Monday, June 27, 2011

9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job

9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job

Jim Fetzer

Many sober citizens are reluctant to conclude that 9/11 was an “inside job” because they cannot bring themselves to believe that their own government would deliberately kill 3,000 of their fellow citizens to promote a political agenda for the sake of oil, Israel, and ideology. The evidence, however, extends to the apparent use of video fakery on 9/11, which, I now believe, was necessary to create a pseudo-explanation for explosions in the sub-basements of both Twin Towers. Either should be sufficient to make the point, but in combination they are devastating.

Two studies that initially seem far removed from one another turn out to be intricately interrelated. In "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an 'inside job' " (original), http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html (also republished in a slightly revised version that does not affect the key points), Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong followed up on the report of an explosion in the subbasement of the North Tower PRIOR TO reverberations from the alleged plane impacts by William Rodriguez, the senior custodian in the North Tower, which he had lived through.

Using seismic data from a laboratory run by Columbia University and FAA and military radar data to establish the relationship between these "events', they found that explosions in the subbasements of both towers occurred 14-17 seconds before "impacts". They were meticulous in their research and their conclusions are well-supported by their data.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Data Table from "Seismic Proof"

When Willie mentioned to me that the subbasement had filled with water, I realized the principal purpose of those explosions had been to drain the sprinkler systems of water. Since most of the jet fuel burned up in spectacular fireballs within the first 15-20 seconds, the modest fires that remained could have been easily extinguished by the sprinklers, had they not been drained.

Evidence that the videos of the airplane impacts were faked -- which I have summarized in several arguments in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html -- thus appears to have been to effect a precise temporal coordination of the "impacts" occurring prior to the intended subsequent explosions as their pseudo-cause.

The reason is that the perps needed a semi-plausible explanation for why they had occurred at all. The one they chose was to claim that jet fuel had fallen through the elevator shafts and exploded in those basements. There are several problems with this account, however, including that the primary elevators are staggered in the towers, which means the fuel could not have fallen through them into the subbasements.

Another is that, while there are one or two that extend all the way up and down the towers, a co-worker of Willie was in one of those in the North Tower. He survived the experience without having been burned alive, which would have been his fate if the official account were correct. And, of course, there was a human error in coordinating the "impacts" with the explosions, where Ross and Furlong confirmed that the explosions actually happened first.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
"Fight 175" entering the South Tower

The indications of fakery here include that the plane – allegedly a Boeing 767 -- is traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed); it enters the building effortlessly with no loss of velocity, no impact, and no debris; and it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air – impossible unless a 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the plane’s trajectory than air!

Now it might seem reasonable, on first consideration, to suppose that it would have been simpler to use real planes instead of resorting to video fakery. The problem, however, is that hitting a target that is only 208' on a side is a very daunting task. Pilots for 9/11 Truth, for example, has reported that many of their members, who were far more highly qualified than any of the alleged "hijackers", had made repeated attempts to hit a 208' wide tower using a 767 simulator without success.

The only one of whom I know had any success was Rob Balsamo, who had one success in ten tries, where the speed of the plane (at 560 mph as seen in those videos) made it extremely difficult, indeed. In their efforts to GUARANTEE that those impacts would occur at the times required to "explain" the subbasement explosions, therefore, it was necessary to resort to the tactic of video fakery, where how it was done -- with CGIs, compositing, or holograms -- is an open question.

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at UMD, is the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, http://911scholars.org.

10 comments:

  1. your a wack job. The second plane flew directly over me at global terminal. your a fraud!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous,

    I appreciate your sincerity, but it is impossible for the image of the plane seen in these videos to be the image of a real plane. It is not only that it has an impossible speed and makes an impossible entry but that IT PASSES THROUGH ITS OWN LENGTH INTO THE BUILDING IN THE SAME NUMBER OF FRAMES IT PASSES THROUGH ITS OWN LENGTH IN AIR. That would be possible only if a 500,000 ton building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an airplane than air.

    This is the argument that convinced me--and I would hope that it will also convince you. There are many other hypotheses, such as the one you suggest, but only the holographic projection (which might actually have cloaked a missile, which I do not believe but I could be wrong) could satisfy the conditions of (a) impossible speed, (b) impossible entry, and (c) passing through its own length in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air.

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim,

    The high tech flying object did in fact shoot a missile throught WTC 2 on 9/11/2011

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow that was strange. I just wrote an incredibly long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn't show up. Grrrr... well I'm not writing all that over again.
    indian web hosting companies

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim,
    I see the Judy Wood theory, why not also the Dimitri Khalezov theory. (much more plausible) http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/Dimitri_Khalezov_911thology.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I interviewed Dimitri on "The Real Deal", which you can find by doing a search at radiofetzer.blogspot.com. His theory of 150kt bombs beneath the buildings is contradicted by (a) the gross differences in the demolition of WTC-7 versus WTC-1 and WTC-2; (b) such explosions beneath WTC-1 and WTC-2 would have shattered the bathtub and allowed Hudson River water to flood beneath lower Manhattan, the subway tunnels and the PATH train tunnels, which did not happen; and (c) he insists that the towers were demolish from the bottom/up, not the top/down, where the appearance of the twins still being intact until the demolition sequence reached them is supposed to be an illusion. My take is that this indefensible theory was intended to discredit mini-nuke theories generally, when that inference does not follow. Thanks for asking, because most students of 9/11 are unaware of (a), (b) and (c).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Firstly, as a physicist, I have to disagree with some of your conclusions. Thank you for the seismic data. The theory about draining the water /destroying pipes makes a lot of sense. Of course, 9-11 was an inside job, but the planes were real planes (maybe not the ones they say they were, but they were real). There are too many witnesses to that effect. I was watching CNN when the second plane hit. I saw it coming in.
    Now, about slowing down upon impact. Not everything slowed down. A large part of the jet fuel went through the structure with little to no resistence, as well as a titanium shaft and other pieces of the plane. Most of the plane, in fact did slow down and come to a stop.
    This is one reason why the structure did not superheat. The fuel had already been disipated and burned up as it left the other side of the impact site.
    About the speeds being impossible and so on. I have to trust the experts on that one and say it was highly unlikely amateurs pulled this off. However it is extremely likely that the planes were laser guided. There are plenty of cruise missiles which can hit to within a few feet of their target. In fact it is the only known technology which can do this. It would not have been hard to paint a target on WTC 1 & 2.
    Keep up the good work. However I would automatically censor anyone with theories that these planes were anything but planes (i.e. holograms). I have a feeling these people are disinformation agents and they make the whole 9-11 truth movement look rediculous. I don't care if its true (it's not), just censor it, otherwise you lose all credibility. Sometimes you got to know when to stop.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, then we are going to have to "automatically censor" ME! Check out my "9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'", VT, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/ No other theory can accommodate the evidence. Get back and tell me what you think I have wrong, because you appear to be mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The fake video images on TV were delayed 14 or 17 seconds too, that would explain it. The explosions were the cut-out would occur and the delayed fake video images to give time to the fakers to insert the fake videos.
    Great work, comrade!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can´t open http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html

    ReplyDelete