Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

There would have been nothing subtle about the deceleration. The plane's velocity, by and large, would have gone to zero within fractions of a second. Some parts, such as the engines, would have passed into the building, but the wings and tail would have broken off, bodies, seats, and luggage would have fallen to the ground, yet none of that happened. We are not talking about some barely perceptible change it the plane's speed for which the videos we have available are insufficient. Egad! If the plane passes through its own length as it enters the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, then WE ARE DEALING WITH A FANTASY! There is nothing subtle about it. This argument provides conclusive evidence of video fakery. Think about it.

reply to post by FDNY343

reply to post by JimFetzer

I have explained that (1) the plane is traveling at an impossible speed, which has been confirmed by a study from Pilots for 9'11 Truth which I have archived here,

Which we have all seen and determined is a crock and you give it high praise by calling it a "study", its more an exercise in "because I said so and I say I'm a pilot".

and explained in detail by John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, in an affidavit I have also archived here;

If you say so. I do not consider him, by any stretch of the imagination "one of our nations most distinguished pilots" with the exception, of course of some of his other theories whcih really do distinguish him from other pilots.

(2) that its entry into the building is in violation of Newton's laws, where the effects of a collision between an aluminum airliner flying at over 500 mph with a 500,000-ton steel and concrete building would be the same regardless of which is stationary and which is moving, where the plane is intersecting

Of course always failing to note that the plane did not strike the entire building, it struck a small area of the outside wall of the building. It was only the resistance of the small building section that the plane was opposing, not the whole structure. This is as basic as it gets.

with eight (8) floors of concrete on steel trusses, which would have provided enormous horizontal resistance;

They do offer resistance. But just simply not enough. Don't agree? Show the math.

(3) where the plane passes through its own length in entering the building in the same number of frames it takes to pass through its own length in air (in both the Hezarkhani and the Fairbanks videos), which would be impossible unless a massive, steel-and-concrete building provided no more resistance to the trajectory of the plane than air;

Sorry, you've been fully corrected on this suggestion. The video recordation of the event is not sufficient to determine absolutely that there was no resistance.

(4) the cookie-cutter cut outs (which are like the Roadrunner/Yosemite Sam cartoons of my youth), not only do not resemble what an actual plane impact would have created (where the body of the plane would have crumpled, the wings and the tail would have broken off and bodies, seats, and luggage would have fallen to the ground), but do not even show up until after the plane has already entered the building,

So you really are insisting that the plane should have basically disintegrated upon impact with the building facade, huh? Boy thats amazing. Whats even more amazing is that you were suprised that the hole in the building didn't appear until after the plane crashed into it!

Imagine a single floor consisting of a steel truss and up to 8" of concrete suspended in the air. What do you think would happen if a Boeing 767 hit it in space? Remember the damage to the fuselage when a plane hits a small bird weighing only a few ounces in flight. Don't be a sap. Wake up!

reply to post by FDNY343

There would have been nothing subtle about the deceleration, which would have been dramatic. Think about the plane that hit the Empire State Building. It came to an abrupt halt. The same would have happened here. Your ad homs against Pilots and John Lear are quite ridiculous. I notice you have done nothing to actually rebut their studies. You claim to be a pilot, but an inferior source does not discredit a superior source, where Pilots and John Lear are both far superior in their background and qualifications for addressing these issues than are you. Why don't you follow my advice and outline their arguments BEFORE you explain why they are wrong? You don't do that because you can't do that. You love to make phony posts with claims you cannot substantiate. I am afraid you have no credibility left. Since the cut outs were an effect of the plane AS IT PASSED THROUGH THE BUILDING, THE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPARENT AS THEY WERE BEING CREATED. But they weren't. They were "add ons". I would have thought that much would be obvious, even to you. But in your desperation to rebut the evidence, you are willing to make this stuff up out of whole cloth. That's not credible, hooper, but it is exactly what we have come to expect from you. I doubt you can do better.

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Another weak mind who does not understand that a DENIAL is not an ARGUMENT and that, in matters as serious as this, no one should was their time with anyone who cannot provide LOGIC AND EVIDENCE to support them!

Oh, go pound sand.

You're the weak mind for sure, since I would know more than anyone else on this forum that the network I worked at that morning did NOT fake it's footage in any way whatsoever. Given that one of the big 3 did show nothing but 100% non-altered footage that day it would make no sense to conclude that ANY of the other footage is faked as well.

There's some LOGIC for you.

Those opposed to video fakery are becoming more and more desperate in their ploys to distract attention from PROOF OF VIDEO FAKERY.

There is no proof, and putting in all capitals doesn't help.

If we take Scott Forbes' testimony into account, then it appears to be that the hologram theory is more likely to explain the data than the CGI or compositing alternatives, since they would not make the image of a plane visible to the public prior to its being broadcast. So the evidence supports video fakery rather strongly.

Now you're straying off-topic, but since you brought this up by invoking this stupid theory and John Lear I will address it.

When I called out Lear on his "hologram" theory I once asked him how a hologram could create the roar of jet engines complete with Doppler effect in an urban setting.

Know what his answer was before he ducked out of the thread in embarrassment?

"Someone probably hung some speakers out of some windows."

You talk about "LOGIC and EVIDENCE" yet you have neither, nor does the person you are trying to help make your case.

Now given the evidence we have enumerated in (1) through (5), for example, the question becomes, "What hypothesis can provide a better explanation of the data?" If we are dealing with a real plane, then the probability of (1) though (5) approximates zero. (I would argue it is actually lower than zero, where zero probabilities are usually taken to be consistent with exceedingly rare occurrences, but since we are talking about violations of laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics, it would better be described as nil.) If we are dealing with an illusion, however, the the probability of (1) thorough (5) is very high. Since measures of evidential strength (know as likelihood) are equal to the probability of the evidence, if the hypothesis were true, and one hypothesis is preferable to another when it has a higher likelihood. As long as a very high probability is higher than zero or nil probability, the fakery hypothesis has overwhelmingly greater evidential support from (1) thought (5) than the real plane alternative. If we take Scott Forbes' testimony into account, then it appears to be that the hologram theory is more likely to explain the data than the CGI or compositing alternatives, since they would not make the image of a plane visible to the public prior to its being broadcast. So the evidence supports video fakery rather strongly. Indeed, if the footage is authentic, then, to explain that, it has to have been a hologram.

reply to post by Soloist

reply to post by JimFetzer

There would have been nothing subtle about the deceleration, which would have been dramatic.

Fine, prove it. Simple math. Show your work. Don't just keep repeating it. Model it. This should be a no-brainer if it's that obvious.

Think about the plane that hit the Empire State Building.

Why? Different plane, different building, different speed, different outcome.

It came to an abrupt halt. The same would have happened here.

Yeah thats right, every time anything called "a plane" hits anything called "a building" the results are always the same.

Since the cut outs were an effect of the plane AS IT PASSED THROUGH THE BUILDING,

It didn't pass through the building, it only passed through the outer wall and some of the interior.

THE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPARENT AS THEY WERE BEING CREATED. I would have thought that much would be obvious, even to you.

Wow, that isn't even a thought.

It would have crumpled, the wings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground--none of which happened. I am sure you don't believe what you are saying or you would have the mind of a child. Come clean and admit that you are wrong and I am right. Logic, evidence, and the laws of aerodynamics, of engineering, and of physics are on my side, not yours!

reply to post by hooper

reply to post by JimFetzer



150+ tons of mass moving at 3/4 the speed of sound and "bodies, seats, and luggage would have fallen to the ground". I guess all that momentum would just stop and most of the plane would fall straight down.

The speed was possible by the way in case you missed my post:
"Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was 'probable' for Flt 11 and Flt 175"
911blogger.com...

Originally posted by JimFetzer
It would have crumpled, the wings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground--none of which happened. I am sure you don't believe what you are saying or you would have the mind of a child. Come clean and admit that you are wrong and I am right. Logic, evidence, and the laws of aerodynamics, of engineering, and of physics are on my side, not yours!

reply to post by hooper

 

Physics, aerodynamics, and engineering are all mathematical disciplines. Show the numbers. Those aren't magic words. They don't make things that are impossible, possible.

reply to post by brainsandgravy


Thanks for that link.

I do, however,have some bones to pick with Mr. Bursill regarding the "remote control" article he points to, in that.

He makes a LOT of assumptions that, while couched in a lot of technical detail that is accurate and in-depth, he studiously AVOIDS quite a few other aspects of the Auto Flight Systems on the 757/767 that would seriously dispel his "remote control" theories.


IN any case, his attempt to claim that such technology was used on 9/11 FAILS terribly after a simple review of the two FDRs that data was recovered from. I wonder why he ignores the fact that American 77 was hand-flown for the last several minutes? AND, why he also ignores the fact that United 93's autopilot was in a mode called "control wheel steering" for its few last minutes...then disconnected only a few seconds before the final rollover and plunge to impact?

reply to post by JimFetzer


You crack me up a 10ton plane, masonry facade on the Empire State Building ,traveling at half the speed FACE FACTS YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE so come on mate using your flawed physics you claim the planes would not pass through/or cause the damage shown.

So please explain using your logic how a fleck of paint can possibly damage the space shuttle window.

I bet you wont answer this becuase it will show that you dont know what you are talking about.

www.aero.org...

Some text from the link.

Orbital debris generally moves at very high speeds relative to operational satellites. In low Earth orbit (altitudes lower than 2,000 km) the average relative velocity at impact is 10 km/sec (36,000 km/hr or 21,600 mph). At this velocity, even small particles contain significant amounts of kinetic energy and momentum. For example, NASA frequently replaces space shuttle orbiter windows because they are significantly damaged by objects as small as a flake of paint. An aluminum sphere 1.3 mm in diameter has damage potential similar to that of a .22-caliber long rifle bullet. An aluminum sphere 1 cm in diameter is comparable to a 400-lb safe traveling at 60 mph. A fragment 10 cm long is roughly comparable to 25 sticks of dynamite.

Fleck of paint micro grams space shuttle 78,000 kg should be no match eh Jim!!

You claimed a few posts back the the planes were like an aluminium can hitting a brick wall LOOK at whats underlined and bold above seems that aluminium can do a lot of damage then.

So come on Jim explain to your followers how this soft paint and aluminium can cause so much damage when you claim it cant!!!!! So you wont struggle KINETIC ENERGY makes it possible.

I wont hold my breath its just enough to KNOW that people will see you are telling LIES about the physics of the impacts.

reply to post by JimFetzer

It would have crumpled, the wings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground...

What utter twaddle! This demonstrates a fundamental non-comprehension of physics, there.

Funny, after citing Newton so much....seems to have forgotten one of the Laws of Motion?? Objects will continue in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force. What is apparently not understood, there, is the requirement OF that outside force, in relationship to the object in motion, and its mass and momentum.

If a one-ton steel ball were rolling down an incline at only ONE MPH (and, of course, would be accelerating), do you believe it would be possible for ONE man to stop it, with his bare hands, using only his own strength?

It's not going very fast, what would be the problem?

Let's switch to a high-speed example. An arrow. Not quite as fast as a bullet....let's see, how fast, though?:

The "average velocity" of an arrow shot from traditional bows is probably around 180 fps, while the "average velocity" of arrows from compound bows is probably around 250 fps. This is because most traditionalists use heavier arrows, and most compounders use lighter arrows (yes, this is a generalization).

answers.yahoo.com...

Just one answer I found, on that question. SO, an arrow (designed to be light weight, for fast acceleration...which also DIMINISHES its ability to penetrate its target, BTW!!) is at most, about one-third the velocity of the United jet, flight 175.

Gee.....how many have seen arrows shot into targets?? Show a raise of hands, please. Thanks. Now, how many of you have ALSO seen the arrow stop, and then drop straight down?? Yes? I see one hand up.....oh, no ...you see, that example doesn't count. Remember, arrows have very low mass, in general and thus if they don't fly exactly straight, then they may hit the target a bit "broadside", and of course, won't penetrate...depending on the material the target is made of.

Interesting video on arrows....:




Gee....wooden arrow shafts. Moving at far less velocity than an airplane, possessing FAR less mass....hmmmmm.

Did any of them stop, and drop at ninety-degree angles on impact??

Really....to think that pieces of the airplanes would stop, and alter (or even reverse) their trajectories on impact, when moving at those velocities...all in the course of milli-seconds in time???

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Another weak mind who does not understand that a DENIAL is not an ARGUMENT and that, in matters as serious as this, no one should was their time with anyone who cannot provide LOGIC AND EVIDENCE to support them! Those opposed to video fakery are becoming more and more desperate in their ploys to distract attention from PROOF OF VIDEO FAKERY. I have explained that (1) the plane is traveling at an impossible speed, which has been confirmed by a study from Pilots for 9'11 Truth that I have archived here,

So the three expert sources that provided to the US government an estimate of the approach speed of Flight 175 all overestimated it. No big deal.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
and explained in detail by John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, in an affidavit I have also archived here;

This is the John Lear who believes there is air on the Moon and that gravity there is not weaker than on Earth, as he once stated here at ATS. As many of us have concluded, he passes off his opinions as though they were facts because he knows people are likely to trust what he says. Sorry, but he has proved to us (if not to you) that his declarations are totally unreliable.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
(2) that its entry into the building is in violation of Newton's laws, where the effects of a collision between an aluminum airliner flying at over 500 mph with a 500,000-ton steel and concrete building would be the same regardless of which is stationary and which is moving,

Oh, so according to your misunderstanding of Newton's laws, a half-million ton object flying at 500 mph would bounce off a stationary plane, would it? LOL! You don't understand the difference between an elelastic collision, which conserves moment and kinetic energy, and an inelastic collision, in which part of the kinetic energy is changed to some other form of energy in the collision. Any macroscopic collision between objects will convert some of the kinetic energy into internal energy and other forms of energy, so no large scale impacts are perfectly elastic. Instead of parts of the plane bouncing off the walls of the towers, their speed carried them into the tower through the gap created by the plane. Only if the walls had been completely rigid, would they have bounced off the walls.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
where the plane is intersecting with eight (8) floors of concrete on steel trusses, which would have provided enormous horizontal resistance;

Not to a 400,000 lb Boeing 767 300ER or even a 300,00lb Boeing 767 200 traveling at 300-400 mph. Those trusses were not absolutely rigid. Steel bends and eventually snaps, Jim, whilst concrete cracks.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
(3) where the plane passes through its own length in entering the building in the same number of frames it takes to pass through its own length in air (in both the Hezarkhani and the Fairbanks videos), which would be impossible unless a massive, steel-and-concrete building provided no more resistance to the trajectory of the plane than air;

An argument based upon very dodgy analysis by Reynolds and Ace Baker that no other serious 9/11 investigator accepts. A plane entering an opaque building cannot be tracked so accurately that its deceleration can be deduced. The plane disintegrated as it passes through the tower, making the speed of an intact object impossible to define.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
(4) the cookie-cutter cut outs (which are like the Roadrunner/Yosemite Sam cartoons of my youth), not only do not resemble what an actual plane impact would have created (where the body of the plane would have crumpled, the wings and the tail would have broken off and bodies, seats, and luggage would have fallen to the ground),

No, they would not. The plane was traveling too fast for such contents to have enough time to start dropping below the area of impact.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
but do not even show up until after the plane has already entered the building, not to mention (5) that the strobe lights are not in evidence, where they should have been visible on the top and bottom of the fuselage and on the wing tips, but which are not there.

Why would the strobe lights be even on if the plane that hit the South Tower was not a commercial jet?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
These features of the videos are inconsistent with the behavior of a real Boeing 767,

But you have have misunderstood the physics, so the features are not problematic, as you claim.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
but are easy to explain if we are dealing with one or another form of video fakery, which may have involved CGIs, video compositing, or the use of a sophisticated hologram. I interviewed Scott Forbes on "The Real Deal" (10 September 2010), where he had worked in the South Tower for three years prior to 9/11 and who observed the plane interact with the building. He told me--and you can hear it for yourself at nwopodcast.com... "the building swallowed the plane", which he found incredible.

Why? The building was not a solid block of concrete. It was only a hollow lattice of steel columns and concrete floors. As one of the designers of the towers pointed out, it was built so that a plane crashing into it would be like a pencil poking through chicken wire. Forbes made the same error that you have.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I also interviewed Stephen Brown (28 August 2010), who had just completed a course on holography at Cambridge, who told me that the current state of technology was consistent with the image seen in the video--which you can also hear for yourself at nwopodcast.com... Now given the evidence we have enumerated in (1) through (5), for example, the question becomes, "What hypothesis can provide a better explanation of the data?"

You have misunderstood the data. There is no direct evidence of the plane being a hologram. So the hypothesis is redundant.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
If we are dealing with a real plane, then the probability of (1) though (5) approximates zero. (I would argue it is actually lower than zero, where zero probabilities are usually taken to be consistent with exceedingly rare occurrences, but since we are talking about violations of laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics,

No, we are not. Rather, you don't understand these laws. You are a philosopher of science, not a physicist.

Originally posted by JimFetzer

reply to post by Soloist

 

edit on 9-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: fixing typos

edit on 9-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: more typos

edit on 9-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: more typos

Originally posted by mikey1966
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Hi, thank you for your comments. I am new to this, so please excuse me if I'm not up to speed yet. Considering the whole picture of events on 911, am I being naive to question the version given by the major media? I am sure lots of opinions on the Net are ill-informed, but I can't believe what I'm told by my TV screen, not 100% anyway, so please let me know your thoughts about this. I thank you.
Mikey1966

Mikey, It's easy for the conspiracy theorists to spout out facts like "No other skyscraper has succumbed to fire like this", and if you weren't aware of all the facts about the Twin Towers construction, many as they have done, might think the conspiracy theorist or "truthers" as they like to call themselves have a valid argument.

However the Twin Towers were not conventionally built, in fact they were one of the first to employ non conventional tube-frame structural design, they were built much lighter than other structures in order to be more flexible to windy conditions,,in the pursuit of this fire protection came in the form of spay on fire retardant.
When the planes hit the towers some of this spray on retardant simply got blasted off meaning it was only a matter of time before the core structures were fatally weakened.

That aside though, If indeed this was an inside job and no planes actually hit the towers or Pentagon have you considered how many different people and their organisations need to be in on the conspiracy?

Think about it, it's not just the government and the FBI.
Various airport staff would need to be in on it,
American Airlines need to be in on it,
Air traffic control need to be in on it,
Victims on the planes family members need to be in on it,
Survivors of the twin towers that say they saw the planes need to be in on it.
the military need to be in on it,
Firefighters need to be in on it
The Naudet brothers need to be in on it
The main stream media need to be in on it
"Eye witnesses" need to be in on it.

Do you really think that is likely let alone possible?

reply to post by Logical one


It makes me wonder what the education system is like round the world when people dont understand the very basic principles of science that explain what happened.

Also the classic no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire when there has been at least one only due to fire and many partial collapses due to fire never mind being hit by planes!

I wonder if they even taught physics at Jim's school looking at his complete lack of understanding of the subject!!!

Originally posted by JimFetzer
There would have been nothing subtle about the deceleration, which would have been dramatic. Think about the plane that hit the Empire State Building. It came to an abrupt halt. The same would have happened here.

Jim I credit you with some degree of intelligence, but you do know that The Twin Towers construction was radically different to the Empire State Building and that the planes that hit the towers were about 10 times the weight of the B25 that hit the Empire State Building.
Not to mention given that the B25 was travelling in fog, its more than likely that the B25's impact speed was much lower than that of the 9/11 planes.

So your assertion that "The same would happen here" is quite frankly ridiculous, especially as you teach students!

F Grade for fail for you sir......must try harder.

reply to post by Logical one


Sorry but you are WRONG he would need to work his way up to an F

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pshea38

 

IF you "became convinced utterly" by that piece of fifth made by "Simon Shack", then I fear for your critical thinking abilities.

Why doesn't the video in THIS POST: www.abovetopsecret.com...

...make any impression on you?

OR, the one by "Yougene Debs" at YouTube? He ALSO specifically exposes "Simon Shack" as a fraud, liar and con artist. Either "Shack" is those things, or he is just incredibly stupid. Take your pick:

i have looked through your video, but one sandwich does not a picnic make. there is overwhelming video and photographic evidence that everything we saw on 9/11 was computer generated imagery, the big lie being sold by a complicit media. this is in plain view, to be easily seen and understood by the interested observer and irrefutable to a greater degree. yet simonshack is villified by you and your cronies, solely, in my opinion because he and his supporters are so close to the truth. he is probably one of the most honest 9/11 researchers out there. everything was faked: shankaville 'plane crash, pentagon 'plane crash', twin tower 'plane crashes', victim deaths and identities, withness statements supporting the official narrative, 9/11 reports etc. etc. all to support the greed and dark ambitions of the few in the positions of power.

do you and your supporters not recognise any of the countless anomalies uncovered regarding the events of 9/11.
as i asked before, what % of the official story do you buy? 100%- 92.4%-69%-22%----less-more-what? have you had any cause to doubt? i see the amount of effort ye put in here refuting the mostly irrefutible and i am quite sure that this is not the only forum ye are active on. this is very telling to me.

i am still awaiting your comments and assessment of hoi polloi's extensive victim simulations report. this is where the greatest amount of progress will be made and debunkers will have the most trouble refuting

Thank you for your comments. I'm probably in the wrong "thread" here, please bear with me. If you have the time or inclination, can you fill me in on some of the things I've missed, or direct me to the correct place to discuss them. I guess my biggest issue is that something is not correct about the "official story", and I see that various posters here spend a lot of time and energy arguing about details that they deem important. OK, it is a huge subject, and it needs to be "thrashed out", and I welcome posts from all of you. In anticipation, I thank you.
Mikey 1966