Thursday, June 9, 2016

Debunking NPT@WTC

Show All Parts / Hide All Parts

Show All / Hide All

Rabbit-Hole Warning! This entry publishes part 2 through part 4 as a continuation of Facebook (and email) discussions on the theme of NPT@WTC (no plane theory at the WTC on 9/11). As I wrote to Dr. James Henry Fetzer:

Debunking NPT at the WTC is not my 9/11 hobby-horse; FGNW is. I only do it as a favor to a fellow duped useful idiot who prides himself on being objective enough to let himself get duped another way with new informaion and/or properly applied science and logical analysis.

Patterns are evident, which includes:
(1) Purposeful insufficient understanding of physics.
(2) Not grasping the significance of velocity-squared in the kinetic energy equation.
(3) Malframing the outcomes of high velocity physics in terms of low velocity vehicle crashes. "Shatter then bounce" versus "bounce as cohesive whole"
(4) Malframing the structural nature of the towers, energy required for tower penetration, and resistance to penetration once outer walls were breeched.
(5) Not acknowledging deficiencies & attacking the messenger.

For references purposes, here is published Part 1 that isn't included with this set.


Part 2: FB Rosalee Grable's NPT


Part 3: FB Shiela Casey's NPT


Part 4: Dr. James Fetzer's NPT


Show All Parts / Hide All Parts

Show All / Hide All

11 comments:

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Dr. James Fetzer wrote on Truth & Shadows June 3, 2017 at 7:32 pm:

What makes “no planes” theory sickening? I have proven–again and again–that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville; that no Boeig 757 hit the Pentagon; and that the 767s in New York as Flights 11 and 175 were fabricated images. If someone wants to contest that, let them produce the proof. Meanwhile, here’s my latest on 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBBaDchDnOI

+++

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

You get bonus points for the fervor in which you beat your own drum, for repetition, and zeal. Alas, those bonus points not only get canceled, your score gets put into the negative because of your faulty understanding of science that leads you to peddle bullshit.

The bullshit in question in your belief that the Flights 11 and 175 were fabricated images. You challenged: "If someone wants to contest that, let them produce the proof."

Let me be clear that I leave the door for some imagery manipulation on 9/11 may have occurred. The poor Pentagon footage would be exhibit A that gives me standing for some agreement on this. An exhibit B is four versions of the 2nd plane hitting the WTC: without the plane, with an orb, with a plane, and from a different perspective. Exhibit C is that none of the found aircraft parts were identified with serial numbers to match the alleged planes.

Alas, your several decades of teaching logic has given you too much hubris in ignoring your own logical fallacies. The exhibits above are sufficient to question whether the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft, but are woefully insufficient (to the point of making you a clown) to claim that absolutely no aircraft were involved with the WTC.

Indeed, your contention suggests that no planes were involved at the WTC, and worse, that holograms were involved.

We have been through this. The evidence has been presented to you many times of the involvement of real planes. Look no further than the landing gear examples, one of which ripped a wall assembly off of the backside of WTC-1 to land in a parking lot next to the towers still embedded between the hollow box columns of the assembly, photographed from several angles before either tower came down.

Worse, your video analysis is proven to have a major math flaw; you can't defend holograms with anything real world.

Old age has made you a bit senile to be bringing up the same bullshit again and again, despite being addressed. Allow me to call your attention to Part 4 of the following (although Parts 1-4 will all be very enlightening).

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html

The ball is and has been in your court to refute major elements of your analysis that have been utterly destroyed. If you were more rational (or not an "op"), you'd be amending your views. Instead, you've doubled-down on the crazy.

Yes, Dr. Fetzer, I've uncharacteristically thrown a few instances of ad hominem at you. Reep what you sow and have on more than one occasion sowed with me rather than the salient points of my rebuttal to your bullshit.

You may reply at the blog above.

// MCB

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dr. Fetzer replied via e-mail:

+++
This is ridiculous. Refutations of your claims can be found in the video itself.

It would have been physically impossible for any real plane to have entered either building, as I explain. Pilots tracked Flight 93 and Flight 175 after they had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and hit the South Tower, as I explain. A fake engine was planted at Church & Murray, as I explain. FAA Registration records show that the planes used for those two flights were no formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005, as I explain. You are a complete fraud.

+++

Dearest Dr. Fraud, ... I mean, Dr. Fetzer,

Discussion isn't about Pentagon or Shanksville. It is about the WTC where you have a poor grasp of physics: both of the plane in motion and of the tower itself.

What was seen rocketing out of the tower after the observed plane impact? What caused the damage to the roof of Park place near where the engine landed at Church & Murray? How did they fake the partial landing gear embedded in a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 before either tower came down? After a path is created in a tower by the leading edge of an aircraft, how much resistance is there to the subsequent mass of an entering aircraft? How many frames is required for a plane to travel its entire length, assuming 155 ft length, 24 frames a second, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph? How does the energy change in a collision when velocities are great, and how does this energy compare to the structural energy of material in the vehicle?

These were all questions posed to you that -- owing to your 35 years of teaching logic and zero years learning any applicable physics -- you decided to ignore because their answers didn't fit your disinformation.

Repeating disinformation and lies in your video doesn't make it any more true or physics compliant.

Yes, that is harsh of me to say about you. But an objection, reasonable, rational person would recognize when their understanding of some subject (e.g., physics) is weak and when they must adjust their position & opinions when presented with corrections to their faulty assumptions & grasp of the subject matter. Not so with you.

Evidently your goal by holding tightly to the bat-shit crazy false is a continued attempt to malign that which is (bat-shit crazy) true.

Answer the questions, learn, evolve.

//


M. C. Bruecke said...

Dr. Fetzer replied on 2017-06-08:
+++
"Any objective, reasonable, rational person would recognize that you are an agent of the state doing what he can to obfuscate and deny truths about 9/11! You are an expert at disinformation in its dissemination. I think you are confounding me with Judy Wood, who cannot accommodate the US Geological Survey's dust studies from 35 locations around New York that proved this was a nuclear event! You are the fraud!"
+++

{mcb: Then Dr. Fetzer provided an image from Mr. Jeff Prager subsequently review of the USGS data in Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB].}
+++

Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.

+++

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

I am so sorry to learn of the advanced state of your senility. I hope that while marbles still exist in your noggin that you are making active preparation for when they don't such as a selection of an assisted living facility with WiFi. What leads me to this?

First of all, we were discussion planes at the WTC. What do you send me aside from your normal "you are the obvious op!" ad hominem? You conflate me with a Dr. Wood groupie (that I am no longer) and send me a snippet from Jeff Prager's deeper analysis of the publish USGS dust results (that I support and use in my own published works).

FTR, I wrote about 9/11 nuclear involvement before you did. I was calling it "nuclear DEW" (that my hybridrogue detractor liked to coin as "nookie-doodoo".) Although I was on the right scent, I was still off target. After further research at my local institution of higher education into nuclear concepts as they were around the turn of the century -- which surprises me that you haven't performed --, I came across Dr. Andre Gsponer. He has never written anything about 9/11 to my knowledge. But his regular, updated, and never disputed publishing of future oriented Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices was the key. It explained the 9/11 WTC observances and evidence far better than nano-thermite, Dr. Wood, and even you with your Veterans Today co-authors. I summarized my findings at:

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html

If we ignore the hair-splitting, you and I are practically on the same nuclear page. You knew this. For you to opinion anything else with your cut-and-paste... well it just brings tears to my eyes to see how far your mind has degraded.

Returning to the subject of the discussion: planes at the WTC. Questions you need to answer:

"What was seen rocketing out of the tower after the observed plane impact? What caused the damage to the roof of Park place near where the engine landed at Church & Murray? How did they fake the partial landing gear embedded in a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 before either tower came down? After a path is created in a tower by the leading edge of an aircraft, how much resistance is there to the subsequent mass of an entering aircraft? How many frames is required for a plane to travel its entire length, assuming 155 ft length, 24 frames a second, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph? How does the energy change in a collision when velocities are great, and how does this energy compare to the structural energy of material in the vehicle?"


You need to review my discussions into the matter at: http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html

From my perspective, if you want to regain your credibility and prove that you've still got marbles in your noggin, you will have to seriously contemplate my much better explanation of the building physics, the materials physics, and the energy involved. You will have to look at all the hard-to-fake evidence of real aircraft involvement (but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft).

Upon completion, you should prove your objectivity and human-ness (as opposed to bot-ness of your reply to me) by admitting publicly errors in your NPT@WTC conclusions and by stopping henceforth peddling such utter disinformation bullshit. No harm, no foul in admitting where you were wrong and correcting the record.

All the best, Dr. Fetzer, and have a great weekend.

// MCB

James Fetzer said...

Nice try! You cannot even overcome the studies from Pilots for 9/11 Truth (demonstrating that Flight 93 was over Champaign/Urbana IL AFTER it had purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania or that Flight 175 was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, LONG AFTER it had allegedly hit the South Tower. Not to mention that the FAA Registration Records, which I also present during the interview, shows the planes used for those flights were not even formally de-registered (taken out of service) until 28 September 2005! So for a rational mind, your case doesn't get off the ground--and that's before considering the absurdity of the non-collisions between Flight 11 and the North Tower and Flight 175 and the South. One of us may be displaying signs of senility, but that--apparently!--would not be me.

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

Poor try! Very sad. Particularly for an alleged professor of logic for 35 years.

I can overcome the studies you mention by agreeing with them. Why? Because the MOST a reasonable and objective person with a rational mind can deduce from all of that is that the alleged commercial aircraft were NOT the aircraft that hit the WTC towers.

[I'm leaving the Pentagon plane and Shankville plane out of the discussion, because they are the valid instances of NPT. Focus here, Dr. Fetzer. The discussion is about the two aircraft that hit the WTC towers. Stop your disinformation game conflating them -- a major logic flaw in your reasoning -- as if all four instances had to have the exact same modus operandus.]

Which circles us back around to your more blatant signs of senility.

A given in our discussion about the WTC planes is that real aircraft were used. A point of agreement between us should be that the WTC planes did not have to be, and most likely were not, the alleged commercial planes. How many times over how many years does this have to be explained to you?

//

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dr. Fetzer wrote:
+++
You are a waste of time--and that seems to be your objective: to waste my time! Enough. You can do your own thing.
+++

This was followed by another email with:
+++

Morgan Reynolds and John Lear have also explained

why no real plane could have entered the Twin Towers.

Check them out. You are spamming. I will treat it as such

+++

M. C. Bruecke said...

Written like a true disinformation op!

Dr. Fetzer, you are not genuine. At least not anymore. I guess the way for you generate income in your retirement -- and to avoid nasty side-effects of government backlash -- is for you to embrace the bat-shit crazy FALSE. You aren't much of a gnat to the government's war of terror against its citizens if what you peddle can be proven wrong. You then embody all that the government deems wrong with "conspiracy theorists" while making retirement money off of your disinformation books, blogs, pod-casts, etc. [I'll keep this in mind for when I hit retirement.]

You have been compromised. If not overtly by the government, then by senility in your brain.

I've looked into Morgan Reynolds and John Lear before. Elements of truth, they have. Elements of disinformation, they also have.

What sets me apart from them and you, is that I can rescue the nuggets of truth while side-stepping and debunking that which is not. It isn't "all or nothing", the typical false paradigm imposed on us.

If you haven't been compromised, why do you find it so hard to look into my (better) explanation of the towers' physics and the aircraft physics? If I am wrong, surely your PhD ought to make you smart enough to point out the errors, and I will be overjoyed that you did, because I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on some subjects. I am rational and objective, and will change my mind when proven wrong.

But you haven't done such. You haven't even stayed on the subject of the planes at the WTC. You throw nukes at me, then the Pentagon and Shanksville. You avoid the valid points of physics that I bring up. Hell, you haven't even done the very simple math regarding the number of frames required to render a fast moving aircraft traveling its length. Why is that important? Because the margin of error is sufficient for it to the mask deceleration that you claimed never happened, because you peddle the disinformation of imagery manipulation and holograms.

If you were rational, you could see where your analysis has been proven wrong and you would consequently change your tune.

You aren't. And if you are rational, it is all about selling the "conspiracy theories" -- the more crazy the better -- to pay for your retirement. Admit that at least, and I'll leave you alone.

Meanwhile, I've stated over and over that I'm a religious fanatic; I'm fanatical about Truth.

I'm not impressed with error, lies, and liars.

//

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dr. Fetzer wrote:
+++
Maxwell (which I take to be a pseudonym),

Now I see the equivocation at the core of your position and why I have regarded your arguments to this point as bullshit:

You are trading upon ambiguity between (a) no-planes theory and (b) whether real planes could have entered the towers.

PROOF:

No planes theory consists of the conjunction of the following four theses:

(1) Flight 93 did not crash in Shankesville (indeed, did not crash at all);

(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon (and wasn't even in the air on 9/11);

(3) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower (and, like 77, wasn't even in the air);

(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower (and did not crash at all on 9/11).

You deny none of these four propositions, which means that you have provided no refutation of "no planes theory", even

though you assert that you have (in our correspondence on on your web site). That is a false and utterly baseless claim.

What you contend is that OTHER PLANES WERE USED TO HIT THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH TOWERS, EVEN IF

THEY WERE NOT FlGHTS 11 AND 175, which is another matter entirely. I believe you are wrong about that as well, but

the key point is that you are BLOWING SMOKE because you have done nothing to disprove "no planes theory". And if you

are an honest man, then you should admit as much and modify your position accordingly. YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED NPT.

If you agree to what I have proven here, we can proceed to debate whether any real planes could have entered either tower.

This is therefore a test of your integrity. I am willing to discuss your position, but only provided you acknowledge these points.

Jim
+++

Dr. Fetzer then wrote:
+++
One of the simplest proofs that we are not watching a real plane hit the South Tower:

http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

More related articles from Morgan's web site:

https://nomoregames.net/2010/09/01/plane-deceit-at-the-world-trade-center/

https://nomoregames.net/2006/08/01/a-no-planer-resigns-from-s-p-i-n-e/

https://nomoregames.net/2008/03/08/press-release-03082008/
+++

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

You are not an honest seeker of truth. Evidence of such is that you can't properly describe your own theory. The "no planes theory" (NPT) that you promote isn't limited to proving that the alleged commercial aircraft didn't crash or didn't even fly.

You wrote:

"What you contend is that OTHER PLANES WERE USED TO HIT THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH TOWERS, EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT FlGHTS 11 AND 175, which is another matter entirely."


Yes, that is my contention, but no, it is not another matter entirely.

You wrote:

"I believe you are wrong about that as well, ..."


Exactly, because you ignore the physical evidence of aircraft, you misstate the physics of both the buildings and the aircraft, and you promote imagery manipulation and holograms.

You wrote:

"...but the key point is that you are BLOWING SMOKE because you have done nothing to disprove 'no planes theory'."


Wrong. Your sophomoric disinformation debate tactic of pawning your weaknesses onto me doesn't work.

The key point is ~NOT~ whether or not I've done anything to disprove your narrow items 1 through 4. [I don't have to, because I agree with them.]

No, the key points are:

(a) The most that can be logically deduced from them is a "No Commercial Planes Theory" (NCPT).

(b) You have failed to answer or even acknowledge several questions initially presented to you a year ago and repeated several times since then.

So, Bravo, Dr. Fetzer! Who's really the one BLOWING SMOKE? Not I.

Here is a repeat of the questions for the fifth or sixth time:

What was seen rocketing out of the tower after the observed plane impact? What caused the damage to the roof of Park place near where the engine landed at Church & Murray? How did they fake the partial landing gear embedded in a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 before either tower came down? After a path is created in a tower by the leading edge of an aircraft, how much resistance is there to the subsequent mass of an entering aircraft? How many frames is required for a plane to travel its entire length, assuming 155 ft length, 24 frames a second, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph? How does the energy change in a collision when velocities are great, and how does this energy compare to the structural energy of material in the vehicle?



Stay on the subject, Dr. Fetzer. Answer the above. They are simple questions. And because they have been presented to you at least half a dozen times, surely you have had ample time to contemplate their significance particularly to the bullshit you peddle as your NPT extension of holograms.

No more weaseling, Dr. Fetzer, professor of logic. No more distractions.

If you are not a disinformation operative, Dr. Fetzer, faithfully and honestly answering the above questions should result in an "ah-ha" moment. Your eyes will be open and you would begin to waffle on your extreme NPT theories that throw out imagery manipulation and holograms to explain things.

As an aside, I do not rule out imagery manipulation. In fact, I can point to two known instances of such: the four different versions of the helicopter shot, and the Pentagon parking camera frames. Given that the aircraft weren't the alleged commercial aircraft, it might have been necessary to tweak some footage that might have revealed the ruse.

The difference is that I'm not saying no aircraft were involved, nor am I spreading disinformation with cartoon physics that is based on fundamental & purposeful misunderstanting of the actual building damage, the building physics, the material physics of the aircraft, and the error inherent in video frame rates when used to capture high velocity events.


// MCB

M. C. Bruecke said...

Here's something posted to two of the links provided by Dr. Fetzer.

2017-06-12
2017-06-12


+++

Video frame rate versus speed of object are important, because it introduces sufficient error to mask deceleration. For example, assuming a frame rate of 24 frames per second, an aircraft length of 155 ft, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph, both velocities (and those in between) would have the aircraft travel its length in the same number of fames.

The physics of the building should also be properly described. The tower walls were not solid steel. The wall assemblies had window gaps with little resistance. The wall assembly was composed of three hollow box columns connected together with spandrels, and with the built-in failure points of the bolts that connected the assemblies together. The wall assemblies were covered with aluminum cladding.

When studying the actual damage of the building, the aluminum cladding demonstrates wingtip-to-wingtip damage. Behind that, you'll observe areas where entire wall assemblies were pushed out of the way (owing to the bolt failure points), where box columns were bent, and in some cases severed. The floors were (approximately) 13 feet apart.

The points are that wall assemblies did not offer 100% resistance, and that once the walls were breeched by the leading mass of the aircraft, the resistance to subsequent mass of the aircraft would have been reduced significantly.

Another point of physics that the NPTers like to malframe. They harp that the wings and tail should have bounced off of the structure. To a certain degree, they did but not as cohesive wholes. They tend to purposely misunderstand the physics involved by applying observations of relatively low velocity collisions (e.g., parking lot speeds, autobahn speeds) with what would be observed (in the MythBusters Rocket-slide videos and the Sandia F4 crash) at really high velocities. The energy available at very large velocities (velocity squared term) is sufficient to overcome internal structural energy of the material of the vehicle and therefore get shattered first before any bouncing may or may not occur. Close observation of the video and recognizing that from the distance to the camera, what appeared to be tiny pieces were actually much larger and were shattered wings and such.

Included in the evidence of real aircraft are 10 different instances of fragments of aircraft wheel assemblies found in various locations. My favorite is an aircraft wheel embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped out of the back-side of WTC-1 (remember the bolt failure points), was lying in the parking lot below, and was photographed from several angles before either tower was destroyed.

My second favorite is the engine that rocketed out of the corner of WTC-2, hit a roof of a Park Place building, and then landed near Church & Murray.

Let's be clear that not of the larger parts were ever serial numbered identified to match the alleged aircraft. For many other reasons including curious flight paths, incomplete take-off records, turned off transponders, speed & precision of flights, etc., some reasonable doubt exists whether or not the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft. But the evidence is there of physical aircraft being involved.

// MCB