Jim Fetzer responds to David Lifton's claims regarding 9-11

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

That's just fine, Matthew Lewis. I am very disappointed in you. I at least though you would display the least respect for logic and evidence. I am doing what I can to expose falsehoods and reveal truths. You, however, do not appear to share that agenda. That you cannot even acknowledge that no Boeing 757 could have hit lampposts without breaking its wings, its fuel bursting into flames, and losing its trajectory, I know that I'm not dealing with someone who has the same objectives. But I agree that there is something despicable here.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? To help you out I've bolded what I said and what you warped it into. DON'T twist my words to suit your agenda. That's really a despicable thing to do. I NEVER said I didn't care about the truth or my country. But I don't care to argue with the likes of someone like you.

The lampposts were addressed by someone else and as I said "All I wanted to comment on is the ground effect falsehood that you are still spouting despite the available evidence and our previous discussion. That's all I really care about right now."

Now, are you done trying to put words in my mouth? Because I'm done with you.

Very impressive, Matthew Lewis. Where did I get the impression you care about the truth or your country.

Very sad. You haven't even addressed a plane flying 500 mph encountering a lamppost floating in space!

I don't claim to "know it all", Matt, but I am a former Marine Corps officer and DO CARE about my country.

Where did you get the impression I care what you think? Why would the thrust have an appreciable effect when it was at any one point for a fraction of a second? Remember the high speed and all? How long do you think it took to cross that lawn? As for the engines, the wings of nearly every plane flex upward in flight. They are designed to. They wouldn't be hanging quite as low as some think.

All I wanted to comment on is the ground effect falsehood that you are still spouting despite the available evidence and our previous discussion. That's all I really care about right now.

Matt, Think about this. You are offering only one rebuttal, which would not salvage the official account even if you are right! Do you understand that? Scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available evidence, not simply part of it. And if a Boeing 757 had been just skimming the ground at 500 mph and low enough to hit lampposts, it would have been disrupting the lawn with its thrust effect, if not its low-hanging engines. But that is falsified by the completely clear, green, unblemished lawn. Do you see that?

While I am glad you are thinking about this, I really hate to see someone who appears to be sincere taken in by a host of bad arguments. I hope you can see that, even if I were to grant you the point that you claim about ground effect, that is only one part of a theory proven false on multiple grounds. I don't like seeing anyone being played for a sap, which is the indelible impression I have of the pastime of certain others who are posting here. Even if I am wrong about that specific point, the official account cannot possibly be true.

Edited May 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Matthew Lewis]

That's just fine, Matthew Lewis. I am very disappointed in you.

I'm really broken up about that, believe me.

I at least though you would display the least respect for logic and evidence.

Respect? That's funny after how you twisted my words.

I am doing what I can to expose falsehoods and reveal truths.

Falsehoods? Like deliberately twisting other people's words to make them look like they don't care about truth or their country? Yeah, keep working on that.

You, however, do not appear to share that agenda.

You have no idea what I do or do not share. Don't presume that you do.

That you cannot even acknowledge that no Boeing 757 could have hit lampposts without breaking its wings, its fuel bursting into flames, and losing its trajectory, I know that I'm not dealing with someone who has the same objectives.

What part of I only wanted to comment on one thing do you not understand? You don't know what I think about the lampposts or the rest because I ONLY WANTED TO COMMENT ON ONE THING.

But I agree that there is something despicable here.

You looking in the mirror now?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Someone who can't admit an obvious truth about a plane encountering a lamppost in space is not going to be on the side of truth and justice in research on 9/11. Your childish attitude is extremely impressive!

That's just fine, Matthew Lewis. I am very disappointed in you.

I'm really broken up about that, believe me.

I at least though you would display the least respect for logic and evidence.

Respect? That's funny after how you twisted my words.

I am doing what I can to expose falsehoods and reveal truths.

Falsehoods? Like deliberately twisting other people's words to make them look like they don't care about truth or their country? Yeah, keep working on that.

You, however, do not appear to share that agenda.

You have no idea what I do or do not share. Don't presume that you do.

That you cannot even acknowledge that no Boeing 757 could have hit lampposts without breaking its wings, its fuel bursting into flames, and losing its trajectory, I know that I'm not dealing with someone who has the same objectives.

What part of I only wanted to comment on one thing do you not understand? You don't know what I think about the lampposts or the rest because I ONLY WANTED TO COMMENT ON ONE THING.

But I agree that there is something despicable here.

You looking in the mirror now?

Edited May 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

That's what I thought you'd say. I believe we have discussed this before. Ground effect DECREASES as speed increases and as angle of attack decreases (both of which the plane would have had) and is negligible at high speeds as it is caused by induced drag. Even IF it was present, it will NOT prevent the aircraft from approaching the ground, it would just make it slightly more difficult. I've produced links before showing the above to be true. I'm not surprised that you ignored it before.

It's called "ground effect", which is the accumulation of a pocket of compressed gas (air)

beneath the fuselage in flight. I have discussed this with pilots and aeronautical engineers,

who explained to me that a Boeing 757 at full throttle could not get closer than one wing length

to the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible. (Evan

Burton is a pilot and has to know this, even though he is not about to admit that it is true.) Check

out Pilots for 9/11 Truth and its "Pandora's Black Box" on the plane that appears to have flown

over the Pentagon, CIT's "National Security Alert" on the witnesses they have found who report

seeing the plane approach NORTH of the Citgo station, when the official trajectory has it SOUTH

of the Citgo station, and Pilot's new study, "9/11 Intercepted", about anomalies with the planes.

If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,

Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is?

FYI: I am the "David" Prof. Fetzer was addressing, in a prior post.

Thank you for posting these informed rebuttals to the nonsense that Fetzer is promulgating. As you will find out, he is compulsively disputatious and no amount of data will change his mind. Ever. He will always have a rebuttal, and it never ends. If you have studied mathematics, you will understand when I say that his arguments and endless rebuttals are the equivalent of a non-convergent Taylor series.

At least he is now "quarantined" to this "restricted area" in cyberspace, and I do love the title of the thread. (Perhaps only one additional word should be added: "endlessly".) I shall resist commenting further for fear of violating forum rules.

Good luck with your career in the Air Force.

David S. Lifton

Author, BEST EVIDENCE

Edited May 28, 2011 by David Lifton

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

That you continue to bring discredit upon yourself is rather stunning. After you have subjected yourself to the embarrassment of the long thread you initiated on utterly irresponsible grounds, now you are going to feign you have any idea--even the most remote!--about aerodynamics and the Pentagon? I was introduced to ground effect by a pilot who is also an aeronautical engineer. I have no good reason to doubt what he explained to me back in 2006. But if you understood this thread, you would realize that, even if I were wrong (because he was mistaken, which I very much doubt), it wouldn't matter, because the official account of the hit on the Pentagon is defeated on multiple grounds, many of which I have explained here. Do you really think you can spend fifteen or twenty minutes here and understand what's going on?

I am very disappointed, not just in Matthew Lewis, but in you, David S. Lifton, who apparently hasn't learned a thing from this entire prolonged experience. The consequences for you, however, are going to be quite substantial, because no one in the JFK community is going to be able to regard you in the same way again. Not only have you been unable to demonstrate that I have anything wrong about 9/11 (which you have never studied and do not understand), but you have exposed your gross irrationality about JFK itself (by holding fast to the provable absurdity that all the shots were fired from in front). Extending this misconceived adventure here was another blunder in a seemingly endless string. Mark my words, David, no one is going to regard you with the same degree of respect ever again in the JFK community! Ever! Congratulations!

Jim

That's what I thought you'd say. I believe we have discussed this before. Ground effect DECREASES as speed increases and as angle of attack decreases (both of which the plane would have had) and is negligible at high speeds as it is caused by induced drag. Even IF it was present, it will NOT prevent the aircraft from approaching the ground, it would just make it slightly more difficult. I've produced links before showing the above to be true. I'm not surprised that you ignored it before.

It's called "ground effect", which is the accumulation of a pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage in flight. I have discussed this with pilots and aeronautical engineers, who explained to me that a Boeing 757 at full throttle could not get closer than one wing length to the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible. (Evan Burton is a pilot and has to know this, even though he is not about to admit that it is true.) Check out Pilots for 9/11 Truth and its "Pandora's Black Box" on the plane that appears to have flown over the Pentagon, CIT's "National Security Alert" on the witnesses they have found who report seeing the plane approach NORTH of the Citgo station, when the official trajectory has it SOUTH of the Citgo station, and Pilot's new study, "9/11 Intercepted", about anomalies with the planes.

If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,

Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is?

Thank you for posting these informed rebuttals to the nonsense that Fetzer is promulgating. As you will find out, he is compulsively disputatious and no amount of data will change his mind. He will always have a rebuttal, and it never ends. If you have studied mathematics, you will understand when I tell you that his arguments and his endless rebuttals are the equivalent of a non-convergent Taylor series.

At least he is now "quarantined" to this "restricted area" in cyberspace, and I do love the title of the thread. . .I don't want to comment further for fear of violating forum rules.

Good luck with your career in the Air Force.

David S. Lifton

Author, BEST EVIDENCE

Edited May 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

And precisely which FDR data are you citing in that last quote, Evan? The FDR data that the NTSB provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which corresponded to a commercial carrier flying at 300 feet above the ground--too high to hit any lampposts--on a due east trajectory--not the acute north-east trajectory of the official account--and was 100 feet above the building at one second from impact--which means it swerved over the building rather than hit it, as my friend's trucker buddy reported. Pilots explained all of this in "Pandora's Black Box". So what FDR data are you talking about? This sounds fake. Kindly spell it out.

The FDR data is immaterial to this point; so please don't try and change the subject.

How do YOU address all the numerous qualified people who say it would not have affected the aircraft? How do you dispute the various videos of doing things that you claim are impossible?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You brought it up, not I, Evan Burton. So you are the one who is attempting to change the subject. I take that as an implied admission that you committed a blunder. But no matter. Set ground effect aside. I now ask you what Matthew Lewis was unwilling to address: What would happen if a Boeing 757 flying at 500 mph hit a lamppost floating in space (not connected to the ground, but upright in relation to the plane)?

And precisely which FDR data are you citing in that last quote, Evan? The FDR data that the NTSB provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which corresponded to a commercial carrier flying at 300 feet above the ground--too high to hit any lampposts--on a due east trajectory--not the acute north-east trajectory of the official account--and was 100 feet above the building at one second from impact--which means it swerved over the building rather than hit it, as my friend's trucker buddy reported. Pilots explained all of this in "Pandora's Black Box". So what FDR data are you talking about? This sounds fake. Kindly spell it out.

The FDR data is immaterial to this point; so please don't try and change the subject.

How do YOU address all the numerous qualified people who say it would not have affected the aircraft? How do you dispute the various videos of doing things that you claim are impossible?

Edited May 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

David,

That you continue to bring discredit upon yourself is rather stunning. After you have subjected yourself to the embarrassment of the long thread you initiated on utterly irresponsible grounds, now you are going to feign you have any idea--even the most remote!--about aerodynamics and the Pentagon?

[snip]

. . .the official account of the hit on the Pentagon is defeated on multiple grounds, many of which I have explained here. Do you really think you can spend fifteen or twenty minutes here and understand what's going on?

I am very disappointed, not just in Matthew Lewis, but in you, David S. Lifton, who apparently hasn't learned a thing from this entire prolonged experience. [snip]

Jim

Professor Fetzer. . .

There's something you don't seem to understand, because you keep repeating the same tiresome worn-out argument to the effect that "how could I know this?" and "how could I know that?" --as if you are blessed with special knowledge no one else has.

I was privileged to get a very good education. At Cornell, I was in the Engineering Physics program--a five year enterprise--and then at UCLA, I had three more years of physics and electrical engineering.

Specifically, as it relates to issues that are "9/11 connected": At Cornell, one of the courses I took was Structures--which actually dealt with buildings (yes!); and also a course in Aerodynamics, taught by the famous professor Sears, and using the same text as was then used at Cal-Tech, "Liepman and Roshko."

Moreover, I was in Air Force ROTC, so I actually went up in planes once in a while.

Although I am not an architect, nor a building designer, nor a pilot, I am perfectly comfortable reading technical literature, and I have enough of an education to follow a technical argument, and enough common sense to know what is sensible, and what flies in the face of evidence, and/or is hare-brained and absurd.

Contrary to your numerous assertions, I have read much written by the 9/11 Truthers, and I don't accept their arguments. For starters, I think many of these people began by watching some news film on TV of a building being demolished--so they saw what a vertical collapse looks like--and then saw footage of the World Trade Center buildings falling; and then they jumped to the (false) conclusion that "Oh, that looks just like a controlled demolition!". That was then joined with some political anger at Bush-Cheney, and soon they were off and running with the screwy notion that 9/11 was an "inside job."

Of course, you, Professor, are in a different universe: No planes hitting the building, TV imagery which is all faked; no trips to the moon, a missile (and not a plane) hitting the Pentagon, airline wreckage that was from a crash in Columbia, years ago, and then deposited on the Pentagon lawn by a low-flying C-130. . does it ever occur to you, Professor Fetzer, that there are better things to do in your retirement, than to push such nonsense?

Let me assure you that I have a perfectly adequate education to read "both sides" of these arguments, and make an informed judgement as to what is sane, and what appears to me to be totally fantastic and irrational.

And that's why I sounded the warning I did, on the Kennedy assassination thread. I don't want to be associated in any way, shape, or form, with anyone who promotes this nonsense. I'm not going to tell you that I think you've lost your marbles, because I don't believe that at all. I think you're just starved for attention. Unfortunateliy, I believe you have completely destroyed your credibility by marching down this path.

I have class mates who are connected with the Hubble telescope project, the U.S. space program, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Someone recently informed me that one of them lurks over at these forums and they think what you are promoting is some kind of a joke.

I don't want to be seen in that light, Professor.

But its a free country, and you are welcome to keep on pursuing these rather unusual beliefs of which you are so enamoured, and to which you subscribe, with such a sense of certainty.

DSL

5/27/28; 2 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

[Dave Greer]

So who are we going to believe: Len Colby or our lying eyes? You are too much, Len. Really! Let's try this one for size to see how much you are willing to stretch credulity in defense of an impossible story:

Now since this frame (conveniently labeled "plane") was released by the Pentagon, while the plane shown is far too small to be a Boeing 757, which is it: fake footage it released or the plane was not a 757?

Please can you demonstrate how you calibrated the size of the superimposed plane in this image.

Please can you also demonstrate how you took into consideration how the angle of incidence of the plane's approach relative to the Pentagon would affect it's appearance and relative length as seen from the security camera. (Hint below).

[Craig Lamson]

So who are we going to believe: Len Colby or our lying eyes? You are too much, Len. Really! Let's try this one for size to see how much you are willing to stretch credulity in defense of an impossible story:

Now since this frame (conveniently labeled "plane") was released by the Pentagon, while the plane shown is far too small to be a Boeing 757, which is it: fake footage it released or the plane was not a 757?

Please can you demonstrate how you calibrated the size of the superimposed plane in this image.

Please can you also demonstrate how you took into consideration how the angle of incidence of the plane's approach relative to the Pentagon would affect it's appearance and relative length as seen from the security camera. (Hint below).

Oh man Dave..don't bring photographic PERSPECTIVE into this discussion! That will just totally screw up Fetzer.

And lets not forget how motion blur changes the way an object is recorded on film or a digital sensor...

Edited May 28, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

That you continue to persist in making allegations that you have proven unable to substantiate

simply astounds me. You appear to have made no effort at all to study any of this. How can

you have studied this thread, as an example, and not concede that there are obvious problems

with the official account, where there is no evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon? If

you can't grasp that elementary point, I can't see that there is any hope for you. Reason and

rationality cannot be elements of your intellect and mentality when I have explained them with

this degree of specificity. And if you can continue with this charade at this point in time, I can

no longer respect you. Even now, you haven't shown I have anything wrong--and if I am wrong

about ground effect, you haven't shown it--where we have multiple proofs that no Boeing 757 hit the

building. You have now and forever forfeited your credibility. Regarding projection, you are the

one who is infatuated with himself. If I were to sign my name as you have above--"Author, BEST

EVIDENCE"--there would be twenty-eight more lines beneath my signature. Your obsession with JFK

and narcissism are apparent to everyone who has access to these threads. Here's another chance

to demonstrate that your education has not served you well, since you still buy into absurdities:

"9/11 Fake: Cartoon Flight 175"

Just for a little background, the plane shown in these videos is traveling at 560 mph at an

altitude of 700-1,000 feet. That's a 767's cruising speed at 35,000 feet, but the air there is

three times thinner; at this lower altitude, the engines cannot suck the air through their

turbines and they begin functioning as brakes. In addition, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has now

released a new documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", which explains that, not only is the plane

traveling at an impossible speed, but it would have been unmanageable in flight and broken

apart. In addition, as this video clip displays, the plane actually disappears into the 500,000

ton South Tower without displaying any effects from the collision of an aluminum flying can

with a steel and concrete reinforced building. It is intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel

and concrete posing enormous horizontal resistance. If that is not enough, the plane passes

through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through

its own length in air--a physical impossibility, unless that enormous building posed no more

resistance to its flight path than air! I can't wait for you to "explain away" these violations

of Newton's laws. Indeed, this is a nice test of the extent to which you have lost your way.

Jim

David,

That you continue to bring discredit upon yourself is rather stunning. After you have subjected yourself to the embarrassment of the long thread you initiated on utterly irresponsible grounds, now you are going to feign you have any idea--even the most remote!--about aerodynamics and the Pentagon?

[snip]

. . .the official account of the hit on the Pentagon is defeated on multiple grounds, many of which I have explained here. Do you really think you can spend fifteen or twenty minutes here and understand what's going on?

I am very disappointed, not just in Matthew Lewis, but in you, David S. Lifton, who apparently hasn't learned a thing from this entire prolonged experience. [snip]

Jim

Professor Fetzer. . .

There's something you don't seem to understand, because you keep repeating the same tiresome worn-out argument to the effect that "how could I know this?" and "how could I know that?" --as if you are blessed with special knowledge no one else has.

I was privileged to get a very good education. At Cornell, I was in the Engineering Physics program--a five year enterprise--and then at UCLA, I had three more years of physics and electrical engineering.

Specifically, as it relates to issues that are "9/11 connected": At Cornell, one of the courses I took was Structures--which actually dealt with buildings (yes!); and also a course in Aerodynamics, taught by the famous professor Sears, and using the same text as was then used at Cal-Tech, "Liepman and Roshko."

Moreover, I was in Air Force ROTC, so I actually went up in planes once in a while.

Although I am not an architect, nor a building designer, nor a pilot, I am perfectly comfortable reading technical literature, and I have enough of an education to follow a technical argument, and enough common sense to know what is sensible, and what flies in the face of evidence, and/or is hare-brained and absurd.

Contrary to your numerous assertions, I have read much written by the 9/11 Truthers, and I don't accept their arguments. For starters, I think many of these people began by watching some news film on TV of a building being demolished--so they saw what a vertical collapse looks like--and then saw footage of the World Trade Center buildings falling; and then they jumped to the (false) conclusion that "Oh, that looks just like a controlled demolition!". That was then joined with some political anger at Bush-Cheney, and soon they were off and running with the screwy notion that 9/11 was an "inside job."

Of course, you, Professor, are in a different universe: No planes hitting the building, TV imagery which is all faked; no trips to the moon, a missile (and not a plane) hitting the Pentagon, airline wreckage that was from a crash in Columbia, years ago, and then deposited on the Pentagon lawn by a low-flying C-130. . does it ever occur to you, Professor Fetzer, that there are better things to do in your retirement, than to push such nonsense?

Let me assure you that I have a perfectly adequate education to read "both sides" of these arguments, and make an informed judgement as to what is sane, and what appears to me to be totally fantastic and irrational.

And that's why I sounded the warning I did, on the Kennedy assassination thread. I don't want to be associated in any way, shape, or form, with anyone who promotes this nonsense. I'm not going to tell you that I think you've lost your marbles, because I don't believe that at all. I think you're just starved for attention. Unfortunateliy, I believe you have completely destroyed your credibility by marching down this path.

I have class mates who are connected with the Hubble telescope project, the U.S. space program, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Someone recently informed me that one of them lurks over at these forums and they think what you are promoting is some kind of a joke.

I don't want to be seen in that light, Professor.

But its a free country, and you are welcome to keep on pursuing these rather unusual beliefs of which you are so enamoured, and to which you subscribe, with such a sense of certainty.

DSL

5/27/28; 2 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Edited May 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lifton is not going quietly into the dark night. He now proclaims that,

Contrary to your numerous assertions, I have read much written by the 9/11 Truthers, and I don't accept their arguments. For starters, I think many of these people began by watching some news film on TV of a building being demolished--so they saw what a vertical collapse looks like--and then saw footage of the World Trade Center buildings falling; and then they jumped to the (false) conclusion that "Oh, that looks just like a controlled demolition!". That was then joined with some political anger at Bush-Cheney, and soon they were off and running with the screwy notion that 9/11 was an "inside job."

But he doesn't say that he has ever read ANYTHING of mine. And even

at this point it time, he probably hasn't. Which means that he cannot

possibly know whether my evidence and arguments are the same as

theirs. Jim Hoffman, for example, insists that the absence of evidence

of a Boeing 757 having crashed at the Pentagon should be "off limits"

on the ground that the Department of Defense might release another

video that actually shows it happening, which is more than a stretch.

If he hasn't read my stuff, how can he possibly know that I am wrong?

Interestingly, Hoffman suggests that the energy deficit in demolishing

the Twin Towers is so great that its explanation may involve the use of

directed energy weapons--one among several alternative possibilities

that deserve investigation, since we don't yet know how it was done.

Alex Jones, for another, won't consider video fakery or the possibility

that those were phantom flights because, like Lifton, it is beyond the

range of his imagination. They both could benefit from the study of

my "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11". But that's asking too much.

Even now, Lifton has yet to respond to EVEN ONE of my arguments.

There are also some who want to insist that some kind of collapse took

place. But the towers were among the best constructed buildings ever

designed by the hand of man. The steel is six-inches thick in the sub-

basements, tapers to five, four, and down to 1/2 to 1/4 inch at the top.

For the 14 floors above the 96th of the North Tower, where the alleged

impact occurred, to "collapse" the rest of the building, which was stone-

cold steel, would require 1.4% of the steel to overcome 98.6%. It could

no more have collapsed than a stack of silver dollars, fifty cent pieces,

and quarters welded together would from dropping a few dimes on it.

Lifton touts his vast background with regard to science, including of

course physics, and his understanding of technical issues. But that is

preposterous, considering that, as I have long since explained, those

fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough for the steel to have

weakened, much less melted. Even NIST acknowledged it had studied

236 samples from the debris and found that 233 had not been exposed

to temperatures above 500*F and the others not above 1200*F. Since

the fires were asymmetrically distributed, even if they had burned hot

enough and long enough to weaken the steel, there would have been

some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and

total sequence of demolition that occurred. (See, for example, "New

9/11 Photos Released".) He appears to have lost his ability to think.

Jim

David Lifton spent 15 or 20 minutes on the other thread on the Pentagon,

"Jim Fetzer talks about 9/11"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17744&st=0

which Evan Burton named (the creation of which was a deliberate effort

to disrupt my argument, which obviously belonged in this thread), but

Lifton doesn't even seem to realize that. In any case, I think it is VERY

INTERESTING to see how he is attempting to parlay differences between

me and another to his advantage, even though he has no more idea of

what is going on there than he has about any aspect of 9/11. I thought

we were ending this, but Lifton continues to abuse logic and evidence.

Edited May 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This statement by Lifton is extraordinarily revealing of his research methodology. Apparently,

he reasoned to these conclusions early on and long before I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

Contrary to your numerous assertions, I have read much written by the 9/11 Truthers, and I don't accept their arguments. For starters, I think many of these people began by watching some news film on TV of a building being demolished--so they saw what a vertical collapse looks like--and then saw footage of the World Trade Center buildings falling; and then they jumped to the (false) conclusion that "Oh, that looks just like a controlled demolition!". That was then joined with some political anger at Bush-Cheney, and soon they were off and running with the screwy notion that 9/11 was an "inside job."

He appears to have such supreme confidence in his reasoning here that he hasn't bothered to

read any of my posts that present arguments, which, I am now willing to conjecture, Lifton has

never read. It astounds me to say that, but it appears to be true. And I suppose he thinks the

1,400+ members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are equally naive, that the members

of Pilots for 9/11 Truth don't know what they are talking about, and that the Fire Fighters for 9/11

Truth, who include many who were involved in the event, also don't know what they are talking

about? Has he never visited http://patriotsquestion911.com? I now believe that his mind is so

closed that he cannot bring himself to actually study the evidence. And that speaks volumes!

Edited May 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

Again with the burgandy

Cheney/Rumsfeld scheduling 4 or 5 air defense drills on the same day as the attack;

Which they would surely NOT HAVE DONE, if

they knew the attack was coming and wanted it to succeed.

It took 20 minutes to scramble jets to get after Payne Stewart. It took 8 minutes longer to scramble jets on 9/11 and the jets flew at half-speed. There was mass confusion due to the false hi-jacking signals on the FAA big board and all commercial flights had to be grounded.

It's only a question of what Cheney/Rumsfeld were guilty of -- criminal incompetence or outright treason.

buildings collapsing in near free-fall speed in the direction of greatest resistance;

I am not an engineer, but surely the FORCE of GRAVITY was involved.

So 75 floors of redundantly reinforced steel and concrete would have minimal impact on the force of gravity?

Sir Isaac Newton sez otherwise.

one of the paymasters of the hijackers spending a week in Washington before the attacks

Which he never would have done if he was in Washington's pay.

They could have given him his instructions anywhere,

e.g. Maine

I'm not speculating that Mahmoud Ahmed of the Pakistani ISI was in Washington's pay. I think that elements of the Pakistani military/intel community colluded with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and the Cheney/Rumsfeld neo-cons to pull off 9/11. Each faction had their own agenda.

I also suspect that it was the WTC security firm Securacom who wired the buildings to fall.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

perhaps Mr. Lifton now finds these issues more legit?

Can't speak for Mr. Lifton, but to me these questions

SEEM ABSURD!

Contentless dismissal.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

RC:To paraphrase CSP, why waste time inquiring into something

if you have no REAL doubt about what happened?

There are real doubts about what happened. And why.

Again, why did the 9-11 Commission not do the FAA/NORAD reconstruction? Maybe because it would have proven that at least one of the hijacked planes should have been intercepted?

Which would have indicated that the multiple War Games simulation tests had something to do with the delay.

And this of course would have then perhaps cast Mineta's testimony in a darker hue.

And why Zelikow was the guy who had to be the DIrector of the Commission.

Where are the volumes of testimony and exhibits so that people can check the database from which the conclusions were drawn?

Maybe Zelikow learned his lesson from the WC perhaps?

To ignore this, and many other things--like the multiplicity of warnings, perhaps as many as 20--this is just irresponsible. And it shows a lack of knowledge of the case and a reliance on agenda driven and extremely biased "Debunking sites" that reason in a circular pattern. That is "the 9-11 Commission report investigated this and found nothing sinister about it". Yeah sure, someone wins like five million on the stock market, does not claim it, and there is nothing odd about that.

Sort of like McAdams writing, "The FBI did a thorough search of Oswald's background and found no evidence he had any association with the intelligence community."

Oh wait. That's not McAdams, its Ray Carroll.

To bring this back to subject,

Zelikow was brought to the 9/11 Commission from the Miller Center, where he had worked with Max Holland and others on the Presidential Tapes - specifically JFK's tapes from the Oval Office and Air Force One. They were reprimanded by the head of the Kennedy Library for the inaccuracy of their transcripts - ie. during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Gen. LeMay said to the President that "you're in a pretty bad fix" to which the the Miller Center's transcript said the president's reply was unintelligible when in fact he said, "And you're in it with me."

The Miller Center is also financially supported by the Scripps Foundation - as in Scripps-Howard News Service (SHNS), and is home of the Scripps Library. (See: JFK & Journalists - Real Dizinfo Agents At Dealey Plaza - CTKA).

At the 9/11 Commission Zelikow went to Afghanistan where he met with Capt. and later Col. Anthony Shaffer, who told him that he had previously been head of Able Danger and a secret unit that utilized all available information to track al Qaeda and pinpointed some of the 9/11 hijackers in the USA on a chart before 9/11. After the 9/11 Report came out and this was not mentioned, Shaffer and Rep. Curt Weldon (R. Pa.) brought out this fact and were censured. Weldon's daughter was exposed as having obtained PR contracts from her father's friends and he was defeated in the next election. Shaffer wrote a book about the whole thing (Operation Dark Heat - available on Kindle). While Shaffer's book was previewed and okayed by the intelligence office of his unit (US Army Reserves), it was recalled by the Defense Intelligence Agency and NSA and the entire first edition run destroyed, though a few copies got out. The second edition was published with complete paragraphs removed, much like Marcetti and Marks' book The CIA & Cult of Intelligence was in the 70s.

When the 9/11 Commission staff was asked why Shaffer's info was not included in its report, they replied that it was not the message they wanted to get out.

These incidents tell us that we cannot trust people like Zelikow, the Miller Center, Scripps Howard, or the DIA.

It also shows how there is still a firewall between the regular Army Intelligence, DIA and the US Army Reserves Intelligence (which Col. Jose Rivera was a part, as well as the officer in the lead car in the motorcade).

BK

JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com

Edited May 28, 2011 by William Kelly