anyone is ever going to hear from you! What a disgrace!:lol Are you required to pimp your own articles and interviews in every post?

Reveal your account of all the events of 9/11 that isn't provably false.

We're still waiting for it.

[DarrinS]

Twoofers,

Why would the govt go to such great lengths to "stage" a terrorist attack, when precedent had already been established in 1993 using a fertilizer truck bomb? Doesn't really make any sense? Then again, none of your theories do.

[ChumpDumper]

Twoofers,

Why would the govt go to such great lengths to "stage" a terrorist attack, when precedent had already been established in 1993 using a fertilizer truck bomb? Doesn't really make any sense? Then again, none of your theories do.Damn, he probably has problems with that account too. Don't make him lose focus more than he already has.

[ChumpDumper]

Apologists for the government insist that there is so little debris at the crash site in Shanksville because the plane crashed into an abandoned mine shaft!

Well, we know what to do with miners trapped in mine shafts: We bring out the heavy equipment and work non-stop in the hope that someone may have miraculously survived. But that was not done in Shanksville.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Flight93Crash.jpg

lol mineshaft.

Publicly rescind your faulty and misleading characterization, "Jim Fetzer" -- then I'll be more inclined to believe you are interested in the truth. Admit it here, then correct yourself on the web page you linked with annotation explaining what you changed and why you needed to correct that error and that an anonymous nobody on a basketball message board showed you how wrong you were.

[Jim Fetzer]

You come across as a pimply-faced teen ager who is desperately trying to come across as "macho" because of profound feelings of insecurity. What have you even done for your country, such as serving in the Armed Forces of the United States? Indeed, what have you even done of any significance in any context whatsoever, other than post tripe on this forum and try to make yourself look smart? That is a losing proposition, as you demonstrate here.

You may be the only person who believes Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. The two reporters on the scene both said in their reports (independently) that the errie aspect of the crash site was that there was no evidence that any plane had crashed there. The officials on the scene kept photographers and reporters 1,000 yards away. No effort was made to recover bodies by bringing out the bright lights and heavy equipment, as would be done in a mining accident.

The coroner reported that he ceased functioning as a medical examiner after 15 minutes because there were no bodies. He said he had not seen even a single speck of blood. Bushes and trees that had been singed were trimmed to make sure they could not be subjected to chemical analysis to see if they had been burned by jet fuel based fires. The EPA would later study the soil to determine if there was any jet fuel residue--and concluded there was not.

So what is a punk like you doing making cheap shots toward those of us who are dedicating our lives to exposing the corruption of 9/11 and other acts of violence upon the American people? You have clearly not read my articles, which are important, not because they are mine, but because I marshall the relevant evidence that matters to the issues I am discussing. But that makes no difference to someone like you, who is out to bolster his ego before a tiny group of friends and could care less about his country or 9/11 truth.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Flight93Crash.jpg

lol mineshaft.

Publicly rescind your faulty and misleading characterization, "Jim Fetzer" -- then I'll be more inclined to believe you are interested in the truth. Admit it here, then correct yourself on the web page you linked with annotation explaining what you changed and why you needed to correct that error and that an anonymous nobody on a basketball message board showed you how wrong you were.

[ChumpDumper]

You come across as a pimply-faced teen ager who is desperately trying to come across as "macho" because of profound feelings of insecurity. What have you even done for your country, such as serving in the Armed Forces of the United States? Indeed, what have you even done of any significance in any context whatsoever, other than post tripe on this forum and try to make yourself look smart? That is a losing proposition, as you demonstrate here.You come across as something other than a learned scholar doing serious research intent on changing the hearts and minds of Americans who have legitimate questions for you. Are ad hominem attacks something you do as a matter of course? Do you do this on radio and television?


You may be the only person who believes Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.I'm going to say there are no fewer than many millions of people who believe Flight 93 crashed outside of Shanksville.


The two reporters on the scene both said in their reports (independently) that the errie aspect of the crash site was that there was no evidence that any plane had crashed there.Because the plane disintegrated on impact. Had you actually done any real research you would know there is quite a similar crash on record with remarkably the same kind of crash site and debris field.


The officials on the scene kept photographers and reporters 1,000 yards away. No effort was made to recover bodies by bringing out the bright lights and heavy equipment, as would be done in a mining accident.Again, you are laboring under the false assumption that this was a shaft mine. It was a strip mine that had been reclaimed. If you don't know this simple fact, you can't be taken seriously.


The coroner reported that he ceased functioning as a medical examiner after 15 minutes because there were no bodies. He said he had not seen even a single speck of blood.How many intact bodies do you expect to find when a plane hits the ground at a 40 degree angle at 563 mph? There were no intact bodies found in the other flight I referred to and you have apparently never heard of.


Bushes and trees that had been singed were trimmed to make sure they could not be subjected to chemical analysis to see if they had been burned by jet fuel based fires.:lol Entire trees would have to be removed to effect that.


The EPA would later study the soil to determine if there was any jet fuel residue--and concluded there was not.Wouldn't expect much.

http://www.wtv-zone.com/AttackonAmerica/Flight93/Graphics/flight93crashsite.jpg


So what is a punk like you doing making cheap shots toward those of us who are dedicating our lives to exposing the corruption of 9/11 and other acts of violence upon the American people?If you are indeed Jim Fetzer, I think you are dedicating your life to your own minor celebrity and will never commit to an actual comprehensive theory because you'd rather work on the fringes and take in suckers who will pay to listen to your innuendo and read your sloppy, fake research.


You have clearly not read my articles, which are important, not because they are mine, but because I marshall the relevant evidence that matters to the issues I am discussing."Jim" -- we are discussing the errors of your article right now. How could I know that you grossly mischaracterized the Shanksville site as a mine shaft if I didn't read the article in which you wrote that lie?


But that makes no difference to someone like you, who is out to bolster his ego before a tiny group of friends and could care less about his country or 9/11 truth.I am very interested in 9/11 truth -- so much so that I ask people who doubt the official narrative to provide an alternative so people can see what people like you really believe and decide for themselves what they want to believe.

You, along with every other truther I have ever seen, proved to be incapable of providing such a narrative after a full decade of "research" and self-pimping on the internets and radio and television. If you are truly doing this for your country, you have failed miserably and there's no use getting pissy and blaming me for your lack of intellectual ability or communication skills.

[clambake]

pimply faced teenager lol

[ChumpDumper]

pimply faced teenager lolI think he used that one on Hannity, too.

[ChumpDumper]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Flight93Crash.jpg

lol mineshaft.

Publicly rescind your faulty and misleading characterization, "Jim Fetzer" -- then I'll be more inclined to believe you are interested in the truth. Admit it here, then correct yourself on the web page you linked with annotation explaining what you changed and why you needed to correct that error and that an anonymous nobody on a basketball message board showed you how wrong you were.Seriously Jim -- I actually believe you are who you say you are. I must admit I didn't expect you to be as thin-skinned and petty as you turned out to be, but in retrospect is does explain the behavior of the truthers I know who are not minor celebrities. You're all alike in that respect.

If the truth really is important to you, you will correct the very basic and very easily disproved error you made characterizing the Shanksville crash site as a shaft mine.

All you need to do is say you were wrong about that; that the site is a reclaimed strip mine.

If you don't, I will mercilessly beat you over the head with it as long as you are on this board. It is such a basic and glaring error that no researcher would ever want to make it in the first place, much less let it continue to exist on the internets, just waiting to be seized upon by punks on basketball message boards who will use it to show anyone who reads that you are at best a terrible researcher or at worst a terrible liar.

The ball is in your court, Jim.

[Nbadan]

:lol at whomever is trolling Chumpy.....

Nice job.

[SA210]

:lol at whomever is trolling Chumpy.....

Nice job.

It is Epic indeed :lmao

[Nbadan]

Not the real Jim Fetzer but...

The Shanksville eyewitness
_gliHOhXYFQ

the best part is that Chumpy won't watch this either...

:lol

[Nbadan]

An (real) eyewitness who says first of all that this was no passenger plane that crashed in Shanksville, but also that the plane could not have been possibly been flying as fast as eyewitness Chumpy claims it was flying when it slammed into the ground...

An_nXpr5K0A

Unless planes can go from almost nothing to over 500mph there is something wrong with the official Chumpy theory...

and it gets worse...

rUzrHHDu96U

Yes, the crater that officials claim was made by the crash of United 93 was already there before the crash according to a geological survey...

[Vici]

Since im assuming the truther movement is supposed to be base on scientific data... how much credence to scientists give witnesses? Ill give you a hint, the answer starts with an N and ends in ONE.

[Jim Fetzer]

The government has claimed that there is no visible plane because it simply disappeared into the ground, which was soft from mining in the area, Chumpy. Some have suggested that it disappeared into an abandoned mining shaft. It is not a stretch. There is no way to believe that a Boeing 757 crashed here. How else could a plane COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR and leave no signs at all? And Pilots has shown that it was over Urbana, IL, at the time it allegedly crashed. You just dismiss or ignore the evidence that shows you are wrong.

I don't want to suggest that you are gullible, but for someone to swallow the "official account" of 9/11 when all of the evidence contradicts it takes a weak mind, not a strong one. You seem too smart to be so easily taken in. It's not being "thin skinned" but having no patience for absurdities. I have often noted that the "official account" is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things. Why are you not seeing through the fantasies we have been told re 9/11? Here's a sampler of the problems with the OCT:

1. The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

2. Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel (unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F), which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

3. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees F under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 
1200.

4. Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North Tower to weaken, much less melt.

5. If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any 
”collapse” sequence.

6. The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and fell to the side, turning to dust before it reached the horizontal. So it did not even exist to exert any downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

7. William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the 
ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

8. Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, ”Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these 
explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

9. Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab construction” and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

10. The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible with extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

11. Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no “pancakes”.

12. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it”, displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

13. Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of “pancakes” equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no “pancakes”, there cannot have been any “pancake collapse” of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition.

14. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44-feet above the ground; the debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, which means that the official account is not true.

15. The Pentagon’s own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when one was shown on ”The O’Reilly Factor”; at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and easily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence also contradicts the official account.

16. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory “flying at high speed barely above ground level” physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet of the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible, as Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer, explained to me.

17. Data from a flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the National Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with a different approach and altitude, which would have precluded its hitting lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, if this data corresponds to a Boeing 757, it would have flown over the Pentagon rather than hit it.

18. If Flight 93 crashed into an abandoned mine shaft, as the government maintains, then they should have brought out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dug and dug, 24/7, in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might possibly have survived. But nothing like that was done. Even the singed trees and shrubs were trimmed, apparently to make it impossible to subject them to chemical analysis.

19. There is more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly these planes and their names are not on any original, authenticated passenger manifest. Several have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they were even aboard the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked.

20. President Bush recently acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The Senate Intelligence Committee has reported that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda. And the FBI has acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” to tie Osama to 9/11. If Saddam did not do it and Osama did not do it, then who is responsible for the death of 3,000 citizens that day?

We believe that it is the highest form of respect to those who died on 9/11 and their survivors to establish how and why they died, which our own government manifestly has not done. With the American media under the thumb of a corrupt administration, we cannot count on the press to perform its investigative function. But we can do our best to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11.

For more, see http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/


Seriously Jim -- I actually believe you are who you say you are. I must admit I didn't expect you to be as thin-skinned and petty as you turned out to be, but in retrospect is does explain the behavior of the truthers I know who are not minor celebrities. You're all alike in that respect.

If the truth really is important to you, you will correct the very basic and very easily disproved error you made characterizing the Shanksville crash site as a shaft mine.

All you need to do is say you were wrong about that; that the site is a reclaimed strip mine.

If you don't, I will mercilessly beat you over the head with it as long as you are on this board. It is such a basic and glaring error that no researcher would ever want to make it in the first place, much less let it continue to exist on the internets, just waiting to be seized upon by punks on basketball message boards who will use it to show anyone who reads that you are at best a terrible researcher or at worst a terrible liar.

The ball is in your court, Jim.

[Jim Fetzer]

My opinion is that Chumpy and others here really could care less about 9/11 or our nation's future and recent past. What they care about is mocking those of us who do. That is what they consider to be "cool". But the government has been lying to us about major events on a regular basis. The latest is this "underwear bomber" who was working for the CIA. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/underwear-bomber-working-for-cia What's the likelihood that a "bomber" who was working for the CIA posed a genuine threat rather than was working a scam on us?

And I did what I could to explain to Ed Schultz how we know that Saddam Hussein was taken out on 7 April 2003 by USAF B-1 bomber pilot Chris Wachter, but he didn't bring me back on the air after asking me to say on so we could learn "the rest of the story", where even the few minutes I was on was "scrubbed" from the archives for his show. On Monday, he came on the air and, without identifying me by name, began attacking those who believe Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes as "conspiracy theorists". See http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/05/ouch-ed-schultz-is-a-phony-and-a-fraud/

I agree with Michael Moore who, when asked, "Do you believe in conspiracy theories?", replied, "Only those that are true!" Where you have to study the evidence in order to sort out which are true and which are false. Those of us who do are conspiracy realists, where JFK, 9/11, and Wellstone are the three I have studied most extensively. I must ask, were you taken in by the second death of Osama bin Laden? There has been a lot about it on the air, where Obama is making it one of the centerpieces of his campaign for reelection. Do you believe he was killed in a compound in Pakistan about one year ago? Here's an article about him, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-1957-2001.html but I don't think you care.

[Blake]

The government has claimed that there is no visible plane because it simply disappeared into the ground, which was soft from mining in the area, Chumpy. Some have suggested that it disappeared into an abandoned mining shaft. It is not a stretch. There is no way to believe that a Boeing 757 crashed here. How else could a plane COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR and leave no signs at all? And Pilots has shown that it was over Urbana, IL, at the time it allegedly crashed. You just dismiss or ignore the evidence that shows you are wrong.

I don't want to suggest that you are gullible, but for someone to swallow the "official account" of 9/11 when all of the evidence contradicts it takes a weak mind, not a strong one. You seem too smart to be so easily taken in. It's not being "thin skinned" but having no patience for absurdities. I have often noted that the "official account" is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things. Why are you not seeing through the fantasies we have been told re 9/11? Here's a sampler of the problems with the OCT:

1. The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

2. Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel (unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F), which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

3. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees F under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 
1200.

4. Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North Tower to weaken, much less melt.

5. If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any 
”collapse” sequence.

6. The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and fell to the side, turning to dust before it reached the horizontal. So it did not even exist to exert any downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

7. William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the 
ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

8. Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, ”Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these 
explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

9. Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab construction” and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

10. The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible with extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

11. Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no “pancakes”.

12. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it”, displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

13. Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of “pancakes” equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no “pancakes”, there cannot have been any “pancake collapse” of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition.

14. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44-feet above the ground; the debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, which means that the official account is not true.

15. The Pentagon’s own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when one was shown on ”The O’Reilly Factor”; at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and easily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence also contradicts the official account.

16. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory “flying at high speed barely above ground level” physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet of the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible, as Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer, explained to me.

17. Data from a flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the National Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with a different approach and altitude, which would have precluded its hitting lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, if this data corresponds to a Boeing 757, it would have flown over the Pentagon rather than hit it.

18. If Flight 93 crashed into an abandoned mine shaft, as the government maintains, then they should have brought out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dug and dug, 24/7, in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might possibly have survived. But nothing like that was done. Even the singed trees and shrubs were trimmed, apparently to make it impossible to subject them to chemical analysis.

19. There is more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly these planes and their names are not on any original, authenticated passenger manifest. Several have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they were even aboard the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked.

20. President Bush recently acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The Senate Intelligence Committee has reported that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda. And the FBI has acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” to tie Osama to 9/11. If Saddam did not do it and Osama did not do it, then who is responsible for the death of 3,000 citizens that day?

We believe that it is the highest form of respect to those who died on 9/11 and their survivors to establish how and why they died, which our own government manifestly has not done. With the American media under the thumb of a corrupt administration, we cannot count on the press to perform its investigative function. But we can do our best to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11.

For more, see http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/

I was really hoping to hear a theory about who masterminded it all and a detailed story about how they pulled it off.

Very disappointing. :depressed

[Jim Fetzer]

Nice example of the little (really, small, even tiny) games that are being played here. Blake could also care less. I have already offered a (partial and incomplete) "narrative" about the players and the motives that drove them in "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda" (above). It can be arduous to conduct real research, but Chumpy, Blake, and others of their ilk are not about to expend themselves in reading any studies or evaluating any evidence when they can sit back and mock those of us who care about 9/11 and the future of our country.

Notice how effortlessly he can dismiss proof that we have been sold a mess of pottage about 9/11 by our government. Does he expect to have notes from secret meetings where Cheney and Gen. Myers went into how the Air Force would be stood down on 9/11 so they could not attempt intercepts of planes that either were not even in the air or were at locations far removed from where they were alleged to have crashed or hit the Twin Towers? Given what I have experienced since I arrived, I am no longer surprised.

Maybe you don't even recall, if you ever knew, that one of the first actions that Cheney took after he arrived in office was to arrange a meeting about "energy policy", where he brought together heavy hitters from the gas and oil industry, apparently to map out how they were going to divide Iraqi oil. He would not even allow the public to know the names of those who attended. So is that something else that I should include in my "narrative"? Lies can be short and simple. The truth, as in this case, can be elaborate and complex.

So not only have I outlined the narrative that represents elements of the history of the planning to bring about 9/11 in order to instill fear into the American people with a "new Pearl Harbor" and manipulate us to promote a political agenda, but I have already observed that the tactic you and Chumpy seem to prefer is to insist that, unless we know everything about 9/11, we don't know anything. But neither or your buddies here even seem to care. For example, I have yet to see an acknowledgment of any of the points I've made--not one!


I was really hoping to hear a theory about who masterminded it all and a detailed story about how they pulled it off.

Very disappointing. :depressed

[Galileo]

Fetzer being a Lakers fan denies all credibility, TBH.


Fetzer's using ST to advertise his works. Shame on you, Fetzer :nope.

True academics do so though. "Here are all my references to others' works in my research study. Here is my credibility. Here is my hypothesis. To see my research methods and conclusion, please buy my book!"

Fetzer is a big fan of Tim Duncan.

:flag:

[Blake]

Nice example of the little (really, small, even tiny) games that are being played here. Blake could also care less.

How much less could I care?


instead of proof of Cheney having secret military meetings, how about something simpler........like connecting the dots between Cheney and Silverstein.

Proof of such meetings between these two would be an added bonus. Thanks. :tu

[DarrinS]

I sometimes drop in on these threads out of pure, morbid curiosity (or boredom). I wonder -- why do Chump and RandomGuy engage these fucktards?

Meh, to each their own, I guess.


Carry on.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4037643&postcount=8

[Winehole23]

Fetzer's case for the "inside job" narrative relies more on merely plausible inferences from the "data set" than anything approaching "evidence". There is a vast rag bag of such inferences in the "self linked" Fetzer material....


(Also, his claim that anyone who lacks his investigatory passion or fails to share his confidence in its results "does not care about 9/11," amuses and delights.)

[Blake]

Fetzer's case for the "inside job" narrative relies more on merely plausible inferences from the "data set" than anything approaching "evidence". There is a vast rag bag of such inferences in the "self linked" Fetzer material....


(Also, his claim that anyone who lacks his investigatory passion or fails to share his confidence in its results "does not care about 9/11," amuses and delights.)

Par for the twoofer course

[JoeChalupa]

This is why the political forum exists! :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

The government has claimed that there is no visible plane because it simply disappeared into the ground, which was soft from mining in the area, Chumpy. Some have suggested that it disappeared into an abandoned mining shaft. Who has claimed it was a mine shaft, "Jim"?

Who?

And why would a scholar interested in truth let that misconception stand, much less base his argument about a rescue operation on it?

Tell us all you know it is not a shaft mine, that it is a reclaimed strip mine. That will help prove to me you are interested in the actual truth.

You will not get away with avoiding this.

[ChumpDumper]

I have already offered a (partial and incomplete) "narrative" about the players and the motives that drove them in "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda" (above).Exactly.

It's partial and incomplete.

After a full decade of "research" into mine shaft rescue operations and the like, no one in the truth movement has anything close to a complete theory -- just a bunch of stupid innuendo and disjointed rambles about suspects and methods that make absolutely no sense when taken as a whole. It's definitely one of the reasons people don't take the truth movement seriously. The truthers' collective meltdown here when asked by me to tell us all what they think really happened on 9/11 proves they aren't serious about this at all. I know Jim Fetzer has a financial stake in sticking to his partial and incomplete theory that amounts to nothing; I have no idea why the others insist on looking like idiots in these threads.

[ChumpDumper]

Not the real Jim FetzerI'm a bit skeptical, but inclined to believe him. Why wouldn't it be?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I sometimes drop in on these threads out of pure, morbid curiosity (or boredom). I wonder -- why do Chump and RandomGuy engage these fucktards?

Meh, to each their own, I guess.


Carry on.

Same reason why people engage fucktards such as yourself. He too takes potshots and makes comments that make no sense on closer inspection. He also seems to not read through things before posting them like you as well.

[Blake]

Maybe you don't even recall, if you ever knew, that one of the first actions that Cheney took after he arrived in office was to arrange a meeting about "energy policy", where he brought together heavy hitters from the gas and oil industry, apparently to map out how they were going to divide Iraqi oil. He would not even allow the public to know the names of those who attended. So is that something else that I should include in my "narrative"? Lies can be short and simple. The truth, as in this case, can be elaborate and complex.

So yet to see an acknowledgment of any of the points I've made--not one!

I'll admit, I never knew of such a meeting.

Let me ask you though.....if the public doesn't know the names, how do you know they were heavyhitters?

[clambake]

i don't think anybody is arguing that the need for war in iraq was fabricated.

or wasn't fabricated.

ok, wait, we know they bullshitted us on that.

knew that from the beginning.

[ChumpDumper]

Not the real Jim Fetzer but...

The Shanksville eyewitness
_gliHOhXYFQ

the best part is that Chumpy won't watch this either...

:lol
Watched it.

Now you watch these.

fuF2Me5fQeM

xkivdEGph9A

I'm more inclined to believe the contemporary accounts than one years later from a person inside a car who could only have seen anything for a very short period of time given her position and influenced by truthers feeding her information to fit their agenda. She also has no memory of an explosion until much later. I believe she is simply mistaken.

Now that you have watched the videos I posted, do you believe the eyewitnesses in them? If not, why not?

[Blake]

i don't think anybody is arguing that the need for war in iraq was fabricated.

or wasn't fabricated.

ok, wait, we know they bullshitted us on that.

knew that from the beginning.

So did the heavy hitters get the oil they wanted?

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe you don't even recall, if you ever knew, that one of the first actions that Cheney took after he arrived in office was to arrange a meeting about "energy policy", where he brought together heavy hitters from the gas and oil industry, apparently to map out how they were going to divide Iraqi oil. He would not even allow the public to know the names of those who attended. So is that something else that I should include in my "narrative"? If that is part of the story you actually believe, by all means include it. Why is this so difficult for you?



I have yet to see an acknowledgment of any of the points I've made--not one!Yeah, Jim -- you're not going to get it until you put together a cohesive narrative that explains what you think happened on 9/11. Your shotgun approach is self-contradicting and self-defeating.

In other words -- pick a lane.

[clambake]

So did the heavy hitters get the oil they wanted?

probably.

through back channels.

[ChumpDumper]

rUzrHHDu96U

Yes, the crater that officials claim was made by the crash of United 93 was already there before the crash according to a geological survey...Wow,dan.

You have no sense of scale or position.

That "crater" your crappy YouTube points out is nowhere close in size or position to the actual crash site. I need to remind you idiots that this was a strip mine and it hadn't been fully filled back in by 1994, when the aerial photo was taken.

Enormous pics dan won't look at anyway:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/pacrater3.html

http://imageshack.us/m/217/9549/91129gjzfetkefbiphotola.png

And seriously, dan and Jim -- why would anyone go through the trouble of hijacking a plane with 40 people on board, NOT crash it, go to the site where you acted like it crashed, then spread out debris from that plane (that they had to hide and take apart and damage the parts) and the 40 people on it (including their presumably ground up body parts) in an area up to eight miles from the site -- just to let another government agency take photos of it and still others pick it up and collect it?

EPA photo gallery of debris all over the got damn place:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/padebris5.html

Explain to all of us how that is easier and more believable then just crashing the plane that they already had.

[Nbadan]

How much less could I care?


instead of proof of Cheney having secret military meetings, how about something simpler........like connecting the dots between Cheney and Silverstein.

Proof of such meetings between these two would be an added bonus. Thanks. :tu

:lmao what an asshat....blake is just here to suck Chumpy's boy-dick Jim...your right.

[Nbadan]

I sometimes drop in on these threads out of pure, morbid curiosity (or boredom). I wonder -- why do Chump and RandomGuy engage these fucktards?

Meh, to each their own, I guess.


Carry on.

....and you always contribute so much....what a shame...

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao what an asshat....blake is just here to suck Chumpy's boy-dick Jim...your right.Wait, now you think he is Jim Fetzer?

[Nbadan]

I'm a bit skeptical, but inclined to believe him. Why wouldn't it be?

I wrote Jim Fetzer.

[Nbadan]

Wait, now you think he is Jim Fetzer?

No.

[ChumpDumper]

I wrote Jim Fetzer.What email address did you use?

[Nbadan]

What email address did you use?

the ones in his articles..you can too...

[ChumpDumper]

the ones in his articles..you can too...So what is the actual address you used, dan?

Just post it.

Don't be afraid.

[Nbadan]

No, I like Jim...look it up..it's not too hard...

[ChumpDumper]

No, I like Jim...look it up..it's not too hard...So if I emailed him at the address I found in the article, you're saying he would tell me that it's not him, right?

[Nbadan]

So if I emailed him at the address I found in the article, you're saying he would tell me that it's not him, right?

yep.

[ChumpDumper]

yep.Using the email address at the top of this page?

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

[Jim Fetzer]

I have only ever posted under my own name. Here is our email exchange:

James Fetzer

4:07 PM (16 hours ago)

to [Nbadan]

Yes, it is. Probably not a great idea, since almost everyone there seems to have their minds made up. I wanted to share some of our major discoveries, but I don't have a lot to work with.

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM, [Nbadan] wrote:

There is a Jim Fetzer account on this message board whose owner is discussing 9/11 in the political forum and citing your articles. I just wanted to verify if this is you and if it is you, thank you for your participation.

Thank you for your attention.

[RandomGuy]

Wow,dan.

You have no sense of scale or position.

That "crater" your crappy YouTube points out is nowhere close in size or position to the actual crash site. I need to remind you idiots that this was a strip mine and it hadn't been fully filled back in by 1994, when the aerial photo was taken.

Enormous pics dan won't look at anyway:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/pacrater3.html

http://imageshack.us/m/217/9549/91129gjzfetkefbiphotola.png

And seriously, dan and Jim -- why would anyone go through the trouble of hijacking a plane with 40 people on board, NOT crash it, go to the site where you acted like it crashed, then spread out debris from that plane (that they had to hide and take apart and damage the parts) and the 40 people on it (including their presumably ground up body parts) in an area up to eight miles from the site -- just to let another government agency take photos of it and still others pick it up and collect it?

EPA photo gallery of debris all over the got damn place:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/padebris5.html

Explain to all of us how that is easier and more believable then just crashing the plane that they already had.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask that you ignore all the evidence presented to you to today, ignore the weaknesses in my arguments, and convict these people, because you know they did it."

:rolleyes

[Jim Fetzer]

Since Nbadan had already posted parts of my Wikipedia entry, which had sketched my views about 9/11, I don't understand why there was ever any justification for demanding a "narrative", which Chumpy claims that I have never provided. I have said what I take to be the case there, namely, as Nbada quotes in post #9:

Fetzer supports the assertion that elements within the U.S. federal government orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks for political and economic gain and that World Trade Center One and Two were destroyed using a novel form of controlled demolition from the top down, while World Trade Center Seven was brought down by a conventional controlled demolition from the bottom.

I offered links to other articles in which I lay out my "narrative", including:

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

“Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08...-within-plots/

“9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”
http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPag...on_Agenda.html

“Is 9/11 Research ‘anti-Semitic’?”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-...090615-95.html

where I even republished "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda" beginning with post #64, for those who want to read it here without so much as pressing a link to visit where it appeared in 2008. A more complete analysis of the who and the why may be found in "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots" (with Preston James), which I also linked above.

I have concluded that this demand for a "narrative" is simply a rhetorical tactic, since Chumpy continues to insist that I have not given one when a short version appears in post #9, a mid-length version begins at post #64, and a longer version can be found in "Peeling the 9/11 Onion". Since you now know my "narrative", let's focus on Shanksville as a nice "test case".

Let me also observe that those who have complained about my citing articles and providing links ignore that the vast majority are to articles I have written in which I marshal the relevant evidence and draw appropriate conclusions, where 9/11 is sufficiently complex that getting it right can be a daunting task. When I cite my articles, I am identifying where you can find more.

In this case, on Flight 93, I lay out some of the basic evidence in "More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity/ including the following, which is as good a place to start as any and there is a lot to discuss, including the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=67) and research by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org), but where this works as a start:

(3) Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville

http://i47.tinypic.com/5l0uwo.jpg

(a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved. “This is the most errie thing”, the coroner observed at the scene. “I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”

http://i47.tinypic.com/k1cqj4.jpg

(b) The reporter for FOX News had similar observations, which I have also verified from the taped interview:

FOX News reporter: It looks like there’s nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.

Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that’s right. The only thing you can see from where we where, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn’t much left.

Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?

Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.

Reporter: Smoke? Fire?

Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces…” – FOX (09/11/01)

http://i48.tinypic.com/dy6k4i.jpg

(c) An alleged eyewitness, Val McClatchey, who resides less than two miles from the purported crash site, claims to have taken a photo showing a plume of smoke from the crash site. Like the smoke coming from the series of dumpsters at the Pentagon, alas, there are good reasons to suspect that her photo was faked. The plume resembles those from detonation explosions more than it does fires from crash sites–and estimates of the location of the plume place it over a pond, which suggests that this is yet another fake photograph in the 9/11 inventory. Indeed, there are many good reasons to suspect that 9/11 was staged with Hollywood-style special effects.


Fetzer's 911 theories are out there...















Lots of starting points for Chumpy and RG....

[Blake]

Jim,

Can you please elaborate on how Silverstein became part of this equation?

How did he know in advance about 9/11 and how do you think he went about setting explosives up in the buildings? WTC7 in particular....

Thanks

[Blake]

Jim,

Can you please elaborate on how Silverstein became part of this equation?

How did he know in advance about 9/11 and how do you think he went about setting explosives up in the buildings? WTC7 in particular....

Thanks

[Blake]

I wrote Jim Fetzer.


Wait, now you think he is Jim Fetzer?


No.

You wrote him, he responded and you still don't think it's him?

That explains a lot.

[ChumpDumper]

Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville

http://i47.tinypic.com/5l0uwo.jpg

(a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved.OK, compare it to a bona fide crash site where the plane hit the ground at a steep angle over 500 mph.

I'll wait for your links to those reports.








“This is the most errie thing”, the coroner observed at the scene. “I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”

http://i47.tinypic.com/k1cqj4.jpg

(b) The reporter for FOX News had similar observations, which I have also verified from the taped interview:

FOX News reporter: It looks like there’s nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.

Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that’s right. The only thing you can see from where we where, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn’t much left.

Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?

Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.

Reporter: Smoke? Fire?

Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces…” – FOX (09/11/01)

http://i48.tinypic.com/dy6k4i.jpgIn all your investigation of similar crashes, how much large debris and blood would you expect to see? Again, give specific examples.


(c) An alleged eyewitness, Val McClatchey, who resides less than two miles from the purported crash site, claims to have taken a photo showing a plume of smoke from the crash site. Like the smoke coming from the series of dumpsters at the Pentagon, alas, there are good reasons to suspect that her photo was faked. The plume resembles those from detonation explosions more than it does fires from crash sites–and estimates of the location of the plume place it over a pond, which suggests that this is yet another fake photograph in the 9/11 inventory. Indeed, there are many good reasons to suspect that 9/11 was staged with Hollywood-style special effects.You never addressed this and I suppose you never will:
And seriously, dan and Jim -- why would anyone go through the trouble of hijacking a plane with 40 people on board, NOT crash it, go to the site where you acted like it crashed, then spread out debris from that plane (that they had to hide and take apart and damage the parts) and the 40 people on it (including their presumably ground up body parts) in an area up to eight miles from the site -- just to let another government agency take photos of it and still others pick it up and collect it?

EPA photo gallery of debris all over the got damn place:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...padebris5.html

Explain to all of us how that is easier and more believable then just crashing the plane that they already had.


Also, you never admitted that the Shanksville site is a reclaimed strip mine. If you can't even admit you got a simple fact wrong, you aren't serious about the truth.

[Blake]

I guess Jim realized that this sub forum on a basketball message board is out of his league?

Disappointing, to be honest.

[ChumpDumper]

I wrote Jim Fetzer.


I have only ever posted under my own name. Here is our email exchange:

James Fetzer

4:07 PM (16 hours ago)

to [Nbadan]

Yes, it is. Probably not a great idea, since almost everyone there seems to have their minds made up. I wanted to share some of our major discoveries, but I don't have a lot to work with.

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM, [Nbadan] wrote:

There is a Jim Fetzer account on this message board whose owner is discussing 9/11 in the political forum and citing your articles. I just wanted to verify if this is you and if it is you, thank you for your participation.

Thank you for your attention.I notice the brackets. If this wasn't you, dan -- what was his response to you?

[Winehole23]

Maybe Fetzer was dismayed at his crass and craven abandonment at the hands of Nbadan, his Spurstalk liaison.


(Internet celebrity crush gone wrong, ST * politics * edition?)

[Nbadan]

I know James Fetzer.....he is no Jim Fetzer..

[ChumpDumper]

I know James Fetzer.....he is no Jim Fetzer..How do you know him?

[Nbadan]

That "crater" your crappy YouTube points out is nowhere close in size or position to the actual crash site. I need to remind you idiots that this was a strip mine and it hadn't been fully filled back in by 1994, when the aerial photo was taken

Your an ass hat...the crater pictures were from news reports on 9/11...the geological survey matches the dark scare perfectly...your gonna have to do better than that...

[ChumpDumper]

Your an ass hat...the crater pictures were from news reports on 9/11...the geological survey matches the dark scare perfectly...your gonna have to do better than that...No, you didn't even look at the pictures -- otherwise you'd realize just how stupid you look right now.

Now, how do you know Jim Fetzer?

[Nbadan]

Looked at the pictures....did you look at the video of the smoking crater on 9/11...apparently not...

[ChumpDumper]

Looked at the pictures....did you look at the video of the smoking crater on 9/11...apparently not...Yes. it's nowhere near the size or position of your "dark scare" -- look again.

And how do you know Jim Fetzer?

[Nbadan]

sure it is....even the wing scar marks are there...but not in your edited picture...

[ChumpDumper]

sure it is....even the wing scar marks are there...but not in your edited picture...lol you didn't even look.

So how do you know Jim Fetzer?

[Nbadan]

Sure I did...so what? You didn't prove the video is misleading..

[ChumpDumper]

Sure I did...so what? You didn't prove the video is misleading..Sure I did.

I know you would never admit to being wrong, so tell us how you know Jim Fetzer.

[Blake]

I wrote Jim Fetzer.


What email address did you use?


the ones in his articles..you can too...

lol

[Nbadan]

lol at you thinking this is James Fizer. We bust out laughing everytime you imply it's James Fitzer....what an asshat..

[ChumpDumper]

lol at you thinking this is James Fizer. We bust out laughing everytime you imply it's James Fitzer....what an asshat..Why did you spell his name wrong twice?

It's Jim Fetzer.


How do you know Jim Fetzer? I'm interested to know.

[Blake]

lol at you thinking this is James Fizer. We bust out laughing everytime you imply it's James Fitzer....what an asshat..

Who is ”we”

[ChumpDumper]

Who is ”we”dan, James Fizer and James Fitzer.

[Blake]

««« busting out laughing

[ChumpDumper]

Let's clear up this crash site thing once and for all, dan.

Download this picture, put it in mspaint and draw in where you think the crater photographed on 9/11 is.

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial-94-scar.jpg

You can then post it to imgur and show us all the results.

Give us the truth.

[Agloco]

dan, James Fizer and James Fitzer.

:lmao

This thread is priceless.

[RandomGuy]

(a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved.


"bona fide" crash sites.


Plenty of bona fide air crashes happen. When they happen, generally the pilots are trying not to crash them, and are flying fairly slow on take off or landing.

Fairly slow in this case means roughly 200 miles an hour or so, sometimes much less:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/236221/

150mph seems about right

My avatar is the equation for kinetic energy.

If you read it and can understand the basic algebra involved, you will note that when you double the speed, you have multiplied the force/energy of motion by a factor of four.

The data recorders said the plane hit the ground at a steep angle at 563 mph.

Let's do some math.

Since we are examining the same object's kinetic energy for two different speeds, we can simplify things somewhat, and set the mass to 1. We can also simply by not worrying about specific units, since we are looking at relative energies.

This means we can set the kinetic energy equial to 1/2 v^2

Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
.5*150*150= 11,250 units.

Kinetic energy of Flight 93 at impact:
.5*563*563= 158,484 units

158484/11250= 14 and some change.

Something moving 3.75 times faster has 14 times the amount of kinetic energy.

Compare this 30 mph crash:
bhN6P-cnP0w

With this 120 mph crash:
l4PjSVOnrVg


Do I need to start explaining the physics of direct versus glancing blows?

Do you understand this basic element of physics?

Given this rather solid, and easily verifiable experiment, would one expect the exact same wreckage pattern from a crash at 150-200 mph as one would see in a crash at 563 mph?


A simple yes or no will do.

If you are comparing this crash to other crashes, are your comparison crashes also at 500+ mph?

[ChumpDumper]

There are several similar "bona fide" crashes on record, but I doubt truthers would want to discuss them much -- unless they think they are all staged events.

[Agloco]

Plenty of bona fide air crashes happen. When they happen, generally the pilots are trying not to crash them, and are flying fairly slow on take off or landing.

Fairly slow in this case means roughly 200 miles an hour or so, sometimes much less:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/236221/

150mph seems about right

My avatar is the equation for kinetic energy.

If you read it and can understand the basic algebra involved, you will note that when you double the speed, you have multiplied the force/energy of motion by a factor of four.

The data recorders said the plane hit the ground at a steep angle at 563 mph.

Let's do some math.

Since we are examining the same object's kinetic energy for two different speeds, we can simplify things somewhat, and set the mass to 1. We can also simply by not worrying about specific units, since we are looking at relative energies.

This means we can set the kinetic energy equial to 1/2 v^2

Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
.05*150*150= 11,250 units.

Kinetic energy of Flight 93 at impact:
.05*563*563= 158,484 units

158484/11250= 14 and some change.

Something moving 3.75 times faster has 14 times the amount of kinetic energy.

Compare this 30 mph crash:
bhN6P-cnP0w

With this 120 mph crash:
l4PjSVOnrVg


Do I need to start explaining the physics of direct versus glancing blows?

Do you understand this basic element of physics?

Given this rather solid, and easily verifiable experiment, would one expect the exact same wreckage pattern from a crash at 150-200 mph as one would see in a crash at 563 mph?


A simple yes or no will do.

If you are comparing this crash to other crashes, are your comparison crashes also at 500+ mph?

RG with the goods here. :tu

I approve this post.

[Nbadan]

RG with the goods here. :tu

I approve this post.

Do you approve of his glaring math errors too?

:lmao


Doctors...

[Nbadan]

1/2 v^2

Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
.05*150*150= 11,250 units.

:lol accountants

[SA210]

:lmao:rollin

[Nbadan]

:lol at Chumpy proving that a cell phone call was made from the restroom of the plane which was going 500+ mph

Skip the garbage and go to the 2 minute mark of chumpy's video

fuF2Me5fQeM

Unidentified Female Witness :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Are you saying she's not a real witness, dan?

And you never told us about your email conversation with Jim Fetzer about SpursTalk.

That's quite interesting.

[ChumpDumper]

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/UA93phonecallscopy.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Flight93altitudeprofilesm.jpg

Actually two cell calls were made when the plane was low enough to do so.

The plane wasn't traveling 500+ mph when the calls were made.

dan is lying. And dan is laughing at the last phone calls of two people before they died in a horrible plane crash.

Again.

[Nbadan]

so, now your claiming that the plane reached a velocity of 563 MPH at an altitude of between 5000-10000 feet.....your an asshat..

[ChumpDumper]

What are you talking about dan? I made no claims at all about the speed at any time other than impact.

You are easily confused.

And lying.

[ChumpDumper]

dan is trying to say about 40 calls and call attempts were fakes from united 93 alone -- and that the people faking the calls knew details like one of the wives of the hijack victims was visiting her in-laws at the time.

And threw in two cell phone calls simultaneously at precisely the time when the plane was low enough to make such calls possible.

It takes a special kind of genius to think this way.

[ChumpDumper]

From the back of Flight 93, CeeCee Lyles finally reached her husband, Lorne.

"Babe, my plane's been hijacked," she said.

"Huh? Stop joking," he said.

"No babe, I wouldn't joke like that. I love you. Tell the boys I love them."

The pair prayed. In the background, Lorne Lyles could hear what he now believes was the sound of men planning a counterattack.

"They're getting ready to force their way into the cockpit," she told him.

When he had finished talking with Lisa Jefferson, finished relaying his love for his family, finished praying the Psalm that asked for green pastures and still waters, Todd Beamer put down the phone, still connected with the outside world.

"Are you guys ready? Let's roll," he said.

Honor Wainio was still on the line with her stepmother.

"I need to go," she said. "They're getting ready to break into the cockpit. I love you. Goodbye."

"Everyone's running to first class," Sandy Bradshaw told her husband. "I've got to go. Bye."

CeeCee Lyles let out a scream.

"They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn't understand. Then the line went dead.
http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

CeeCee Lyles made one of the cell phone calls.

dan's theory is that her cell phone call, the 9-11 cell call from Edward Felt and the three AirPhone calls described above were all made by voice actors at the same exact time describing the same events minutes before something other than a 757 made a 757 sized and shaped crater with 757 debris spread all over the site along with body parts and personal effects of the people who weren't on the 757 that didn't crash at the recovered strip mine outside of Shanksville.

I'll put this in your thread so everyone knows your theory.

[cantthinkofanything]

http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

CeeCee Lyles made one of the cell phone calls.

dan's theory is that her cell phone call, the 9-11 cell call from Edward Felt and the three AirPhone calls described above were all made by voice actors at the same exact time describing the same events minutes before something other than a 757 made a 757 sized and shaped crater with 757 debris spread all over the site along with body parts and personal effects of the people who weren't on the 757 that didn't crash at the recovered strip mine outside of Shanksville.

I'll put this in your thread so everyone knows your theory.

Ok, I get that part. But if they were trying to keep it secret, why foreshadow the event on the twenty dollar bill? Or was this a call to arms of some sort?

[ChumpDumper]

You'll have to start your own thread.

[cantthinkofanything]

You'll have to start your own thread.

I think you need to start if for me. I promise it'll be more enlightening that the others. I have a pretty solid take on it. Totally backed up.

[ChumpDumper]

Pass.

[cantthinkofanything]

Pass.

So you'll stay misinformed. Got it.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm absolutely convinced that if anyone disagrees with me about anything, they're simply misinformed.

I'm really that smart.

[Blake]

So you'll stay misinformed. Got it.

does your new topic button not work?

[TeyshaBlue]

does your new topic button not work?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/badkitty.gif

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol accountants

game theory:lol

[RandomGuy]

1/2 v^2

Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
.05*150*150= 11,250 units.



:lol accountants

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Math majors that can't tell the difference betwen a typo and a math error.


.05*150*150=1,125


.5*150*150=11250


Sorry about the typo.

LOL Dan can't do basic multiplication to tell the difference

[RandomGuy]

:lmao:rollin

:lmao can't do math to tell the difference between typo and math error

laaaaazzzzzyyyy

[johnsmith]

Dan, if given the opportunity to meet one of the "alleged" recipients of one of the phone calls from United Flight 93, would you tell them that they are clearly voice actors and that their part in the conspiracy has been figured out? That you're onto them?

Could you look them in the eyes and call them liars?






I bet not........because you're a giant pussy.

[johnsmith]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Math majors that can't tell the difference betwen a typo and a math error.


.05*150*150=1,125


.5*150*150=11250


Sorry about the typo.

LOL Dan can't do basic multiplication to tell the difference

You're obviously part of the 9/11 cover up........it's lazy typos like that RG that lead to the TRUTH!!!

[RandomGuy]

so, now your claiming that the plane reached a velocity of 563 MPH at an altitude of between 5000-10000 feet.....your an asshat..

Your understanding of both physics and basic english grammar sucks.

The plane was going at 563 mph at the moment of impact, at 0 ft altitude.

It reached that speed by pointing at the ground at full throttle, adding gravitational acceleration to that of the engines thrust.

You're ignoring evidence and common sense.

[RandomGuy]

You're obviously part of the 9/11 cover up........it's lazy typos like that RG that lead to the TRUTH!!!

I will say it again, shilling for the NWO has great health insurance.

twoofers are just jealous.

[johnsmith]

You're ignoring evidence and common sense.


I'd say that right there pretty much sums up the argument Dan and the rest of the clowns are making don't you think?

[johnsmith]

:lol accountants

:lol Unemployed

[Agloco]

Do you approve of his glaring math errors too?

:lmao


Doctors...


1/2 v^2

Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
.05*150*150= 11,250 units.

Help the good doctor out then because I don't see a calculation error. I do see a tie-poh though. Guess I should take everything RG says with a large chunk of sea salt eh?


:lol accountants

He even used arbitrary units and made simple ratios for you to digest. lol indeed.


:lmao:rollin

Neither one of you understood anything RG typed did you? No shame in admitting it. Honestly.

[Nbadan]

:lmao can't do math to tell the difference between typo and math error

laaaaazzzzzyyyy

So, typos don't matter. Thank You.

:hat

[Nbadan]

He even used arbitrary units and made simple ratios for you to digest. lol indeed.

WOW, so he simplified it for us simpletons .....

I mean...God forbid we have to use a much more accurate online kinetic energy generator...

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpenergykenetic/kenetic_energy_equation.php

Thank you Master...

[Nbadan]

By the way, RG's KE calculation didn't account for the 40 degree angle in which the plane hit the ground...

,,,amateur indeed...

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't you calculate the force with which United 93 is reported to hit the ground, dan?

I'm curious to see your result.

[ChumpDumper]

Also, tell us how you know Jim Fetzer and what he said about SpursTalk.

[RandomGuy]

WOW, so he simplified it for us simpletons .....

I mean...God forbid we have to use a much more accurate online kinetic energy generator...

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpenergykenetic/kenetic_energy_equation.php

Thank you Master...

1 kilogram traveling at 563 miles an hour:
31672.297119795 joule

1 kilogram traveling at 150 miles an hour
kinetic energy (K) = 2248.253568 joules


31672/2248 = 14 and some change.

The mass is the same, so that factors out, being a math major, you should understand that. ditto for the units.


So, your fancy calculator came up with the exact same proportion that I arrived at earlier.


Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
.5*150*150= 11,250 units.

Kinetic energy of Flight 93 at impact:
.5*563*563= 158,484 units

158484/11250= 14 and some change.

Something moving 3.75 times faster has 14 times the amount of kinetic energy.


Shocking.

My avatar equation is staring you in the face, and it still is too hard?

Really?

[RandomGuy]

By the way, RG's KE calculation didn't account for the 40 degree angle in which the plane hit the ground...

,,,amateur indeed...

No shit.



Do I need to start explaining the physics of direct versus glancing blows?

I stopped there as one doesn't really need to know much beyond that.

If you can't do the math, why should I bother explaining the rest of the physics?

[RandomGuy]

By the way, RG's KE calculation didn't account for the 40 degree angle in which the plane hit the ground...

,,,amateur indeed...

But hey, you opened the can.

most crash impacts, again, take place on landing or take off at angles much less steep than 40 degrees.

So you have 14 times the kinetic energy than most normal crashers, and a much steeper angle of impact than normal crashes, and according to your good friend, it is highly suspicious that this crash didn't look like normal crash, with normal debris fields.

Wow.

That is what you are hanging your hat on?

[RandomGuy]

(a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved.


"bona fide" crash sites.


Plenty of bona fide air crashes happen. When they happen, generally the pilots are trying not to crash them, and are flying fairly slow on take off or landing.

Fairly slow in this case means roughly 200 miles an hour or so, sometimes much less:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/236221/

150mph seems about right

My avatar is the equation for kinetic energy.

If you read it and can understand the basic algebra involved, you will note that when you double the speed, you have multiplied the force/energy of motion by a factor of four.

The data recorders said the plane hit the ground at a steep angle at 563 mph.

Let's do some math.

Since we are examining the same object's kinetic energy for two different speeds, we can simplify things somewhat, and set the mass to 1. We can also simply by not worrying about specific units, since we are looking at relative energies.

This means we can set the kinetic energy equial to 1/2 v^2

Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
.5*150*150= 11,250 units.

Kinetic energy of Flight 93 at impact:
.5*563*563= 158,484 units

158484/11250= 14 and some change.

Something moving 3.75 times faster has 14 times the amount of kinetic energy.

Compare this 30 mph crash:
bhN6P-cnP0w

With this 120 mph crash:
l4PjSVOnrVg


Do I need to start explaining the physics of direct versus glancing blows?

Do you understand this basic element of physics?

Given this rather solid, and easily verifiable experiment, would one expect the exact same wreckage pattern from a crash at 150-200 mph as one would see in a crash at 563 mph?


A simple yes or no will do.

If you are comparing this crash to other crashes, are your comparison crashes also at 500+ mph?

[ChumpDumper]

dan will now do everything except answer the question.

Just like he won't answer questions about his correspondence with the real Jim Fetzer.

[Nbadan]

Who says I'm hanging my hat on anything? I'm just pointing out that a 40 degree impact angle would effect your calculation....by the way, what kind of impact would a KE 14 times a 'normal impact' (whatever that is) have on an airplane...

??

[Nbadan]

If you can't do the math, why should I bother explaining the rest of the physics?

So now we can't even plug in numbers into a generator? Condescending much?

[Nbadan]

Was that a glancing blow or a direct impact? I forget...

[ChumpDumper]

dan will now do everything except answer the question.

Just like he won't answer questions about his correspondence with the real Jim Fetzer.


Who says I'm hanging my hat on anything? I'm just pointing out that a 40 degree impact angle would effect your calculation....by the way, what kind of impact would a KE 14 times a 'normal impact' (whatever that is) have on an airplane...


So now we can't even plug in numbers into a generator? Condescending much?


Was that a glancing blow or a direct impact? I forget...:hat

[Nbadan]

Neither one of you understood anything RG typed did you? No shame in admitting it. Honestly.

:sleep

Weak

[TeyshaBlue]

:sleep

Weak

weaker:sleep

[johnsmith]

Moving this to the top because I too want to know how Dan knows this Fetzer fellow.

Oh, and Dan, I'd still like you to answer my previous question. If you were face to face with a recipient of one of the "staged phone calls" from flight 93, would you call them liars?

[RandomGuy]

So now we can't even plug in numbers into a generator? Condescending much?

You can. Hell, I would encourage you do to so.

If you had you would have figured out that the typo was a typo, and not an actual miscalculation.

Why didn't you?

[RandomGuy]

Who says I'm hanging my hat on anything? I'm just pointing out that a 40 degree impact angle would effect your calculation....by the way, what kind of impact would a KE 14 times a 'normal impact' (whatever that is) have on an airplane...

http://planecrashinfo.com/database.htm

Feel free to compose a list of when/where they crashed.

You will find data that supports what most experts I have heard say about plane crashes in general.

Most experts will tell you that most crashes that happen are accidents.

Most experts will tell you that most accidental crashes take place at low speeds, either shortly before landing, or shortly after take off.

The implicaiton being that if you compar a high speed deliberate crash at a steep angle, to those kinds of crashes, you will not get a very valid comparison.

Your guy, your claim.

Do you think his claim that this crash looked different than other crashes is a meaningful distinction?

[RandomGuy]

dan will now do everything except answer the question.

Just like he won't answer questions about his correspondence with the real Jim Fetzer.

Dan has done precisely that.

You win a prize. :toast

He will keep doing everything except answering the questions posed to him.

If one were intellectually honest, answering such questions would be expected in order to get at the best theory about the events of the day.

Conclusion:

Dan is not intellectually honest about this subject, and is not interested in the best theory.

All Dan has to do, in order to make that charge fall on its face is to answer the questions given.

Dan will not.

Jim will not.

There will be a change in subject, as some other factually flawed innuendo will be made.

It's like clockwork, and boringly predictable.

[Useruser666]

Who says I'm hanging my hat on anything? I'm just pointing out that a 40 degree impact angle would effect your calculation....by the way, what kind of impact would a KE 14 times a 'normal impact' (whatever that is) have on an airplane...

How would a 40 degree impact affect his calculation?

[Agloco]

By the way, RG's KE calculation didn't account for the 40 degree angle in which the plane hit the ground...

,,,amateur indeed...


How would a 40 degree impact affect his calculation?

Yes Dan......inquiring minds want to know. Would you care to enlighten the masses?

[Agloco]

Neither one of you understood anything RG typed did you? No shame in admitting it. Honestly.


:sleep

Weak

Yet right on point.......

[Useruser666]

How would a 40 degree impact affect his calculation?

?

[Nbadan]

?

As soon as RG answers my question about how an (admitted inaccurate) KE 14 times of a 'typical crash" (whatever that is) would effect an airplane crashing to the ground and proves it..I'll be happy to answer your question...until then STFU....

By the way, where have you been...its been awhile since you've been slapped around in this forum...

[ChumpDumper]

As soon as RG answers my question about how an (admitted inaccurate) KE 14 times of a 'typical crash" (whatever that is) would effect an airplane crashing to the ground and proves it..I'll be happy to answer your question...until then STFU....

By the way, where have you been...its been awhile since you've been slapped around in this forum...Sorry, you've been dodging questions this entire thread.

Coward.

[Nbadan]

How would a 40 degree impact affect his calculation?

I'm not the one making conjectures about airplane crashes...show me the proof

[Nbadan]

Sorry, you've been dodging questions this entire thread.

Coward.

Your a troll..pussy

[Nbadan]

1 kilogram traveling at 563 miles an hour:
31672.297119795 joule

1 kilogram traveling at 150 miles an hour
kinetic energy (K) = 2248.253568 joules


31672/2248 = 14 and some change.

The mass is the same, so that factors out, being a math major, you should understand that. ditto for the units.


So, your fancy calculator came up with the exact same proportion that I arrived at earlier.

Why so butt-hurt? your math is simple but your assumptions are mountainous.

[ChumpDumper]

Your a troll..pussyYou lose your spelling ability when you lose your composure.

You can't say what you believe.

You have no beliefs.

You didn't email Jim Fetzer.

lol

[Nbadan]

...and you're still a troll....

Stick with the 9/11 commission report troll...

[ChumpDumper]

...and you're still a troll....

Stick with the 9/11 commission report troll...Keep dodging, coward.

You know United 93 crashed outside of Shanksville. You don't even have an alternative theory.

[Nbadan]

Keep dodging, coward.

You know United 93 crashed outside of Shanksville. You don't even have an alternative theory.

Did it? Did you personally see it crash?

A real look over the pdf's for UA93 FDR via NTSB website shows UA93 at 40 degrees pitch down and -5 degrees Angle of Attack at impact.

If that was the case, no matter the math, UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 40 degree pitch down angle. The pictures you posted of the UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 40 degree impact with a long ditch spreading wreckage as the FDR suggests.....

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/UA93FDR3.jpg
The pitch angle would create a horizontal wreckage crater...

[ChumpDumper]

It's nowhere close to a vertical impact. Dirt piled up on one side of the impact and the debris was strewn in the wreckage vector you show above.

lol horizontal crater

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/911theday090811/s_a25_91205485.jpg

dan, if you held a gun to your head at a 40-degree angle and pulled the trigger, you would expect the bullet to just part your hair.

[ChumpDumper]

"No wreckage was found in direction of wreckage vector"

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Did it? Did you personally see it crash?

A real look over the pdf's for UA93 FDR via NTSB website shows UA93 at 40 degrees pitch down and -5 degrees Angle of Attack at impact.

If that was the case, no matter the math, UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 40 degree pitch down angle. The pictures you posted of the UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 40 degree impact with a long ditch spreading wreckage as the FDR suggests.....

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/UA93FDR3.jpg
The pitch angle would create a horizontal wreckage crater...

No, it would not.

It would make the exact shaped crater that it did, and scatter wreckage exactly the way it was found.

Man, that was easy.

[RandomGuy]

dan will now do everything except answer the question.

Just like he won't answer questions about his correspondence with the real Jim Fetzer.

Dan has done precisely that.

You win a prize. :toast

He will keep doing everything except answering the questions posed to him.

If one were intellectually honest, answering such questions would be expected in order to get at the best theory about the events of the day.

Conclusion:

Dan is not intellectually honest about this subject, and is not interested in the best theory.

All Dan has to do, in order to make that charge fall on its face is to answer the questions given.

Dan will not.

Jim will not.

There will be a change in subject, as some other factually flawed innuendo will be made.

It's like clockwork, and boringly predictable.

[RandomGuy]

Why so butt-hurt? your math is simple but your assumptions are mountainous.

What assumptions would those be?

That the equation for Kinetic energy represents reality?

That experts on plane crashes tell the truth about plane crashes?

[RandomGuy]

(a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved.


"bona fide" crash sites.


Plenty of bona fide air crashes happen. When they happen, generally the pilots are trying not to crash them, and are flying fairly slow on take off or landing.

Fairly slow in this case means roughly 200 miles an hour or so, sometimes much less:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/236221/

150mph seems about right

My avatar is the equation for kinetic energy.

If you read it and can understand the basic algebra involved, you will note that when you double the speed, you have multiplied the force/energy of motion by a factor of four.

The data recorders said the plane hit the ground at a steep angle at 563 mph.

Let's do some math.

Since we are examining the same object's kinetic energy for two different speeds, we can simplify things somewhat, and set the mass to 1. We can also simply by not worrying about specific units, since we are looking at relative energies.

This means we can set the kinetic energy equial to 1/2 v^2

Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
.5*150*150= 11,250 units.

Kinetic energy of Flight 93 at impact:
.5*563*563= 158,484 units

158484/11250= 14 and some change.

Something moving 3.75 times faster has 14 times the amount of kinetic energy.

Compare this 30 mph crash:
bhN6P-cnP0w

With this 120 mph crash:
l4PjSVOnrVg


Do I need to start explaining the physics of direct versus glancing blows?

Do you understand this basic element of physics?

Given this rather solid, and easily verifiable experiment, would one expect the exact same wreckage pattern from a crash at 150-200 mph as one would see in a crash at 563 mph?


A simple yes or no will do.

If you are comparing this crash to other crashes, are your comparison crashes also at 500+ mph?

[Nbadan]

No, it would not.

It would make the exact shaped crater that it did, and scatter wreckage exactly the way it was found.

Man, that was easy.

...that wasn't easy...that was intellectually lazy... your the one comparing a vertical car crash to a crash with a 40,-5 pitch angle and then your not telling us what would happen to the plane.....

[ChumpDumper]

...that wasn't easy...that was intellectually lazy... your the one comparing a vertical car crash to a crash with a 40,-5 pitch angle and then your not telling us what would happen to the plane.....At that speed into the relatively soft soil of a reclaimed strip mine, most of the plane would go into the earth.

Just like it did in the case of United 93.

[ChumpDumper]

Now dan has to think of another way to stall.

[Nbadan]

.Did it? Let's take a look a wreckage from other plane crashes at or near the speed of flight of United 93..

Trans-Canada Airlines DC-8

http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/Graphics/DC-8crash.JPG
http://data2.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ap/a/a116386.jpg

What is interesting about this flight is that it was going at or around +400mph and it crashed into a swamp...the swamp was drained the following spring and they built a cofferdam around the site to prevent the dirt walls from collapsing. Then they dug down to recover all of the wreckage. Also, there wereabout 6 tons of debris recovered from the bush around the crash site in the spring after the snow had melted and the ground thawed....The crash landing of the plane created a crater about 45 metres (150 feet) long by 22.5 metres (75 feet) wide. The wreckage covered an area about 800 metres (half a mile) long and 75 metres (250 feet) wide. Investigation efforts were severely hampered because the area was primarily mud and swamp due to prior heavy rains

.

[Nbadan]

1999 South Dakota Learjet crash

Let's take a look at the remains of a plane which crashed at a far higher speed...supersonic ~768 miles per hour

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/NTSB-N47BA-slide0026_background.jpg
Wreckage


with the aircraft hitting the ground at a nearly supersonic speed and an extreme angle.[3] The Learjet crashed just outside of Mina, South Dakota, in Edmunds County on relatively flat ground, and left a crater 42 feet (13 m) long, 21 feet (6.4 m) wide and 8 feet (2.4 m) deep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash

[ChumpDumper]

1999 South Dakota Learjet crash

Let's take a look at the remains of a plane which crashed at a far higher speed...supersonic ~768 miles per hour

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/NTSB-N47BA-slide0026_background.jpg
Wreckage



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crashA Learjet 35 left a Learjet 35 sized crater?

Amazing.

Thanks for your help proving a 757 crashed outside of Shanksville.

[ChumpDumper]

The wreckage covered an area about 800 metres (half a mile) long and 75 metres (250 feet) wide.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/911theday090811/s_a25_91205485.jpg

Sure looks like wreckage is covering a similar area. Of course, a forest might catch some of it.

[Nbadan]

Give it already, you're just embarrassing yourself now.... the scam is up...

T7 B17 Flight 93 CVR Transcript Fdr- Cockpit Voice Redorder- UA 93394

Notice that at exactly 9:41:33 the Warren County ATIS system is being received on radio.....


The trouble is that ATIS does not work above 25000 feet


ATIS CAN TRASMIT AT A MAXIMUM OF 25000 feet AGL
LINK: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publication...p4/aim0401.html



http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950218/T7-B17-Flight-93-CVR-Transcript-Fdr-Cockpit-Voice-Redorder-UA-93394

Flight 93 altitude at 9:41:33.....31.000 feet

http://www.nps.gov/flni/historyculture/upload/Flight-_Path_-Study_UA93.pdf

[ChumpDumper]

The red-trimmed, silver jet dug a crater 6 feet (1.8 m) deep and 150 feet (46 m) widehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Canada_Air_Lines_Flight_831

Wow, a DC-8 made a DC-8 sized crater.

Thanks again, dan!

[ChumpDumper]

Give it already, you're just embarrassing yourself now.... the scam is up...

T7 B17 Flight 93 CVR Transcript Fdr- Cockpit Voice Redorder- UA 93394

Notice that at exactly 9:41:33 the Warren County ATIS system is being received on radio.....


The trouble is that ATIS does not work above 25000 feet


LINK: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publication...p4/aim0401.html



http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950218/T7-B17-Flight-93-CVR-Transcript-Fdr-Cockpit-Voice-Redorder-UA-93394

Flight 93 altitude at 9:41:33.....31.000 feet

http://www.nps.gov/flni/historyculture/upload/Flight-_Path_-Study_UA93.pdfThere is no such time listed in the pdf whatsoever.

Another fail, dan.

[Nbadan]

There is no such time listed in the pdf whatsoever.

Another fail, dan.

Damn Chumpy, now your not even trying

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950218/T7-B17-Flight-93-CVR-Transcript-Fdr-Cockpit-Voice-Redorder-UA-93394

http://www.nps.gov/flni/historyculture/upload/Flight-_Path_-Study_UA93.pdf

If that is all you got I'm going to bed...

[ChumpDumper]

Damn Chumpy, now your not even trying

http://www.nps.gov/flni/historyculture/upload/Flight-_Path_-Study_UA93.pdf

If that is all you got I'm going to bed...No such time was listed in the pdf.

If this is all you got, you've basically given up anyway. Email your good friend Jim Fizer for backup.

[Nbadan]

Your an asshat...why do I even bother....the time is right there in the PDF but once again you're to lazy or too disingenuous to admit your wrong...I leave all the other level headed thinkers who have read this far in this thread with this final video for the night...

KXTAgFYyvUE

[ChumpDumper]

If one starts descending from 41,000 ft at "about" 9:39 at a rate of 4,000 feet per minute, it's not entirely unreasonable to accept it could reach an approximate altitude of 26,000 feet at the time it appeared to Warren County ATIS.

You'll need to do better than stealing posts from the Pilots for Truth forum.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19742&view=findpost&p=10803631

[ChumpDumper]

Your an asshat...why do I even bother....the time is right there in the PDF but once again you're to lazy or too disingenuous to admit your wrong...I leave all the other level headed thinkers who have read this far in this thread with this final video for the night...

KXTAgFYyvUEMore bullshit from the coward, dan.

You are completely full of shit dan.

I can't think of a more dishonest person on these boards.

[Useruser666]

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Who says I'm hanging my hat on anything? I'm just pointing out that a 40 degree impact angle would effect your calculation....by the way, what kind of impact would a KE 14 times a 'normal impact' (whatever that is) have on an airplane...


How would a 40 degree impact affect his calculation?


I'm not the one making conjectures about airplane crashes...show me the proof

Dan,

I am asking you a direct question about your post, not anyone else's. Since I am not a math expert, just someone who can follow a formula or two, how would a 40 degree impact angle affect the calculation RG posted? Please explain.

[RandomGuy]

...that wasn't easy...that was intellectually lazy... your the one comparing a vertical car crash to a crash with a 40,-5 pitch angle and then your not telling us what would happen to the plane.....

It was meant to be demonstrable of crashes with a great disparity in speed/kinetic energy, which it did.

Setting aside the issue of approach angles for a moment:

Now, would you expect similar crash crater/debris patterns from two identical planes hitting the ground at identical angles, but where one was traveling 3-4 times faster than the other?

[Nbadan]

Now, would you expect similar crash crater/debris patterns from two identical planes hitting the ground at identical angles, but where one was traveling 3-4 times faster than the other?

I think that the pictures I posted already are a reasonable possibility that even at speeds higher than 568mph, your going to have quite a bit of debris, especially larger debris and at a 40 degree angle, that debris is going to be scattered over a much larger area than the pictures trollumpy has posted over and over again....

Why would these assumptions be wrong?

[Nbadan]

Dan,

I am asking you a direct question about your post, not anyone else's. Since I am not a math expert, just someone who can follow a formula or two, how would a 40 degree impact angle affect the calculation RG posted? Please explain.

Why? I get paid to do that...even if I wanted to spend the time doing the math for you it would roughly lead to an KE over 12 and RG would say well, that that's still blah, blah, blah.....blah, blah, blah....

...there I saved us both a lot of trouble....

[ChumpDumper]

I think that the pictures I posted already are a reasonable possibility that even at speeds higher than 568mph, your going to have quite a bit of debris, especially larger debris and at a 40 degree angle, that debris is going to be scattered over a much larger area than the pictures trollumpy has posted over and over again....

Why would these assumptions be wrong?Most of the plane was found inside the crater.

I can't help but noticed you didn't bother posting the crash that most closely resembles that of United 93. A lie of omission on your part -- or just ignorance. I'd believe either one.

There were scores of volunteers that helped find debris and body parts that were scattered over a larger area than you probably think since you proved you have no sense of scale whatsoever.

This is why your assumptions are wrong.

Or are you calling them all liars, dan?

[ChumpDumper]

Why? I get paid to do that...even if I wanted to spend the time doing the math for you it would roughly lead to an KE over 12 and RG would say well, that that's still blah, blah, blah.....blah, blah, blah....

...there I saved us both a lot of trouble....This is where dan tries to avoid answering questions at all costs.

lol saving us trouble

[Nbadan]

Most of the plane was found inside the crater.

I can't help but noticed you didn't bother posting the crash that most closely resembles that of United 93. A lie of omission on your part -- or just ignorance. I'd believe either one.

There were scores of volunteers that helped find debris and body parts that were scattered over a larger area than you probably think since you proved you have no sense of scale whatsoever.

This is why your assumptions are wrong.

Or are you calling them all liars, dan?

Why don't you post it Chumpy? A lie of omission or just ignorance..neither would really surprise me...and while were are at it why don't you post why you think this wreak most closely resembles Flight 93 than any of the wrecks I posted...what makes your wreck so special? Exactly how much debris was recovered?

Time to fess up and quit making shit up...prove it or STFU...

[Nbadan]

This is where dan tries to avoid answering questions at all costs.

lol saving us trouble

What do I have to prove to you? Internet troll

[Nbadan]

Chumpy's game is getting really old, and completely ruining this forum...it used to be kinda funny now its just sad really...68,000 posts and nobody will ever remember a single post he ever made....the guy is on 24-7.....can you imagine a guy who sits on a forum 24-7...you have to ask yourself...what motivates a guy to post on an internet forum 24-7....sad really...

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't you post it Chumpy? A lie of omission or just ignorance..neither would really surprise me...and while were are at it why don't you post why you think this wreak most closely resembles Flight 93 than any of the wrecks I posted...what makes your wreck so special? Exactly how much debris was recovered?

Time to fess up and quit making shit up...prove it or STFU...Surely in your vast research, you have found studied the crash in question extensively since it is quite similar to United 93.

I'm keen to see if you know about it.

Rest assured I do.

[ChumpDumper]

What do I have to prove to you? Internet trollThat you know Jim Fetzer, for starters.

[Nbadan]

That you know Jim Fetzer, for starters.

Nothing to prove there....did you write Jim?

[ChumpDumper]

Chumpy's game is getting really old, and completely ruining this forum...it used to be kinda funny now its just sad really...68,000 posts and nobody will ever remember a single post he ever made....the guy is on 24-7.....can you imagine a guy who sits on a forum 24-7...you have to ask yourself...what motivates a guy to post on an internet forum 24-7....sad really...Ah, post count smack.

More stalling from dan.

Your game is getting really old, and completely ruining this forum.

If nobody remembers any of my posts, it couldn't possibly ruin anything.

[Nbadan]

Surely in your vast research, you have found studied the crash in question extensively since it is quite similar to United 93.

I'm keen to see if you know about it.

Rest assured I do.

I've seen many crash sites similar to United 93..posted some here...so what?

[ChumpDumper]

Nothing to prove there....did you write Jim?Indeed I did.

I did it and I told other posters about it before you bragged about knowing him, in fact.

He posted the exchange in this very thread.