Señor El Once : proofs are weak on reference material links
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,
Your proofs are still weak on reference material links (as are those from the esteemed academic professor, Dr. Fetzer). A quote from some alleged DARPA paper about future plans to project holograms is but a seed that can only grow through water and sunlight in the form of basic research papers, articles, and commercialized endeavors (e.g., YouTube) to which you can point the world.
I reminded you that your holographic speculation still needs to account for TWO sets of radar that have remarkable congruity with 44 or so videos that 3D animation has proven (to my satisfaction) represent a singular flight path.
The funny thing about the premise of "projected holographs" is that photons have insufficient mass to reflect radar pings. If we assume that the radar data is valid, what physical entity caused it?
If memory serves me, Richard D. Hall suggests that a cloaked plane (flying 1400' to the right of the "holographic" aircraft's flight path) projected the hologram. Is this your position as well?
That cloaked plane was even more special than the special planes I've been promoting, let me tell you, because not only did it have enhanced engines to enable it to fly at excessive speeds 1/2 mile above sea level, but it also could cloak itself so that people and cameras couldn't see it.
So while you are digging for the proof that holograms can be projected, don't forget to dig for proof of that Klingon Warship cloaking technology that so foiled Captain James T. Kirk and first officer Spock in the 1960's.
I so so so so so SO want to believe in the viability of holograms and cloaking technology. To be sure, I've seen recent efforts that show cloaking today much further along but not such that it is 100% convincing. I've seen interesting uses for holograms, that just yesterday a colleague demonstrated to me using his little tablet device. But the catch there is that the tablet would need to be huge and fly through the air at 500 mph in order for it to render a holographic plane. Methinks in my joking here that the huge tablet would be visible. Joking aside, this limitation of a holographic medium is one that Dr. Fetzer hasn't solved in his "meticulous and copiously documented" research.
// a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual
Señor El Once : works... as fiction.
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
The appropriate words fail me when I try to describe your latest efforts at speculation. Your well-written prose certainly works... as fiction.
Your proofs are still weak on reference material links to prove that holograms (in 2001) are all that.
Dr. Fetzer wrote:
The use of a sophisticated hologram fit the bill perfectly, except that, at the aerodynamically possible speeds for a Boeing 767 at that altitude, the projected image would have been too fragmented to be taken to be real. So they had to fly the planes projecting the images a bit faster than aerodynamically possible in order to maintain their integrity as images of 767s.
Is that the only exception you can find? Geez, seems to me that two glaring exceptions come before the one you listed and are woefully in need of some of your "meticulous and copiously documented" research to prove they can be overcome.
(1) My "sloppy and irresponsible" research into holograms suggests that they require a holographic medium, or film. Light hits the holographic medium and the holographic image appears "on top of" or "in front of" the medium. Despite there being a DARPA 2025 wishlist item for projecting holograms, I have been able to find nothing (except "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and your words) that suggests holograms can be projected.
(2) The very special plane with the holographic projector would need a cloaking device that is orders of magnitude better than the present day cloaking technologies (as see on YouTube.)
Dr. Fetzer goes on to write:
Using a plane to project the image of Flight 175 turned out to be a nearly perfect plan since the sound of the plane would be taken to be the sound of the projection. It did not occur to them that anyone might compare the locations/times of the projected image with those of the plane projecting the image, which would reveal it was 1,400 feet to the image’s right.
The piece you are leaving out is that "locations/times of the projected image" versus the "locations/times of the plane projecting the image" were obtained by two different sets of radar data that really aren't that far out of agreement.
For the third time, you should review this link and address what it brings up regarding the two different radar systems:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=236532&page=12
As a "professor of critical thinking and scientific reasoning," kindly provide some "meticulous and copiously documented" research that proves the two sets of radar data do not represent the same aircraft flying the same flight path? [Straw man alert] If you continue with your present line of reasoning, you'll have to answer how one RADAR system would pick up the projected plane (a hologram) but not the real plane projecting the image (while remaining cloaked), while the other RADAR system would pick up just the opposite.
... would only be noted by a few professors and other astute intellectuals, but that they could count on dupes and shills to carry their case by belittling those who had the knowledge, the intelligence and the courage to speak out in opposition to the social pressure derived from media manipulation.
They knew that, if worse came to worse, they could count on their “useful idiots” to carry the heavy water by asserting the occurrence of impossible events and denying revealing studies of how it had been done by using sarcasm and ridicule to assail those who knew enough to realize 9/11 was a magic show. At all costs, they had to preserve the illusion.
I love your skilled use of the word "belittling" and how you wield it so that nothing sticks to you.
[Sarcasm and ridicule alert] Woo-hoo! I love how your assertion of holograms deftly defies falling into an "occurrence of impossible events."
Cough up "the revealing studies of how [flying holograms] had been done" with some footnoted, linked, and "meticulous and copiously documented" research. Then, just maybe, you can dupe this useful idiot.
I feel sorry for you, Dr. Fetzer. I suppose it is one thing to be known as an excentric professor. But your efforts on Truth & Shadows reflect something else. This thread in particular? It is as if we're watching the death and burial of your academic credentials and reputation, while you continue to live on in the thin hopes of living down the embarrassment.
// a psuedo-intellectual
Jim Fetzer : it is easy to lie
Jim Fetzer says:
August 25, 2012 at 10:38 am
Well, I agree with your assessment. The problem is that it is easy to lie and it can be tedious and complex to explain why we are dealing with deliberate falsehoods. He repeatedly claims there is no evidence to support the use of holograms, when there is a mountain of proof, including the impossible speed, the impossible entry, the lack of any loss of momentum, the absence of any debris, the non-explosion on contact, the lack of penetration through the building, the planted engine component at Church & Murray, the plotted sequence of locations of “the plane”, the radar data of another plane flying 1,400? to its right! How much prevarication and dissembling are we supposed to take from an obvious troll who is doing everything he can to obfuscate and obscure one of the most important findings in 9/11 research, which has the potential to blow the case out of the water in the public domain? That has to be why he is here, because his commitment to 9/11 truth runs from zero to null.
Señor El Once : special mountain of proof
Mr. James Fetzer, PhD writes on August 25, 2012 at 10:38 am (rearranged):
There is a mountain of proof ... to support the use of holograms.
the impossible speed
The speed is only impossible for the alleged UA Flight 175 and its model of aircraft. It would not be impossible for a fighter jet, nor would it be impossible for a modified special plane that had more powerful engines and computer guidance. Our special Dr. Fetzer has never been able to get mind or his arguments around the adjective special when applied to the noun plane.
the impossible entry
The floors were spaced about 12' apart and had only 4" on concrete on steel pans and the necessary trusses to support this, leaving lots of empty space. The exterior columns of the tower were 40 cm wide on 100 cm centers, leaving 60 cm wide gaps with only glass as the barrier. Lots of essentially empty space to make the entry not so impossible.
And for the parts of the towers that aren't so empty, our special Dr. Fetzer isn't getting his mind around the special hardened features of bunker-busting bombs that could be applied to "a plane-looking-missile."
the lack of any loss of momentum
The true lack is that of high-speed film that could demonstrate what was truly happening in the last tenth of a second of its flight into the building.
In addition to this, the impossible speed being possible with enhanced engines produced a velocity-squared term in the energy equation that was significantly greater than the structural/resistive energy of the materials of the plane.
the absence of any debris
Again, our special Dr. Fetzer isn't acting like a professor of critical thinking and rational arguments. The lack of debris (e.g., seats, luggage, body parts) may logically exclude the alleged UA Flight 175, but it doesn't exclude a modified special plane that might be devoid of seats, luggage, and passengers.
the non-explosion on contact
The fuselage of any plane won't explode on contact, because it doesn't carry fuel. Fuel is carried in the wings. Our special Dr. Fetzer is being a bit imprecise in his words to allow this silly skewing of his malframing.
Were we to give our special Dr. Fetzer some leeway into amending his words to be "the non-explosion on contact with the wings," well, this would simply not be true, because an explosion did happen once these were shredded by the towers and the flames of the engines could reach the resulting spreading of fuel.
the lack of penetration through the building
Our special Dr. Fetzer needs to be reminded that the special plane would be designed for special goals and purposes. Penetration into the building would be one of them, but not penetration through the building, as demonstrated by many videos of how bunker-busting-bombs work.
the planted engine component at Church & Murray
Our special Dr. Fetzer needs to be reminded that many video clips show a significant piece of aircraft flying out of the building... in the direction of Church & Murray. Go figure.
the plotted sequence of locations of “the plane”
Our special Dr. Fetzer doesn't realize that the plotted sequence does not spell "holograms".
the radar data of another plane flying 1,400' to its right
Our special Dr. Fetzer doesn't read what others write, particularly when they dispute our special Dr. Fetzer's fantasies. Here's something posted for the fourth time in a futile attempt to get properly noticed and addressed by our special Dr. Fetzer. [Source]:
Here is how jammo sees radar data.
http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_line.jpg
He sees (and plots it) as a straight line. Although this image does not show it, the radar path does veer to the left in the final seconds towards the South Tower. This is NOT how a radar path is to be seen.
This is the proper way to see a radar path.
http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_block.jpg
It is NOT some pencil sharp line. A radar path is a block, equal to 2 times the estimated or known accuracy in width. The red (ASR) path is narrow because it has a greater known accuracy than the blue (ARSR) path. The blue path cannot be used alone to say that the plane in question “hit” a specific spot in time and space. What can be said is, if something “hit” a specific spot in time and space, that it’s radar path “hit” it (which in this case it did). The plane can be located anywhere inside the path, but the radar path definitely hit the WTC South Tower.
For the red paths (we have two if you recall, EWR and JFK), both the paths AND the plane can be said to have “hit” the spot.
Our special Dr. Fetzer wrote:
He repeatedly claims there is no evidence to support the use of holograms...
Aside from going point-by-point through our special Dr. Fetzer's alleged mountain of proof, it should be pointed out that our special Dr. Fetzer has not once provided -- ever, on this thread or any other on T&S -- “meticulous and copiously documented” basic research (links, technical articles, books) that would prove holograms could be projected.
I hesitate to mention this, but our special Dr. Fetzer's theories also now depend on cloaking technology of his special plane that flies the exact same special "impossible speeds" while projecting a hologram to the left. [One set of radar data somehow registers the photons of the projected hologram but not the cloaked projecting plane, while another set of radar data registers the cloaked projecting plane but not the the hologram.]
"Now isn't that special!" SNL Church Lady.
Now that all of our special Dr. Fetzer's arguments supposedly leading to the conclusion of holograms have been addressed, maybe we should now reconsider our special Dr. Fetzer's extra-special closing and introductory words:
How much prevarication and dissembling are we supposed to take from an obvious troll who is doing everything he can to obfuscate and obscure one of the most important findings in 9/11 research, which has the potential to blow the case out of the water in the public domain? That has to be why he is here, because his commitment to 9/11 truth runs from zero to null.
...
The problem is that it is easy to lie and it can be tedious and complex to explain why we are dealing with deliberate falsehoods.
A special Amen in the scientific range from zero to null to that, brother.
// a psuedo-intellectual
Señor El Once : thickness, length, spacing, and orientation
Dear Mr. TamborineMan, you wrote:
Here again you ‘forget’ to mention the 4 ft. high steel spandrels that each concrete floor and steel trusses butts up against.
And you forgot to mention their thickness, length, spacing, and orientation with respect to the impacting aircraft. Their role would have been much smaller than the exterior columns or the floor pans.
And again you got the size of the steel columns wrong. The perimeter steel columns were 14' or 356 mm. wide. The width of the windows were approximately 600 mm. wide – or in fact the opposite to what you write above!
Oops, my bad. But guess what? If indeed they were 35.6 cm wide on 100 cm centers (instead of 60 cm wide on 100 cm centers), that only helps my argument more. There was more empty space through which mass of a plane would enter without resistance.
In a similar vein to yours, Dr. Fetzer wrote:
... the alleged plane was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8' of concrete ...
Dr. Fetzer is deliberatly skewing the fact that a story height was 3.65 meters, truss spacing was 2.04 meters, transverse truss spacing was 4.08 meters... I pointed it out to him before: the fuselage (5.41 meters tall by 5.03 meters wide) was not "intersecting eight (8) floors"; at most, it was two. I leave the math up to you to figure out how much empty space would not be resisting the penetrating fuselage.
Mr. Tamborine Man wrote:
I have watched many videos, but not yet one that shows conclusively that it is "a significant piece of aircraft" which is seen flying out of the building.
If you're saying you didn't see anything come "flying" out of the WTC-2 tower, then you would be mistaken. If you're saying that you did but that it did not look significant, you need to get some perspective with regards to how far the camera was away from the action, making big pieces (e.g., wheel assembly, engine) appear small.
Dear Señor, a sincere honest genuine truth-seeker NEVER link to the ‘jref forum’ as a ‘source’ to give support to same truth-seekers arguments. This is just not done – unless of course you have been half asleep the last 5 or 6 years! ‘Jref’ers’ support the perps and the official story unconditionally, and will use any ‘means’ at their “disposal”, even if it’s supplied directly by the ‘alphabet’ people! “Jammo” over there being attacked by this unsavory mob, is an obvious genuine truth-seeker. (He’s the one you should HONESTLY have supported instead – but alas)!
Bah! Humbug! Nuggets of Truth are Truth regardless of who spews it. Nice little attempt at guilt by association, but why don't you or Dr. Fetzer address the salient technical point about the nature of those radar systems and their accuracy?
Jammonious has participated here before in the Dr. Wood thread. He's a religious zealot who can acknowledge no errors in his matron saint. I support nuggets of truth, not "team colors".
Dear Señor, it is only the shills, the infiltrators, the OS supporters, who persistently ask the truth-seekers for “proof”, knowing full well that this “proof” is NOT AVAILABLE to us for ‘bleeding’ obvious reasons.
Or maybe, it is only the shills, the infiltrators, the OS supporters, who persistently put forth wild-ass speculation without "proof", knowing full well that this “proof” is NOT AVAILABLE to us for ‘bleeding’ obvious reasons.
Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)? We have proof of their existence and even commercialization. Google "active denial system" and then "Project Excalibur".
Holograms? Oh, they exist and we have proof of them. What we don't have is proof that they could be projected in 2001 or in 2012. You can bet that if they could be projected, some enterprising dudes would have commercialized this, and there would be examples everywhere.
I have researched holograms. I suspect either that you have not or that you lack some rigorous engineering thinking, because otherwise, you would have discovered how holograms are created, what is required, and what limitations they have in their viewing. If holograms in 2001 were all that you and Dr. Fetzer imply, then the DARPA wishlist from 2005 (?) for what they wanted by 2025 wouldn't have included "holographic projection."
Here's your words re-purposed at you, Mr. Tamborine Man:
You should know this absolute fact, but yet you decide to play the ‘shill game’ here, and one seriously have to wonder why!!
As for the following snippet:
Again and again, honest, sincere, genuine truth-seekers have pointed out to you, quoting Sir Arthur Doyle, that: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the Truth.” Again and again you have ignored this above ‘dictum’.
It is you who have ignored the "dictim," because projected holograms is one of those impossible things that you haven't eliminated. And how about the cloaked plane projecting the hologram? Seems rather impossible, too. Why exactly do you consider a modified 767 so impossible?
You are such a comedian, Mr. Tamborine Man:
Again and again it has been pointed out to you that your ‘beliefs’: that a standard 767 could have been replaced by a ‘specially built plane’, is total bonkers, as it makes no sense at all in the overall scheme of things.
How does it differ from your "beliefs": that a standard 767 could have been replaced by a "specially built plane" that can (a) cloak itself, (b) project a hologram, (c) confound two radar systems?
Continuing with your jokes, you provide the link:
http://www.stormingmedia.us/keywords/holograms.html
Where's the link within the list of links that says holograms can be projected?
If you dear Señor, are a truly sincere, honest, genuine truth-seeker, i think it’s about time you let us know, one way or the other! But please, i beg you, refrain from using the ‘methods’ you so far have tried to “impute” this by, in your many recent postings.
What are you "imputing" with the "methods" you employ?
Are you "truly sincere, honest, genuine truth-seeker?" If so, you would have acknowledged the nugget of truth from JREF about radar accuracy and the nugget of truth from the very URL that you provided (that had nothing about projected holograms.)
// a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual
Señor El Once : unaware of any issue about the possible use of holograms
2012-08-27
James Henry Fetzer, PhD writes on August 27, 2012 at 11:31 am:
I am unaware of any issue about the possible use of holograms I have refused to discuss. List them and let me see what I can do about them.
Oh, that explains it. Consider this notice that the following is an issue with the possible use of holograms. This was first brought to Dr. Fetzer's attention 2012-07-25; on this thread alone, it was brought to his attention on August 23, 2012 at 8:44 am, August 24, 2012 at 3:56 pm, and August 25, 2012 at 11:39 am. With this now being about the fifth time that I bring it up with Dr. Fetzer's F-Troopers, kind of makes it fit squarely into the category of refusing to discuss it.
Radar data from the ASR system detected the 2nd WTC aircraft with a high degree of precision, and it matches the flight paths (as shown by the video last twelve seconds of UA175 previously linked and embedded).
Radar data from a second system, the ARSR system (military radar), also detected the 2nd WTC aircraft, but with a lower degree of accuracy. The accuracy of both systems is approximately depicted in the following image from the 2nd WTC aircraft [a nugget of truth from this Source]:
http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_block.jpg
Dr. Fetzer is skewing the interpretation of the 2nd set of radar data. He, along with Richard Hall, want us to believe that the raw data points of the 2nd set should be considered as is and without taking into consideration measurement accuracy. Deploying such blatantly illogical and unscientific analysis, Dr. Fetzer wants us to believe that the true flight path of a flying object (cloaked, no less) was those raw data points from the less accurate radar system, putting the path 1400' to the right of what was depicted in images. He doesn't discuss the more accurate first set of radar data, except to imply that the photons from a hologram were what the more accurate radar system picked up (while not picking up the cloaked aircraft that was projecting the hologram.) [Sarcasm on] And the military radar was less accurate but more astute than the civilian radar, because it didn't have radar pings off of the hologram's photons and it was able to ping off of the cloaked (military) aircraft. [Sarcasm off]
As an aside, Dr. Fetzer wrote:
And Richard Hall's study seems to me to be impeccable in taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path (locations and times) based upon those that were useful for that purpose.
I could be wrong, but Richard Hall appears to not have created the video last twelve seconds of UA175 but he is using it in his program.
Back on topic, the important point is that this 3D work aligns all videos and both sets of (properly analyzed) radar data with a single flight path. Any mention of a flight path 1400' to the right is complete bullshit.
Here is something ironically funny. Dr. Fetzer writes:
But you must forgive me if I am impatient with those who are ignorant of Newton’s laws and believe that a “special plane” [flew impossible speeds and] could have made an impossible entry with no deceleration and no debris!
He has no problems with his "special plane" flying impossible speeds while (A) being cloaked and (B) projecting a hologram to the left. As part of the list of items that Dr. Fetzer is refusing to discuss, we have the highlighted words in A and B. Yet, Dr. Fetzer has a problems with a special plane-looking-missile which by its very definition would not have debris (e.g., passengers, seats, luggage, etc.) and would make possible "an impossible entry." As for the "no deceleration," Dr. Jenkins proved that the Sandia fighter-plane-into-concrete-barrier had slight deceleration measurable only by high-speed film, and that velocity-squared in the energy equation at high velocities (e.g., 500 mph) was sufficiently greater than the resistive structural energy of the materials of the aircraft causing catastrophic failure before (to the point of excluding) deceleration through the aircraft and visible with the plane's tail.
Here's something that just made it into my local newspaper that should also be added to the list of thing Dr. Fetzer refuses to discuss, namely the state of hologram technology: Holograms Present Celebs With New Afterlife Issues By ANTHONY McCARTNEY AP Entertainment Writer LOS ANGELES August 21, 2012 (AP). The money quote is:
[Dylan] Brown, owner of The Yard Entertainment, and [Philip] Atwell, owner of Geronimo Films, had each toyed with the idea of using holograms in concerts for a decade, but the technology wasn't there. ... Because it's two-dimensional, the Shakur performer isn't a true hologram, which, by definition, is a 3-D image (Ulbrich notes the technology isn't quite there for that).
Here are some choice quotes (modified in cases) from Dr. Fetzer trashed:
Has it crossed your mind that some here are deliberately offering fantasy scenarios IN ORDER TO DERAIL THE DISCUSSION?
Dr. Fetzer projects his own attributes onto others.
He has repeatedly insisted that a “special plane” {cloaked and flying "impossible speeds" and projecting a hologram} could perform feats no real plane {and no real hologram} could perform. Either {Dr. Fetzer} understand these issues or {he does} not. So far as I can see, {he} do not. {Dr. Fetzer} cannot remain silent when obvious shills and plants come here and try to bamboozle the public, {because Dr. Fetzer is doing that.}. To infer I am doing wrong by maintaining the standards of science is simply absurd.
I agree with the last sentence. No need for an absurb inference. Dr. Fetzer has already proven that his grasp of physics is limited to book-smarts-to-pass-the-test in "physics for arts & parties" majors. It isn't refined enough for practical applications or for impractical applications involving large velocities.
So where do you stand? Were Newton’s laws suspended on 9/11? Do you believe that a “special plane” could have effortlessly entered the South Tower with no loss in momentum?
What about a special plane-looking-missile?
Today was a special day for our special James Henry Fetzer, PhD, because he offers up so much to trash, like the following from his August 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm posting:
Do you understand that this “plane” was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns, where each of those trusses were filled with 4-8" of concrete and represented an acre of concrete apiece?
This is the wrong framing. Dr. Fetzer should have separated the fuselage height/width (5.41 meters tall by 5.03 meters wide) from the width of the entire wing span. Does Dr. Fetzer understand that this "fuselage" was interesting with one (or two) floors with 3.65 meters spacing, each floor consisting of steel trusses with 2.04 meters spacing and transverse truss spacing of 4.08 meters supporting 4" of concrete leaving lots of space and gaps? Dr. Fetzer neglects to account for the amount of empty space (a) between exterior columns and (b) between floors. The wings did not slice those 6-7 floors to the degree of Dr. Fetzer's unscientific hyperbole.
Do you, in your wildest imagination, suppose that a plane could have encountered the massive resistance posed by those floors of the 500,000-ton building and somehow NOT CRUMPLED? NO HAD ITS WINGS AND TAIL BROKEN OFF? NOT HAD BODIES, SEATS AND LUGGAGE FALLEN TO THE GROUND? NOT EXPLODED ON IMPACT?
The massive resistance was not. As for the plane, special Dr. Fetzer needs to wrap his special mind around special plane, which would have not had bodies, seats, or luggage, and was designed for penetration... ergo, no special explosion on impact.
After ~49 years of JFK stewing, Dr. Fetzer evidently realized with 9/11 the old Bugs Bunny witticism: "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" He demonstrates quite handily that Dr. Cass Sunstein must supplement Dr. Fetzer's University of Michigan retirement quite handsomely for him to keep spinning the carousel.
I wish Dr. James Henry Fetzer no ill will, but I do now wish that he and his F-Troopers would go the way of Brian Good & Albury Smith and depart this hallowed blog.
Señor El Once : does not have any idea what he is talking about. Astounding!
I apologize to all [except the F-Troops], but I just can't resist.
Dr. Fetzer writes [with my emphasis] August 27, 2012 at 11:45 am:
And Richard Hall’s study seems to me to be impeccable in taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path (locations and times) based upon those that were useful for that purpose, so I am not entirely clear why OBF wants to dispute it.
Dr. Fetzer writes August 27, 2012 at 12:32 pm:
How can this guy, ruffadam, post something this ignorant while complaining about posts on NPT, when he OBVIOUSLY does not have any idea what he is talking about? Astounding!
The backstory that eventually makes it so funny?
Mr. RuffAdam commented on the video last twelve seconds of UA175 previously linked by me and embedded by Mr. OneSliceShort:
Outstanding video OSS I am adding it to my collection immediately. I am glad a lot of the debunking work has already been done of NPT so I don’t have to do it again.
The punchline: When Dr. Fetzer praises Richard Hall's "impeccable ... taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path", he is in fact referencing the exact same video. At this point, let's quote Dr. Fetzer back to himself:
[Dr. Fetzer] OBVIOUSLY does not have any idea what he is talking about. Astounding!
My recollection is that the work was not Mr. Hall's and that he makes no claims of ownership. Mr. Hall's value-add is in malframing and dis-interpretting the radar data in order to promote holograms.
More important to the hilarity, the video in question does mortally wound the NPT theory.
And I should know, having been chumped by NPT and championed NPT for four years waiting for something like this to convince me otherwise. A cornerstone of my chumping was the seeming multiple flight paths, hyped by September Clues and its offshoots. When these seeming multiple flight paths are proven to be a singular flight path AND in agreement with two sets of rada data that only ping off of physical objects, not photons from holograms or video manipulation, then the probability of an actual special plane being used starts approaching 1. The impossible speeds and targeting accuracy were only impossible for the alleged aircraft of known model type, not special plane-looking-missiles of a different unknown model type or modification.
Dr. Fetzer writes:
NPT means Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
"NPT" [No Plane Theory] means "no planes" and would also exclude Dr. Fetzer's special cloaked plane, as well as special plane-looking-missiles that, after all, look like planes and may even have the infrastructure of a plane.
Correction to the language used by an esteemed former professor of logic and scientific reasoning:
NCPT [No Commercial Plane Theory] means Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Because I think it is important to document the depth of the purposeful disception, let's look at Dr. Fetzer's August 27, 2012 at 5:16 pm posting:
I AM SUPPOSED TO BE AN OP BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS? ... How do you explain the tracks on the military radar that are parallel to the path of the plane approaching the South Tower, which Richard Hall presents in his fine study? How do you explain that?
This was addressed in my August 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm posting, so a quick summary is merited here.
Rhetorically speaking, the military radar tracks are parallel to what, Dr. Fetzer? They are parallel to the civilian radar tracks, which were proven the same as the tracks in the fine source video referenced by Mr. Hall in his not-so-fine study. Neither the civilian radar nor the military radar record two objects. When the accuracy of each system is taken into consideration, greater uncertainty enters the path for where exactly an aircraft flew. In the case of the military radar, the aircraft could have flown a path (a) that overlaps civilian radar or even to the left of it, (b) that is the data point from military radar that is 1400' to the right of the civilian radar path, or (C) that is 2800' or more to the right of the civilian radar path. See this image:
http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_block.jpg
Let us now mangle Dr. Fetzer's rhetorical question:
{Dr. Fetzer is} SUPPOSED TO BE AN OP {in part} BECAUSE {he proves he doesn't} UNDERSTAND PHYSICS {but mostly because he purposely skews physics to push bullshit.}
I wish to offer my condolenses to Dr. Fetzer for the loss of income that ought to result from losing all credibility that only has a few (non-mutually-exclusive) explanations ranging from early onset of dimentia to being on an agency's payroll. Dr. Fetzer has other outlets for his free-speech, so thankfully maybe his paid-to-post income won't suffer too tremedously from such a pounding to his reputation.
Alas, any additional postings from Dr. Fetzer (and his wingman Mr. Tamborine Man) permitted on T&S will be looked at by me for amusement purposes only.
// a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual
Señor El Once : An elimination argument?
The James H. Fetzer Q-bot asks the simple question repeatedly, "Does this look like a Q-bot?" followed by links to videos.
Going out on a bat-shit crazy limb of unfounded speculation, I'll say that the repetitive postings do have the finger-prints of a Q-bot. The linked videos? They do not look like a Q-bot, I'll give him that.
They look like a hologram.
[**Ba-da-boom**]
Returning in a serious manner to an August 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm from Dr. Fetzer, where he boldly writes:
The argument for holograms is AN ARGUMENT BY ELIMINATION. There is no alternative explanation that can explain ...
Is that so? An elimination argument?
Dr. Fetzer should kindly explain how he eliminated a special plane as well as a special plane-looking-missile? If nothing else, just contemplating those highlighted words proves wrong his assertion of no alternative explanation, which is a bit too blinders-on narrow in its scope.
Let's not lose sight of how Dr. Fetzer right away jumps to the strawman: "This was an aluminum tube that was flying faster than any standard Boeing 767 could fly."
It was? Aluminum tube? I say the special plane-looking-missile wasn't or didn't have to be. And if it wasn't made out of what he assumes it to be, because it wasn't what he assumes it to be [e.g., a standard aircraft], then the (a)-(g) items and other statements that he brings up support more so a plane-looking-missile than they do holograms.
After all, [A] holograms can't be projected (yet... and he has offered no proof) [B] by no-less than a cloaked plane flying impossible speeds according to him, and [C] he & Richard Hall completely flumuxed the radar data analysis.
Due to [A]-[C], the "abundant proof of liars, cheats, and frauds on this very thread" is belched out like a pre-emptive smoke screen. Dr. Fetzer wrote:
The plane entered the building effortlessly.
Here's a bat-shit crazy diversion from me. How many years did Dr. Fetzer champion pods-on-planes based on what appeared to be a pod as well as the flash on the exterior wall prior to impact caught by many different video clips?
Maybe Dr. Fetzer should revive the flash.
In the paradigm of a special plane-looking-missile, the payload could have been anything, including DEW. DEW-on-the-plane-looking-missile could explain what Dr. Fetzer decries -- "the plane entered the building effortlessly" -- because the DEW-pod "vaporized" or "weakened" a path for the fuselage. As for the wings? If they weren't aluminum, then he would need to reassess what is within the range of possibilities for the damage to the building face.
//
Señor El Once : Bolts are easier to slice than steel columns
Dear Ms. CK,
Sorry. You are the only one bringing up bullets, so the confusion belongs to you as your posting goes on to split nomenclature hairs about "no planes."
When I brought up bullets in past discussions, it was to explain the concept of energy transfer and energy much greater than structural energy of material in "vehicles", particularly when velocities are high.
My recollection is that there were 44 or so videos of the 2nd "plane." What was seemingly lots of different flight paths has been proven with 3D modeling to be a single flight path that also agrees with two different sets of radar flight path data that more than suggest a real object was flying. After many years of being NPT, I'm now convinced by this analysis that something was flying and looked like a plane. All of these correlated pieces of data easily allow the object's speed to be calculated and determined to be in excess of the alleged commercial plane's abilities even at high altitude. Thus, the "plane" was not a commercial plane, so all bets are off when trying to guess what damage certain parts of the "plane" would create if the model and modifications to the "plane" are unknown.
I use the expression "plane-looking-missile", because once seats, passengers, luggage, and even pilots are removed, its payload functionality and precision can approach quickly that of a missile, even though it may still look like a plane.
The intersection of floors is misframed in your posting, as it is with Dr. Fetzer. The fuselage of the plane-looking-missile hit only one or two floors while piercing the exterior columns that had 60 cm window gaps on 100 cm centers. The empty space between columns and floors would have been "soft like an apple." For the columns and cross-section of a floor that did resist what was impacting them, the path of least resistance after impact was "around" and into the empty space.
Once the fuselage's impact is considered, then we can go into the additional floors hit by the wing span. As for the damage from the wings, two factors need to be considered.
[1] The engines were solid and made lots of damage.
[2] The construction and assembly of the exterior walls allowed for natural failure points. From
WTC1 and WTC2 with my highlighting:
[A] total of 59 of these perimeter columns were present along each of the flat faces of the building. These columns were built up by welding four plates together to form an approximately 14-inch square section, spaced at 3 feet 4 inches on center. Adjacent perimeter columns were interconnected at each floor level by deep spandrel plates, typically 52 inches in depth. In alternate stories, an additional column was present at the center of each of the chamfered building corners. The resulting configuration of closely spaced columns and deep spandrels created a perforated steel bearing-wall frame system that extended continuously around the building perimeter.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-2-3.jpg
Figure 2-3 presents a partial elevation of this exterior wall at typical building floors. Construction of the perimeter-wall frame made extensive use of modular shop prefabrication. In general, each exterior wall module consisted of three columns, three stories tall, interconnected by the spandrel plates, using all-welded construction. Cap plates were provided at the tops and bottoms of each column, to permit bolted connection to the modules above and below. Access holes were provided at the inside face of the columns for attaching high-strength bolted connections. Connection strength varied throughout the building, ranging from four bolts at upper stories to six bolts at lower stories. Near the building base, supplemental welds were also utilized.
Side joints of adjacent modules consisted of high-strength bolted shear connections between the spandrels at mid-span. Except at the base of the structures and at mechanical floors (Figure 2-8 shows one of these mechanical floors. Note that all the perimeter wall columns are joined/spliced at this one level.) horizontal splices between modules were staggered in elevation so that not more than one third of the units were spliced in any one story.
The highlighted phrases above contained the keyword "bolted". Bolts are easier to slice than steel columns. Look at the impact damage with respect to the staggered exterior walls.
- Impact damage to the north face of WTC 1
- Impact damage to exterior columns on the north face of WTC-1 (showing staggered assemblies)
- Impact damage to south face of WTC 2,
- Impact damage to exterior columns on the south face of WTC-2 (showing staggered assemblies)
- {I was in a hurry. Better pictures ought to be posted.}
The questions to be asked are: What was truly sliced or cut, and where? What was pushed backward? Where did the engines and fuselage hit? How many of the "breaks" in the exterior wall (not attributable to engines or fuselage) happened at "weak" spots where bolts would have failed or spandrels crossed? [Wild-ass speculation] Had there been DEW-in-a-pod-on-the-plane-looking-missile, what could be attributed to it (columns 421-425)? [End Wild-ass speculation]
In the third image above, we observe that the left wingtip certainly cut the aluminum cladding and looks to have made an impression on the steel, but this superficial analysis suggests that it would be hard to say "the aluminum wingtip sliced the steel column."
The Fetzer/Hall alternative to a plane-looking-missile is that the outlines of the planes were created by pre-planted explosives. Shaped charges is his answer, but getting the hologram to align with this would have been challenging, and how about that fabulous cloaking technology on the plane that projected the hologram (which is itself an unprecedented and unrepeated technological feat).
TV faking of planes? The two sets of radar data and untainted witnesses' statements about seeing planes are hard pieces of evidence for it to overcome. Worse, if you were going to fake it with media, you could at least do it right, like by not depicting speeds in excess of what the alleged aircraft could fly even at high altitudes.
//
Señor El Once : stages of impact
Dear Ms. CK, you write:
With the whole plane or plane-like missile hypothesis this is the problem: the whole thing disappears.
This is what bunker-busting missiles do. They penetrate and then explode.
It intersects with 7 and 8 floors and leaves no slices pushed at different rates through space; the whole thing goes in one gulp.
Your glib wording leads easily to misframing. You need to talk about it in stages and what is being hit.
Stage one is when the fuselage hits and has one or two floors: 4" concrete slabs on thin metal pans supported by trusses that are spaced apart. It should be noted that these were designed for vertical loads, not horizontal ones. The concrete slab might start to slice the fuselage, but "equal-and-opposite" it would start to crumble. The thin pans and the spaced apart trusses would receive forces from unaccostumed directions that relatively soon would allow them to bend or deform into the "path of least resistance" -- the emptiness between floors. The steel column assemblies have natural failure points at the bolts connecting them with other assemblies. The pictures show cases where the bolts failed and the columns of the assemblies were bent into the building. In some cases, the spandrels connecting the columns acted like a knife's edge; the plane pushed the columns against the steel spandrel that then sliced them from the other side. It should be noted that the columns were welded to spandrels, but this welding process makes for a slightly weaker spot.
Stage two is when the shoulder of the wings starts to hit, but it would serve to help widen the hole by pushing columns and column assemblies out of the way. Also in stage two, the heavy engines hit the side and push out of the way what ever is in front of them. Because the planes didn't impact dead-level, in stage two the wing damage expands to other floors.
Stage three is when the portion of the wings to the outside of the engines make contact. However, the engines have already made a gaping hole. We see evidence of where wing tips hit the aluminum cladding and indented the steel, but in stage three ultimately the path of least resistance would permit the wings to get sliced and to enter through the window slits.
Stage four is when the tail arrives. The vertical fin is in the same direction as the widow slits, leaving mostly the spandrels and floors to resist and cut it up and into the empty space between floors. The horizontal fins align mostly with the opening created by the forward wing's shoulders and engines.
Those floors are air? Of course not...
Those stage one floors act like knifes with blades that also experience failure, crumbling, bending, and deforming. Those stage two and three floors cut.
These planes disappeared like bullets into an apple. ... Planes acting like hardbody bullets into apples. Impossible. Period.
Wrong analogy. The plane is the apple and it disappears into a maluable slicer made up of blades (floors), mesh assemblies (walls), and space between floors. The floors and wall assemblies have natural failure points and properties which allow them to resist and then bend, break, or be moved so that they no longer resist as strongly further penetrating action of the fuselage or engines. "A pencil piercing a mosquito screen."
This leaves us withmissile and TV faking; holograms if that’s possible (and a missile or no missile); or just TV faking, though that latter is probably not the case due to some witness statements and “the blob” TV image which was missed and later “fixed” with a black blob and then taken off air.
No it doesn't.
Moreover, my duped useful idiot nature has had me explore and champion heavily TV faking, holograms, and missiles... until I found their weaknesses in 100% applicability to 9/11 as well as the disinformation and disinfo tactics of their main sources of propagation.
Señor El Once : continue with your imprecise and unclear word games
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
I am surprised that a man of letters who made a career out of "communicating with students" such as yourself would continue with your imprecise and unclear word games when all it would take is a single word to gain complete understanding and agreement.
Your four propositions do not define NPT ("No Plane Theory"); instead, they define NCPT ("No Commercial Plane Theory.") That phrase "commercial plane" is a great communication device, because it conveys both that commercial planes were ruled out (e.g., going too fast for altitude of alleged make & model of aircraft) and that special planes can still be ruled in (e.g., enhanced engines to make speed possible.)
Thus, your "If" dependency clause about accepting a Fetzeristic bastardization of NPT is deemed a strawman. The latter half of the sentence about "making a ruckus... about how some form of fakery was done to create these videos" is another worthy of being torched as a strawman. You make it sound like Hollywood special effects and fakery created the videos. No, the videos are fairly genuine. If any media Tomfoolery was at play, it was in having the script so that the cameras could be miraculously panned, zoomed, and focused at the right instance and so that the same footage could be instantly shared between the networks to saturate the public's perceptions and horrors. The Tomfoolery with the planes was in switching them before take-off or mid-flight. Because you championed pods-on-planes for so long, you probably know more than I about when transponders went off, when radar signals went missing, when course corrections occurred, and what Ohio airports were used to process at least one of the "real flights".
Please go read my postings to Ms. CK, because they detail the nature of the towers. Like the Q-bot I accuse you of being, you ignore the pertinant details about the tower's design that introduced failure points and weaknesses and had copious amounts of non-resistive empty space to push tower and plane debris into.
Screeching halt? Not when they hit the outer walls, but when they hit the inner core... except for the aircraft part that exited the towers and landed near Church & Murray.
Do you deny John Lear’s explanation for why no “special plane” could have done this?
Yes, I most adamently do deny this, because Mr. Lear never says what you claim he says. You are misquoting him. Another strawman.
Mr. Lear does not speculate about special planes or plane-looking-missiles. Mr. Lear talks about the alleged makes and models of commercial aircraft: Boeing 767 and 757. He talks about those aircraft models not being able to do it; I agree, and it is the multiple data sources to calculate the same excessive speed that those exact commercial planes were incapable of flying even at high altitude.
Here's a quote from you that I'm zinging right back at you:
You deny that Newton’s laws applied on 9/11.
If you were more scientific, you would have seen that it wasn't about "aluminum cutting steel" as you like to frame it. It was about a heavy mass with lots of kinetic energy pushing on wall assemblies, getting them to fail (in cases) at weak points [e.g., bolts, spandrel welds] and getting them to break, bend, or move out of the way. Ever use your thumb to push an apple onto a knife to cut it in half? Some of the slicing of exterior columns resembles the aircraft (thumb) pushing the columns (apple) against the steel edges of the spandrel (knife). Can you say: "steel cutting steel"?
Here's a bit of Q-bot repetition made all the more ludicrous by how many times this has been addressed?
[D]o you reject the radar data that Richard Hall has discovered and explains in his study, which tracks a real plane that, unlike a hologram, shows up on radar but is flying 1,400' to the right of the projected image in the case of both tower “hits”?
I most certainly do! I most certainly did! I guess maybe your Q-bot algorithms missed it the first five times I presented it. Please review my posting from August 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm.
Mr. RuffAdam wrote on August 29, 2012 at 5:58 pm
I think there may be some merit to your Fetzer-BOT hypothesis. The only way to tell is to ask the Fetzer entity direct questions and see if you get a direct answer. If you do not get a direct answer to the question you asked but instead get some kind of repetitive response only loosly related to your question or not related at all then your Fetzer-BOT idea gains strength. After a certain amount of non-responsive replies you should assume your hypothesis is correct and that you are indeed dealing with a BOT.
Dr. Fetzer. Using the military's radar data point, kindly explain the left-and-right tolerances associated with its measurement? How far to the left could a real flying object be and still represent the same flight path with respect to the military radar data?
Could the civilian radar and military radar be monitoring the same aircraft?
What was the more accurate civilian radar recording? If your answer is the hologram, kindly explain (a) how radar would capture it and (b) why it didn't record the cloaked plane?
If civilian radar was more accurate, how come it didn't pick up the flying object along the less-accurate military radar's path?
How is it that the civilian radar matches the flight path correlated from many different videos? Why doesn't the military radar data?
Tell us more about how the plane projecting the hologram cloaked itself?
Tell us (a lot) more about how a hologram could be projected?
At this point, Dr. Fetzer, I am going to use a phrase that I am sure you are familiar with. I am going to pull rank.
++++++++
Dear Mr. McKee,
I know that the humor of reading Dr. Fetzer's merry-go-rounds has turned into annoyance. Dr. Fetzer has weaseled out of addressing things from my August 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm posting, as he spins another cycle here.
Like Brian Good before him, maybe you should make a condition of Dr. Fetzer's continued participation here his answering the above questions in a satisfactory manner.
Whereas at the beginning of Dr. Fetzer's participation, I was thrilled to have a name-brand 9/11 truther taking notice of your blog, the thrill is gone. In fact, it becomes clearer and clearer why Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood both went their separate ways from Dr. Fetzer.
I have reached the point of believing the Fetzer name-brand, like alcohol, is poison in large doses.
Bring us down off of this Fetzer-buzz... no, this Fetzer-drunk-stupor! Let's sober up.
Señor El Once : Fetzer-bot boldly asking in a malframed manner
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
You are on thin-ice in this forum.
I answered your questions. I go through your posting sometimes line-by-line. Did you answer my questions? No. Ergo, it is not I who changes the subject and evades relevant answers, but you. Just like a Q-bot.
Also like a clever Q-bot, your August 30, 2012 at 12:36 pm posting is almost identical to your August 28, 2012 at 2:48 am posting. Lost the ability to form hyperlinks, eh? More importantly as would be expected of a Q-bot, your re-hashed posting does not understand the nuances of what it quotes and how it actually supports the counter argument -- my point.
For the benefit of lurker readers, I will explain. It starts with the Fetzer-bot boldly asking in a malframed manner:
Do you deny John Lear’s explanation for why no “special plane” could have done this?
I responded:
Yes, I most adamently do deny this, because Mr. Lear never says what you claim he says. You are misquoting him. ... Mr. Lear does not speculate about special planes or plane-looking-missiles. Mr. Lear talks about the alleged makes and models of commercial aircraft: Boeing 767 and 757. He talks about those aircraft models not being able to do it; I agree.
The Fetzer-bot isn't smart enough to realize the errors in re-posting details from John Lear. Here is a bunch of snippets from that:
- No Boeing 767 airliners...
- In the case of UAL 175 ...
- ... a real Boeing 767...
- When and if the nose of an airplane...
- ... the mass of the Boeing 767...
- No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet above sea level...
- The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
John Lear made it perfectly clear what he was talking about in his very precise language: a Boeing 767 designated UAL 175.
The Fetzer-bot enters the picture with his capitalized interjections that he wants attributed to John Lear but aren't; they are faulty extrapolation by the Fetzer-bot without substantiation:
- NOTE: NOT JUST A REAL BOEING 767, BUT ANY REAL PLANE SIMILAR TO IT.
- AGAIN, THIS DOES NOT JUST APPLY TO 767S BUT TO PLANES LIKE THEM.
- NO REAL PLANE COULD HAVE PERFORMED THE FEATS WE ARE SHOWN.
- THESE POINTS ARE DEVASTATING TO ANY PROPONENT OF REAL PLANES.
This is an epic failure by an academic and a professor of logic and scientific reasoning. True, he appends weasel-words "similar to [a Boeing 767]", "planes like [767's]", and "real planes", but this is a diversion that does not address the subject: "special planes" and "plane-looking-missiles." We're not talking "real commercial planes"! We're talking "special planes for military purposes", where the only thing "commercial" remotely associated with them is the tiny probability that we'd sell them to the militaries of the USA's allies-du-jour.
"Mentally and morally speaking," the Fetzer-bot "has shown his true colors. That he persists in the defense of an absurd theory of how the fakery was done stands as an indictment of his character and intellect."
Not that I expect a coherent on-topic answer from the Fetzer-bot, we do have to do our due-diligence by allowing him an opportunity to rectify his behavior by answering the questions from my earlier posting in a straight-forward manner. Should he fail this simple exercise, well... the Fetzer-bot should take comfort in the fact that he still has several other venues to exercise his free-speech after T&S shows him the door.
Señor El Once : The operative phrase is plane-looking-missile.
Dear Ms. CK, you wrote:
A missile or a big bullet, maybe, and faster. A plane going that speed? No.
Because you seem to be Dr. Fetzer's back-up, then I assume you are supporting his premise that a hologram is what was observed. How did the hologram get there according to the good doctor? It was projected by another cloaked plane flying a parallel path. The point is, even Dr. Fetzer believes that a plane could go that speed. Fail.
The operative phrase is plane-looking-missile. It is not plain-looking-missile, nor is it plain-commercial-plane or plain-military-missile or big bullet.
Once you have removed the passengers, their luggage, seats, and even the pilots, the distinction between a plane and a missile starts to blur. Of course, the many media clips -- from professionals to amateurs -- and the untainted-by-media initial eye-witness accounts proves that it looked like a plane. Until proven fabricated, the radar data from the civilian and military systems is considered valid, and therefore suggests a real flying object was involved and was observed and recorded as a plane with wings. The only problems with calling it a "plane" without any qualifiers are the number of dangling assumptions that want to peg it with all of the attributes and limitations of UA 175, a stock commercial Boeing 767, a "flying aluminum beer-can."
The speed of the plane-looking-missile as calculated by two sets of radar data and dozens of videos already makes the aircraft special. The low altitude that it flew such speeds puts its engines and infrastructure already beyond the capabilities of a standard 767 that probably would have lost a wing before reaching its target if its engines could have generated enough thrust to overcome the drag of the heavy resistive air. "Review of Analysis of Observed and Measured In-Flight Turns Suggests Superior Control of 9/11 WTC Aircraft" [posted by Mr. Rogue's August 29, 2012 at 9:57 am] is worthy of study for proving that no human was at its controls from the cockpit or remote location.
These are just a few examples of the enhancements that we know about. And then come the "known unknowns", as Rumsfeld would say, when contemplating what additional work could be undertaken to make the aircraft really special. How many trillions of dollars did Rumsfeld report unaccounted for from the DoD budget on the day before this special plane-looking-missile saw action? Let's just say that it was probably enough to make it a solid gold special plane, had there been strategic benefit for such.
As more of a Gedankenexperiment, place a thick book closed and flat on the table. On the side opposite the binding, take you hand fingernails first and try to ram them into the pages. (Hope you don't get a paper cut.) The result will be probably some squashing and deforming of pages, and you'll see the cover of the book and other pages lift up to accomodate your penetrating hand.
Yes, although the floors of the towers are formidable obstacles, they must be viewed with the correct physics framing. Chief among that framing is that not seven or eight floors but only one floor, or at most two, were all that could physically have affected the penetrating fuselage. In the case of two floors, it be kind of like a scalping and a shave, and like pages of your book with your hand shoved in, those floors would deform and to a slight degree get moved out of the way, while the penetrating fuselage took its "peeling" haircut and continues largely unhindered into the empty space until hitting the tower core. My research for my August 29, 2012 at 6:27 pm posting offered new insight into how their reaction to the impact has been misframed.
The concrete of the floor? Only 4" thick on a thin steel pan. The trusses? While sturdy for the vertical loads, two different orientations are at play depending on floor with different outcomes for horizontal loads. Due to its spacing, one orientation (parallel to flight path) might send at most two into the fuselage like a toothpick into an olive. The other orientation (perpendicular to flight path) together with their spacing would make them easy to bend and to move and dislodge from their connections.
The plane was at a tilt, so the wings and engines start reaching into other floors, with the solid engines pushing against things. The wall assemblies had significant failure points in the bolts that connected them together, and pictorial evidence shows clearly instances where these gave way with whole sections gone (e.g., pushed into the empty space) right from where they were bolted. It takes less energy to bend something than it does to completely severe it, and pictorial evidence clearly shows instances where columns were bent. Ever use your thumb to drive an apple against a knife blade? Pictorial evidence shows instances of where the plane (thumb) drove the columns (apple) against the spandrel & floors (knife) to severe them.
Another malframing is that the "aluminum beer-can" plane sliced steel. The above shows how "steel-sliced-steel" with the help of "thumb".
And on a related side-note, let's consider briefly the auto-pilot and pre-planted explosives. Both are given, because the flight path would not have been possible manually, and the energy & speed of the destruction can only be accounted for with controlled methods of demolition. With just a bit more coordination, the "destination" for the auto-pilot could be aligned with special pre-demolition explosives (maybe planted by visiting foreign art students). Although I've hinted that the "flash" that is visible on many different media clips could have been DEW-in-a-pod-on-a-plane, the "flash" could be for activating other things within the towers that would make the entrance into the towers easier.
If you remain at 30,000 feet with your generalizations and don't get down to the specifics of what the towers were designed to do (and did), namely to allow an aircraft to penetrate its outer mesh like a pencil through a mosquito screen, and what specially designed and built plane-looking-missiles could accomplish, you won't see how these fair better with reason and possibilities than the science fiction of cloaked aircraft projecting holograms of other aircraft.
//
Señor El Once : talking about a "cloaking" plane
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man boldly wrote:
Nobody is talking about a “cloaking” plane.
You are wrong to the point of exposing yourself as a blatant liar.
Go watch Richard D. Hall's presentation again. He most certainly "drops the other shoe" and advocates a cloaked plane. Dr. Fetzer lavishes lots of praise on Mr. Hall's efforts, so by extension, Dr. Fetzer does, too.
On top of this, I've brought up over half a dozen times the errors in their radar analysis that leads them purposely and deliberately to this faulty conclusion that they spread as disinfo.
And liar that you are, Mr. Tamborine Man, all you could do was condemn it because the nugget of truth came from a secondary JREF discussion. Did you or Dr. Fetzer ever address the salient point of the nugget of truth regarding the accuracy? Nope.
Here's why disinfo agent Mr. Hall jumps to cloaked planes. He wants everything presented in his video to be discredited and swept from the table in a guilt-by-association with cloak planes manuever. What were some of the things presented in his video? The main one was the video of the last twelve seconds of UA175 that proves a singular flight path aligning the seemingly different flight paths and the more accurate civilian radar data.
Mr. Hall didn't take credit for that video (as far as I recall), but he did talk about his detailed study resulting from it and that extended it to a cloaked plane. This is then where Dr. Fetzer gets the mistaken impression of authorship that he propagates despite being corrected by me.
Go re-read Dr. Fetzer's glowing reviews of Mr. Hall's efforts and how he keeps with the skew:
August 22, 2012 at 6:58 pm
So Richard Hall has done such a study. The NTSB had a second study with the same data points. BUT there also turns out to be a MILITARY RADAR STUDY that shows a plane some 1,400' to the right of the path established by the studies based upon the videos BY TWO INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Using a plane to project the image of Flight 175 turned out to be a nearly perfect plan since the sound of the plane would be taken to be the sound of the projection. It did not occur to them that anyone might compare the locations/times of the projected image with those of the plane projecting the image, which would reveal it was 1,400 feet to the image’s right.
... the two parallel tracks of the “plane” as it approaches the tower in Richard Hall’s study of around 27 of the videos, which provides the same data as the one advanced by the NTSB, but where they are both matched by the radar reports of a second plane — which appears to be a real plane — that is 1,400' to the right (in both the South and the North Tower hits).
Apart from fantasy physics, do you reject the radar data that Richard Hall has discovered and explains in his study, which tracks a real plane that, unlike a hologram, shows up on radar but is flying 1,400' to the right of the projected image in the case of both tower “hits”?
Richard Hall does talk about cloaked planes. Dr. Fetzer? Not so much, but how else could it have flown a parallel path in full view of witnesses and numerous video cameras and not be noticed? How come the more accurate civilian radar didn't track such any plane (either the original or a 2nd) along the path mapped by the less accurate military radar data?
Mr. Tamborine Man wrote:
Should you refuse truthfully to answer any of the questions put before you above, then we will presume that you’re on the retreat, think no more about you, and leave you alone from now on!
What a bargain! Although I wanted to answer your stilted questions and address your malframed analysis, this is a deal that I can't pass up. You can claim that I'm retreating, but the fact of the matter is that you and Dr. Fetzer have been outflanked.
//
Señor El Once : chops for this skilful act
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,
*Clap* *clap* *clap*
It is the humble opinion of this exposed simple "con artist" that your September 3, 2012 at 2:09 am posting was a masterful performance! Bravo!
You recommend that I take my "problems" with Richard D. Hall's presentation to the man himself, sort of "person to person" you know... like "intelligent" people are supposed to do it, yet this not too bright a "child", who needs everything to be cut out in cardboard before he can vaguely sense what the talk is about doubts that such a cyber conversation would lead to corrections.
Meanwhile, allow me to give you chops for this skilful act regarding the nugget of truth from JREF (about radar system accuracy that you and Dr. Fetzer have not addressed):
"Condemn" isn’t half of it! "Disgusting conduct" would be a much better term. You had the bloody audacity, you who call yourself a "truth-seeker", to visit the jref site in order to find support for your silly opinions, "knowing" that the infamous gang of jreffers, as sycophantic supporters of a former corrupt and criminal government, would do anything, and use anything, to protect the "official story".
Nuggets of Truth don't change from being true based on who utters them.
Instead of lending support to your two brave "fellow truth-seekers", you decided to completely ignored them and their counter arguments. You never brought their contrary assertions over to this thread, so readers and posters here could make up their own minds about what sounded the more reasonable and sensible between the two opposing "camps"!
I don't follow team colors or team sports. I follow the truth, and recognize excellence in sportsmanship where ever it reveals itself.
And it really isn't a case of this not too bright a "child" and exposed simple "con artist" ignoring the counter-arguments. The true case is that, if those counter arguments had merit, you could have brought them up for lurker readers to make up their own minds. You didn't. Why? Because you couldn't defend them, maybe? Maybe because they were ludicrous to begin with, therefore the better tact for you to take is to "flame the messenger and condemn the source, and ignore the message."
In which case: Bravo! Magnifico! Excellente! Ausgezeichnet!
I love how some people's characters feel compelled to twist the patriotism knife:
Some people would call this a high degree of dishonesty bordering on "treason", and i could easily be one of those...
You could easily be one of those and one of many things, as well.
Adieu with *Kisses* and *Hugs"
// a naive, gullible, and treasonous not too bright a child and con artist pseudo-intellectual
No comments:
Post a Comment