Thursday, September 25, 2008

Pakistan 911 NoPlanes - Fetzer's proper Reasoning

Thursday, September 11, 2008, Ramazan 10, 1429

War on Terror: Facts

Tariq Majeed

Non-facts and hate-speech is light-pink and best ignored.

The US War on Terror is in reality a Zionist war against Muslims of the world. In fact it is Third World War which has been going on one-sidedly since 1948 i.e. after the creation of Israel. Since the present democratic government coming into power, the US officials have been rushing to Pakistan to ensure that the leaders of the new government will continue their support in achieving the US goals of War on Terror. While there are no declared goals but the real goals are hidden and it is necessary for us to know these. The ultimate and hidden goal of War on Terror is to make all the Muslim countries US colonies and capture their natural resources. The other goal is to malign and ridicule the Muslims and distort the concept of Jehad. The ultimate Zionist goal of War On Terror is to create justification and then to actually carry out attacks on Mecca and Madian and then to fulfill the Zionist dream of a greater Israel. Zionists are using US and NATO to achieve their goal. The UN is also helping the Zionists in every respect –Some of the frequently asked questions and their answers are:

What is Al-Qaeda’s role in the War on Terror? Al-Qaeda is a ghost organization. If at all it exists, it neither had the capability to destroy WTC nor was it involved in 9/11. There is one common misunderstanding that all the Arabs are Muslims (whereas there are Jews as well as Christians in Arabs) and that an Arab cannot be an enemy of Muslims. A recent confession by ‘Shaikh Saeed’ (stated to be an Al-Qaeda leader) on a private TV channel made it absolutely clear that the very purpose of the interview was to defame Muslims as Islam does not permit such attacks. A person or organization that brings bad name for Muslims cannot be their friend but only an enemy. So the attacks claimed to have been made by the ghost Al-Qaeda only provide a license to US to further intensify the attacks on Muslim countries.

What is Taliban’s role in the War on Terror? It is believed that Taliban are fighting to liberate their country. Now they have extended their activity in Pakistan creating a lot of security risks. Most of them are ignorant and innocent and cannot judge the sincerity of their leaders as it is not easy for a common Afghani to know the truth. They are not fully aware of the US strategy and they are confused about their own effort. At present there is a war between Taliban and Afghan government helped by US and NATO. In the words of a leader from ANP: “The US War On Terror is in fact a War Against Pukhtoons”. On both sides Afghans are being killed. The US goal is to totally pulverize the Afghans as they are the only nation which in spite of its resourcelessness is trying to put some resistance against the achievement of the Zionist goals.

Taliban are being blamed for all the suicide bombings in Pakistan though these may be the jobs of US or Indian agencies. These activities create justification for US to pressurize Pak Government for further action in the border areas. There is a lot of confusion at the Pak Afghan border and US is taking full advantage of the situation. In order to defeat US careful planning based upon detailed factual information is required.

What is CIA and Mossad role in the War on Terror? CIA and Mossad are playing a very important role in the so called War on Terror. They plan the war on the basis of information secretly gathered by their agents and then carry out sting operations like 9/11 and suicide bomb attacks to create harassment for people and justification for continuing the US attacks on Muslim countries.

Why Muslims are being targeted? Islam and Muslims are the only hurdle before the Zionist plan to implement the New World Order and to achieve the economic and political control of the world. Hence the Muslims are being targeted and victimized all over the world. Why 9/11 was carried out? 9/11 was the biggest CIA sting operation carried out in its history. The purpose of this operation was to create a fear in the American people that US can be and has been attacked by Muslims and there was a justification to increase and accelerate the war against them. A fear is constantly created amongst Americans that the incidents like 9/11 could happen again.

Could a hijacker perform such a feat? If you talk to an airline pilot who has a lot of experience of flying large aircrafts, he will tell you that it is impossible for even an expert pilot to fly a large aircraft in the right direction without ground assistance and to strike it with a building hundreds of kilometers -away even in the normal conditions not to talk of a state of disturbance. Whatever strong nerves he may possess, a hijacker can never perform such an impossible act. One can imagine how is it possible that a hijacker snatches the control of an aircraft from its pilot and then keeps his own senses in tact and then exhibits the skill to fly the aircraft at very low altitude in the right direction without any guidance from ground and than hits a targeted building (WTC) hundreds of kilometers away with a great precision exactly in its center. And this process is repeated in two different aircrafts with the same accuracy. This is unbelievable even for an expert pilot.

Did any Planes ever strike the Towers?

The researchers after detailed study and analysis have come to a conclusion that no planes ever struck the WTC towers. What was shown by BBC and CNN on TV on 9/11 was a doctored film prepared in a studio.

With the technological advancement it is a child’s play. A comparison between the films actually prepared on the site and those transmitted by BBC and CNN can be seen on the website. It was shown on TV that the nose of a plane that struck the tower penetrated through the concrete structure come out on the other side of the tower in tact an impossibility.

While a film was shown on the TV and the Towers did actually collapse, there is no eye witness of any planes striking the Towers. The evidence of eye-witnesses was suppressed under the orchestra of ‘Attacks on America’.

How did the WTCs collapse? The WTCs collapsed as a result of the explosions in the foundations of the buildings and not because my planes hit them.

Could the WTCs collapse with the strikes? The planes could damage a couple of floors but could never create the impact required to bring down the structures. The fuel in the planes could put a few floors on fire.

Could the structures collapse due to the melting of steel within minutes? The US government has propagated only one reason for the collapse of WTCs i.e. the steel in their structure melted due to heat produced by the fuel in the planes. The fact is that the melting of metal used in structure required about 1300 degree C while the fuel could produce not more than 600 degree C. So the US government theory that the WTCs collapsed due to melting was strongly rejected by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

Why there were explosions in the WTC foundations? The firemen affirm that they heard explosions at the base of the buildings and demanded the opening of an independent investigation. They wondered about substances stored in the buildings, and not finding the answer there, about criminal explosions that would implicate a ground-based team. A famous expert from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Van Romero, claimed that the collapse could only have been causes by explosives. It may be recalled that each building collapsed upon itself vertically which is possible only through modern demolition technique by use of explosives.

How did the WTC # 7 collapse? Be that as it may, the planes’ crashes do not account for the fall of a third building, tower 7. The hypothesis of’ a destabilization of the foundations was discarded by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Julie Wood on Jim Fetzer

Part 1

Part 2

Jim Fetzer interviews Judy Wood
(Non-Random Thoughts, 29 June 2006)

Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood discussing the collapse of world trade towers.

Why Doubt 9/11?

by James H. Fetzer

As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I would observe that our members, building on prior research by earlier students of 9/11, have established more than a dozen disproofs of the official government account, the truth of any one of which is enough to show that the government's account--in one or another of its guises--cannot possibly be correct.

Overview of New 9/11 Research

  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. 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 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.

  3. 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—to weaken, much less melt.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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 without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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 flow over the Pentagon rather than hit it.

  15. If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, there should have been a debris field about the size of a city block, but the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed, as required by the government’s official scenario.

    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. Did Osama call from a cave in Afghanistan and charge them to his MasterCard?

    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.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth


Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen,John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, DC

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which in their opinion has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expected from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigation to be severely flawed .The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions .The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7,a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholars find profoundly troubling:

  • In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11,so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

  • The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

  • Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

  • Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

  • Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

  • Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

  • Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

  • A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93,which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered overran area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

  • A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

  • The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
  • Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

    These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

    Are there any out there who still think this was a real plane?

    MICHAEL HEZARKHANI VIDEO -- the jet did not VISIBLY disintegrate!!

    ua175 wtc2 impact crash world trade center south tower hologram laser maser conjugate mirror time reversal dynamic holography united airlines flight 175 767-200 Captain Victor Saracini, First officer Michael Horrocks, and flight attendants Robert Fangman, Amy Jarret, Amy King, Kathryn Laborie, Alfred Marchand, Michael Tarrou, and Alicia Titus

    The area of the building between the left engine and fuselage is intact.

    It is OBVIOUSLY a debatable point WHY it DID NOT VISIBLY disintegrate, but the fact remains that there are NO FILM or photos that shows ANY disintegration, whereas common sense *COULD* tell us that at least the wing tips and vertical stabilizer would deform and large parts would visibly stay OUTSIDE the building.

    Whether you like it or not. THERE WAS NO VISIBLE DISINTEGRATION. The plane "buttered" into the tower. If you argue that this is because of its high speed... well, try your luck. There is NO WAY the jet was flying at 545mph... because in the dense air at 400feet or so it would tear the airframe apart. Also the ENGINE blades would not be able to cope with the amount of air and would act as AIR BRAKES.. I'd say 300mph tops. But be that as it may... the fact remains THERE WAS NO VISIBLE DISINTEGRATION. You just cannot say that without violating Wikipedia policies on accuracy.

    Here is the film that FAILS to show the disintegration!

    ... there is at least two more that make it plain to anyone with eyes. Remember that the vertical stabilizer assembly is the strongest part of these airframes. If you care to check, there is not a single air-crash where the rear end of such a jet has disintegrated. Rather the opposite. in 9 out of ten cases it is actually ENTIRELY intact.If you think about it, the reason why this is so contentious is that it proves there was no plane .... it was either a hologram or a video fake. The **hologram** is REALLY hard to believe, and the video-trick COULD be easy to disprove. The perpetrators did **it** exactly for those reasons. The logic in inescapable. Whacko? I quote John Kenneth Galbraith: Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. You see, rather than following the logic and accepting the consequence that it was an inside job – most people get busy trying to explain it away. This is why you find dubious pictures of airplane debris (wrong paint job, never verified serial number) and why you see wikipedia editors trying hard to edit away any hint. For whatever reason people are hell-bent on keeping the official conspiracy theory alive... maybe it's "inner comfort" that drives them. To me it is unfathomable that wikipedia, the greatest lie detector on earth, has not yet included FACTS ABOUT 911 in the MAIN articles. One day this will look so silly. If you have UNDERSTANDABLY trouble believing in a hologramme, then look at the footage of Luc Courchesne and the missing wing and distorted aircraft. here or here. Of course the incredible look of the aircraft will be blamed on a worn vhs tape. But can a videotape really warp images that unevenly? Strains credulity. More likely it was a flickering hologramme. Here is a critical look at nearly all of the other videos!! And, yes, many conspiracy theorists are nuts. You have to ignore many of their wild statements and stay with the facts. The world is not difficult to deconstruct with the help of the internet community.

    Hologram or not. Plane debris WAS found in the WTC wreckage.

    yes, but the serial numbers were never recorded, there is no proof at all that is is indeed from UA 175. If you cannot imagine why this would be, let me spell it out for you. The US military operation "911" was done with the the utmost in deception, as is usual in military covert operations. If they used NO PLANES, as seems to be the case, this naturally would have involved the planting of aircraft debris to make the hologrammes believable.

    If you are for freedom of research and in favour of peer-review you should not a priori denigrate my findings without showing evidence of your own. Let the evidence speak for itself.

    A very important anomaly of the event surrounding the moments before and when Flight 175 made impact with the South Tower and one that has not really got the attention of the mainstream media or public is the fact that different news footage shows the plane approaching the tower in different ways. These contradictions went largely unnoticed and supporters of the official 9/11 story dismiss these videos as the work of conspiracy theorists who had edited and manipulated news footage. However these shots were seen live or later replayed on the day the attacks happened.

    The first set of contradicting footage shows Flight 175 approaching the South Tower from different directions. In the footage of the live coverage by NBC, the news chopper covering the unfolding events is approximately to the north of the WTC Towers. The North Tower was already struck by Flight 11 as smoke billows out of the impact zone. The two TV news anchors commenting on the developing events do not notice any incoming aircraft but only the explosion and the resulting huge fireball is seen live. From the NBC live footage of the South Tower being hit by Flight 175, no plane can be seen approaching the building from either the right or the left side. Therefore it is then assumed that the aircraft must have approached the towers from a southerly direction since the two big structures would have prevented viewers from seeing the plane approaching its target because only the north faces of the towers are seen on camera. This same footage of the South Tower being hit by the second plane is seen again over and over later on in the day. However, differences could be seen in the same NBC footage. News stations later showed the same footage, but this time with a plane approaching the towers from the right hand side of the shot. The backdrop was also completely gone from the scene. The background consisting of buildings and a body of water can be seen in the live NBC footage but later on, it changes into an empty blue sky backdrop. Later versions of the same live footage seen on the news shows the plane flying in to the shot from the upper right (and with the backdrop reappearing once more in these versions) as oppose to the earlier approaching plane flying in to the scene (with an empty backdrop) at level angle from the middle right. The live shot and the ones shown later on could not be from different helicopters or vantage points since it is the same shot from NBC.

    The second set of contradictions are to do with the different angles at which Flight 175 approaches its target. In one video footage showing the towers from underneath the Brooklyn Bridge, the plane's approach to the South Tower is horizontal. This footage was the one used at the trial of alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. The Moussaoui shot is in contrast to other news footage including one from CBS in which the plane is shown dive-bombing into the building. Another CBS shot later replayed on news stations features the Empire State Building in the middle of the shot and the WTC Towers to the left and further away from where the camera was. This is presumably the same as the earlier CBS footage but from a different angle and vantage point. Again, the plane is seen dive-bombing from the upper right corner of the video to the middle left where the towers are standing. The blatant contradiction can be easily spotted when all the three mentioned shots are played together at the same time.

    Proof that 911 videos showing and airliner crashing into WTC tower 2 are a fake.

    Display any DVD video showing the actual alleged crash of the 767 into the south tower on 9/11. When the airliner comes into view hit the pause button on your remote. Make a mark on your TV screen at the point of the 767's nose. You can use a felt marker or tape. Then, keep hitting your remote's single step button until the tail of the 767 just passes the mark. keeping count of the single steps. Next, hit single step until the 767 just comes into contact with the tower. Then, hit single step, keeping count, until, the tail of the 767 is completely absorbed into the tower. Notice that it takes the 767 the same number of single steps to fly thru thin air as it does to penetrate the tower for its entire length. This means that the 767 flies thru a steel and concrete building at the same average speed as it does thru thin air. This violates Newton's laws of motion, Also notice that during the 767's penetration into the tower that you see no crunching or vibration of the airframe as it hits various points of resistance, no bending of the wings, no breaking off of parts, no falling of parts towards the street below. Then, when the 767 is completely absorbed, the building seems to close up and retain its original form, followed immediately by an explostion. This violates what I call Joe's Law: Airliners don't meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them.
    During this time, keep in mind Newton's Laws of Motion, also known as Laws of Physics. They are: 1. Objects at rest remain at rest and objects in motion remain in motion until a force is applied. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object will accelerate in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. Also, keep in mind that these laws are immutable. When an object hits points of resistence, it must decelerate taking more time to travel the distance than it did before the resistence was encountered.
    I welcome comments from anyone who has performed this DVD test.
    Joseph M. Keith
    Tustin, CA

    UA 175 wtc impact mystery (or bumsteer?)

    1. Video clip shows alleged U.A. Flight 175 (Boeing 767) entering the building.

    2. Clip shows plane proceeding to enter building, however the left horizontal stabilizer seems to be missing (yellow arrow).

    3. Clip shows where right engine entered building (orange arrow) and the right wing tip still sticking out (green arrow). Building between right engine and wing tip looks undamaged (yellow arrow).

    4. Clip seems to show no entry point or damage to the building where the right wing was seen going through (yellow arrow).

    submitted by u2r2h on Thu, 10/05/2006 - 10:25pm

    Tragedy can teach us many things. Some of the lessons we draw from September 11, 2001 are surprising.

    For starters, jets flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings make no noise on impact. This is verified with two sources. If you rent the Naudet Brothers’s documentary “911”, fast-forward the tape to where the firemen investigate the gas leak. Seconds later Gedeon Naudet presumably shoots American Airlines 11 (AA 11) flying into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). We hear the sound of the plane. We hear the explosions. We hear people yelling with astonishment. However, there is no audio of the impact.

    Similarly, CNN broadcast footage which shows the same anomaly. (This is said to be from an amateur shooting from the Battery; i.e., the famous shot of United Airlines 175 striking the South Tower seen from the south.) In the audio sequence we hear the sound of the jet plane arriving, the explosions and then people reacting with horror at the spectacular fireball. However, there is no impact sound.

    All of the other footage that the TV networks aired of planes striking the WTC disaster is silent. There appears to be no audio of the impacts of either Flight 11 or Flight 175 striking the World Trade Center.

    Another lesson learned from 9-11 is that jet planes flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings do not have any parts break off and fall to the ground below. Let’s begin with the already-mentioned
    CNN video from the south. When reviewing the videotape we can see that UA 175 actually enters the South Tower without any part of a wing, no part of the fuselage, not even a beverage tray breaking off on impact.

    Previous experiments on land with heavy objects (e.g., cars, rockets) striking walls at high speed all show large amounts of metallic confetti produced at the juncture of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. Still, all of the video footage aired by the news networks capture UA 175 striking and entering the South Tower like a hot knife cuts through melted butter. The extent to the trauma caused from the plane's impact with the building is typically a single flash which quickly appears and disappears in the span of a single frame.

    Another surprise with the video footage of UA 175
    striking the South Tower is that it is silver. This
    is the color of American Airlines’s fleet. Unfortunately, United Airlines has a grey and dark-blue color scheme.

    Strangely, UA 175 is also not affected by the Sun. For example, sometime during the day of 9/11/01 CNN broadcast more “amateur” footage of UA 175 from a position east of the WTC. In this footage we see the jet arriving in
    silhouette. It remains in shadow until it disappears into the South Tower.

    Yet, UA 175 presumably struck the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. on 9/11/01. It was a beautiful day. The Sun was coming low and to the east at that hour. When shooting
    UA 175 from the same compass point it should not be in
    silhouette as it arrives. Now, perhaps the WTC blocks its light as UA 175 draws near. Still, with UA presumably hundreds of feet away from the Twin Towers there is nothing to block the eastern light. The video footage with it arriving from this compass point should not be showing a jet in silhouette.

    Shooting video of jet planes which are not affected by sunlight and which do not leave any sound (or material) behind when colliding with immense steel towers might be a challenge for some videographers. However, most of the known amateurs who managed to shoot this highly unique catastrophe employed the professional technique of zooming-out just prior to the arrival of the moment of maximum visual interest.

    Consider the spectacular footage of UA 175 striking the South Tower that is currently being sold by Camera Planet. We see (silver) UA 175 arriving. It quickly disappears behind a building. The camera operator suddenly executes a manual zoom-out. The zoom is accomplished in only one second. A small fraction of a second after the camera is zoomed-out UA 175 briefly reappears (in shadow). Then it strikes the South Tower and a spectacular fireball results.

    What’s unusual about this? Let's remember how they are made. Zooms are either made manually or automatically. Manual zooms are made by reaching for
    the lens and turning it. Automatic ones are accomplished by reaching for and then holding down a button on the camera. The Camera Planet zoom-out was made in one second suggesting that it was a manual zoom.

    The camera operator starts out presumably holding the camera with two hands, using the stronger of the two as the primary one. While holding it this way he follows the once-in-a-millenium-low-flying jet coming in to strike the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The moment the plane disappears from view he grabs his lens and radically alters the picture. Fortunately, this alteration concludes milliseconds before the plane reappears. There is no problem with grabbing the lens and turning it without hesitation in the correct direction. The zoom-out also doesn't go too far. Finally, the subject does not need reframing mid-way through it. (I'm assuming the author is male because a man takes credit in Camera Plant's voiceover.)

    Perhaps this footage was simply a miraculous fluke. Curiously, almost all of the other footage that the TV networks broadcast of UA 175 striking the South Tower
    features an interesting zoom-out just as the action gets most interesting. New York City was chock full of amateur videographers that day who are highly skilled at
    making zooms midway through sensational subject matter.

    CNN’s infamous view from the south shows the camera is examining the WTC in relative close-up as the North Tower burns. Suddenly, the amateur shooting it expertly zooms out. A second later
    UA 175 arrives.

    Other footage aired by the TV networks from a vantage point east of the WTC show
    the North Tower close. Then the camera zooms-out, briefly waits and UA 175 arrives.

    Pavel Hlava, the lucky Czech immigrant construction worker who managed to shoot both the North and South towers getting hit (between taking the Brooklyn Battery tunnel) has allowed his video to be screened exactly once on network television (09/13/03, Good Morning America. Also Fox News

    has reported that his agent, Walter Karling, will not give out his phone number and will not speak to the Associated Press.). Still, Hlava’s footage of the South Tower hit, which was very similar to CNN’s footage from the south,
    follows the pattern. Hlava features a close-up of the North tower burning. Then he expertly zooms out just as UA 175 arrives.

    Why did all of these amateur videographers risk losing their subject zoom-out just as UA 175 arrives? Didn’t they feel that the subject matter was already of intense
    interest to them? Surely this scene didn't need dramatic embellishment added.

    The lessons learned from 9/11/01 are unbelievable. The video documentation reveals that jets can fly into steel buildings silently and as efficiently as a hand enters a glove. The Sun also doesn't shine on UA 175; UA 175 remains largely shrouded in shadow even when it is videotaped from the direction of the morning light on a cloudless day. In addition, there are many amateur videographers in New York city with proven credentials with live footage thatrival the professionals who cover the Super Bowl. Space precludes mentioning other serious logical problems with the footage.

    Either all of these things are true or the TV networks
    screened video sequences that were fabrications. Thus, tragic events of international consequence are no longer being covered by the news media today. They are being manufactured with needed deceptions taken care of with the assistance of the national news media.

    Cinema has come along way since Billy Bitzer was shooting innovative footage for D.W. Griffith at the Biograph studio.

    Scott Loughrey

    Bookmark and Share
    posted by u2r2h at 2:06 AM


    Post a Comment

    << Home