"Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, I am neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer, but I did offer links to several sources at the start,

which I gather you have not pursued. One is the result of my research on what happened at the Pentagon:

James H. Fetzer, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

The other is a link to an affidavit by one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, John Lear:

John Lear, Affidavit in the Judy Wood Lawsuit, http://911scholars.ning.com/main/search/search?q=John+Lear+affidavit

where John explains that a 767 could not have flown as fast as shown in the videos of the hit on the

South Tower, which was around 560 mph, which approximates its cruising speed at 35,000 feet altitude,

not 700-1,000 feet where the air is three times denser. So I am interested in knowing whether it is your

opinion that a 757 could have flown at 500 mph close to the ground IGNORING GROUND EFFECT.

I am perfectly willing to contact John and Nila with your contentions about a 757 flying at 500 mph

on a horizontal trajectory into the Pentagon. It didn't happen, of course, but we are debating the

point of whether or not it would have been aerodynamically possible. My inference is that it is not,

you are contending that it is. So tell me about the speed, too, and I'll also discuss that with them.

And of course I am not suggesting there is a "cushion of air holding the plane up" but rather a pocket

of compressed air that constrains how close the plane can get to the ground at that speed. So just as

you want to hold me to some standard of precision, I would appreciate your reciprocation by not mis-

representing me. Nothing is "holding the plane up and making it 'float'", which you wrongly ascribe to me.

Matt, I could tell you thought you had some special competence in this area. But as I understand it--

with which you are of course in disagreement--the compressed gas beneath the fuselage and wings of a

commercial carrier flying near the ground at high speed would make it impossible to get closer to the

ground than about a wing's length. Planes are only able to land because they decrease their airspeed

and the packet of compressed gas diminishes, which of course is what happens in normal fight. Now if

Nila was wrong in his explanation to me at LAX in June 2006, then I may be mistaken. But he is very

competent and I have no reason to suppose that I am wrong, with due respect to you and your buddy.

The compressed air explanation of ground effect is wrong as shown on the references I previously posted. Even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't change the FACT that ground effect DECREASES as speed INCREASES

These quotes specifically

First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

This dependency is rather simple to remember--if speed is high, angle of attack is low. If speed is low, angle of attack must be high. Furthermore, when angle of attack is low, we have seen that induced drag is also low. If induced drag is low, the downwash generated by the wing must be small. If downwash is small, then the trailing vortices must be relatively narrow in diameter. If the trailing vortices are narrow, then the proximity of the ground can have little effect on their formation and ground effect will be minimal by definition.

And this quote which explains Nila

Another common phenomenon that is misunderstood is that of ground effect. That is the increased efficiency of a wing when flying within a wing length of the ground. A low-wing airplane will experience a reduction in drag by 50% just before it touches down. There is a great deal of confusion about ground effect. Many pilots (and the FAA VFR Exam-O-Gram No. 47) mistakenly believe that ground effect is the result of air being compressed between the wing and the ground.

And this graphic

Notice specifically how ground effect (and lift itself) is less with lower angles of attack

Of course, it a plane were not flying on the horizontal, the situation would be different, which was

why you wanted to disregard the horizontal flight trajectory.

No, if you had noticed I said a horizontal trajectory would mean a LOW or ZERO angle of attack which supports me.

I think my understanding is consistent with http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml, but no doubt there are

more complex ways to explain it. That is how I have understood "ground effect" to function from Nila.

It would have been impossible to fly just skimming the ground on a horizontal approach at 500 mph.

Even though that site says this?

"there is no "cushion of air" holding the plane up and making it "float." "

It in no way indicates that it would impossible to fly horizontal at high speeds.

Edited August 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Matthew Lewis]

Well, I am neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer, but I did offer links to several sources at the start,

which I gather you have not pursued. One is the result of my research on what happened at the Pentagon:

James H. Fetzer, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

The other is a link to an affidavit by one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, John Lear:

John Lear, Affidavit in the Judy Wood Lawsuit, http://911scholars.ning.com/main/search/search?q=John+Lear+affidavit

where John explains that a 767 could not have flown as fast as shown in the videos of the hit on the

South Tower, which was around 560 mph, which approximates its cruising speed at 35,000 feet altitude,

not 700-1,000 feet where the air is three times denser. So I am interested in knowing whether it is your

opinion that a 757 could have flown at 500 mph close to the ground IGNORING GROUND EFFECT.

I am perfectly willing to contact John and Nila with your contentions about a 757 flying at 500 mph

on a horizontal trajectory into the Pentagon. It didn't happen, of course, but we are debating the

point of whether or not it would have been aerodynamically possible. My inference is that it is not,

you are contending that it is. So tell me about the speed, too, and I'll also discuss that with them.

Could it fly at 500mph close to the ground ignoring ground effect? I don't know. I seen statements both ways from qualified parties but I don't have the knowledge nor the personal experience to speculate, so I won't. I don't really care either. I've commented on what I have knowledge of. Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.

[Greg Burnham]

Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.

Please pardon the intrusion, Jim, and not to break the integrity of your thread, but Matthew's position, as stated in the above sentence, reminds me of Lamson's position regarding JFK. Neither of them care about the core issues contained within the TOPIC of the threads! Lamson has stated that he doesn't care about JFK and Lewis doesn't "really" care about most of 911. Yet both post and argue their respective points with vigor...indeed even argue at times quite passionately--to advance positions on subjects that neither of them care about.

Fascinating...

Edited August 25, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Matthew Lewis]

Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.

Please pardon the intrusion, Jim, and not to break the integrity of your thread, but Matthew's position, as stated in the above sentence, reminds me of Lamson's position regarding JFK. Neither of them care about the core issues contained within the TOPIC of the threads! Lamson has stated that he doesn't care about JFK and Lewis doesn't "really" care about most of 911. Yet both post and argue their respective points with vigor...indeed even argue at times quite passionately--to advance positions on subjects that neither of them care about.

Fascinating...

I argue about points that I KNOW are presented wrong. I choose not to argue about points I could only speculate about. I don't care about most of 911 because I don't see anything changing. I've seen arguments back and forth for more than 8 years on the subject and NOTHING seems to change. The same issues are brought up over and over with the same arguments and neither on either side make any concessions. I used to care more. I don't care much anymore. As for the points I argue, I don't care who I correct or in other words, which side they are on. All I care about is that the few facts I do know are presented correctly. I can and have corrected and argued with those on both sides of the issue. Is it wrong to want more accuracy overall? Is it wrong to not want to speculate reagrding issues I admit I don't know much about?

Edited August 25, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

Well, I am neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer, but I did offer links to several sources at the start,

which I gather you have not pursued. One is the result of my research on what happened at the Pentagon:

James H. Fetzer, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

The other is a link to an affidavit by one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, John Lear:

John Lear, Affidavit in the Judy Wood Lawsuit, http://911scholars.ning.com/main/search/search?q=John+Lear+affidavit

where John explains that a 767 could not have flown as fast as shown in the videos of the hit on the

South Tower, which was around 560 mph, which approximates its cruising speed at 35,000 feet altitude,

not 700-1,000 feet where the air is three times denser. So I am interested in knowing whether it is your

opinion that a 757 could have flown at 500 mph close to the ground IGNORING GROUND EFFECT.

I am perfectly willing to contact John and Nila with your contentions about a 757 flying at 500 mph

on a horizontal trajectory into the Pentagon. It didn't happen, of course, but we are debating the

point of whether or not it would have been aerodynamically possible. My inference is that it is not,

you are contending that it is. So tell me about the speed, too, and I'll also discuss that with them.

Could it fly at 500mph close to the ground ignoring ground effect? I don't know. I seen statements both ways from qualified parties but I don't have the knowledge nor the personal experience to speculate, so I won't. I don't really care either. I've commented on what I have knowledge of. Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.

Doing my Pentagon studies, I googled GROUND EFFECT LIFT and found an article by a professor at the University of Washington.

I incorporated his information and illustration into my study. I suggest that Mr. Lewis debate the professor on Ground Effect Lift.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.

Please pardon the intrusion, Jim, and not to break the integrity of your thread, but Matthew's position, as stated in the above sentence, reminds me of Lamson's position regarding JFK. Neither of them care about the core issues contained within the TOPIC of the threads! Lamson has stated that he doesn't care about JFK and Lewis doesn't "really" care about most of 911. Yet both post and argue their respective points with vigor...indeed even argue at times quite passionately--to advance positions on subjects that neither of them care about.

Fascinating...

Far better than those who "care" and then post like morons....about subject matter that is miles over their heads. Remind you of anyone?

[Matthew Lewis]

Well, I am neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer, but I did offer links to several sources at the start,

which I gather you have not pursued. One is the result of my research on what happened at the Pentagon:

James H. Fetzer, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

The other is a link to an affidavit by one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, John Lear:

John Lear, Affidavit in the Judy Wood Lawsuit, http://911scholars.ning.com/main/search/search?q=John+Lear+affidavit

where John explains that a 767 could not have flown as fast as shown in the videos of the hit on the

South Tower, which was around 560 mph, which approximates its cruising speed at 35,000 feet altitude,

not 700-1,000 feet where the air is three times denser. So I am interested in knowing whether it is your

opinion that a 757 could have flown at 500 mph close to the ground IGNORING GROUND EFFECT.

I am perfectly willing to contact John and Nila with your contentions about a 757 flying at 500 mph

on a horizontal trajectory into the Pentagon. It didn't happen, of course, but we are debating the

point of whether or not it would have been aerodynamically possible. My inference is that it is not,

you are contending that it is. So tell me about the speed, too, and I'll also discuss that with them.

Could it fly at 500mph close to the ground ignoring ground effect? I don't know. I seen statements both ways from qualified parties but I don't have the knowledge nor the personal experience to speculate, so I won't. I don't really care either. I've commented on what I have knowledge of. Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.

Doing my Pentagon studies, I googled GROUND EFFECT LIFT and found an article by a professor at the University of Washington.

I incorporated his information and illustration into my study. I suggest that Mr. Lewis debate the professor on Ground Effect Lift.

Jack

What would be the point Jack? It is already apparent that neither of us will budge. You really want this to turn into another pissing match like the other "debate" on this forum?

And further I have already posted info showing that yours and his misconception for ground effect is wrong. Or did you miss this quote?

there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground

AGAIN, ground effect DECREASES with increased speed and increases with increased angle of attack. Please check the references I previously posted. Your understanding as stated in your study is backward. That is why it is a notable effect in landing when aircraft are at LOW speeds and High angles of attack. It doesn't make it impossible to land, it is just another factor that a pilot has to take into account. A plane moving at high speed will pretty much go where you point it.

Jack, I have a serious question for you not really related to this thread. Why don't you use a web based photo hosting service like photobucket to post your studies? I realize that it may be easier to just upload them to the forum but that means they don't show up in quotes and they use the forum's limited bandwidth. I believe they may also have an expiration. I saw a post of yours from a few months back that did not have an upload attached to it anymore (I don't remember the post or location, sorry). That may be an unintended consequence of the forum software. Linking to photobucket or a similar service would be permanent (at least as long as that service exists), save this forum and others their bandwidth and allow others to link to your studies as well.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

Well, I am neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer, but I did offer links to several sources at the start,

which I gather you have not pursued. One is the result of my research on what happened at the Pentagon:

James H. Fetzer, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

The other is a link to an affidavit by one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, John Lear:

John Lear, Affidavit in the Judy Wood Lawsuit, http://911scholars.ning.com/main/search/search?q=John+Lear+affidavit

where John explains that a 767 could not have flown as fast as shown in the videos of the hit on the

South Tower, which was around 560 mph, which approximates its cruising speed at 35,000 feet altitude,

not 700-1,000 feet where the air is three times denser. So I am interested in knowing whether it is your

opinion that a 757 could have flown at 500 mph close to the ground IGNORING GROUND EFFECT.

I am perfectly willing to contact John and Nila with your contentions about a 757 flying at 500 mph

on a horizontal trajectory into the Pentagon. It didn't happen, of course, but we are debating the

point of whether or not it would have been aerodynamically possible. My inference is that it is not,

you are contending that it is. So tell me about the speed, too, and I'll also discuss that with them.

Could it fly at 500mph close to the ground ignoring ground effect? I don't know. I seen statements both ways from qualified parties but I don't have the knowledge nor the personal experience to speculate, so I won't. I don't really care either. I've commented on what I have knowledge of. Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.

Doing my Pentagon studies, I googled GROUND EFFECT LIFT and found an article by a professor at the University of Washington.

I incorporated his information and illustration into my study. I suggest that Mr. Lewis debate the professor on Ground Effect Lift.

Jack

What would be the point Jack? It is already apparent that neither of us will budge. You really want this to turn into another pissing match like the other "debate" on this forum?

And further I have already posted info showing that yours and his misconception for ground effect is wrong. Or did you miss this quote?

there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground

AGAIN, ground effect DECREASES with increased speed and increases with increased angle of attack. Please check the references I previously posted. Your understanding as stated in your study is backward. That is why it is a notable effect in landing. It doesn't make it impossible to land, it is just another factor that a pilot has to take into account. A plane moving at high speed will pretty much go where you point it.

Jack, I have a serious question for you not really related to this thread. Why don't you use a web based photo hosting service like photobucket to post your studies? I realize that it may be easier to just upload them to the forum but that means they don't show up in quotes and they use the forum's limited bandwidth. I believe they may also have an expiration. I saw a post of yours from a few months back that did not have an upload attached to it anymore (I don't remember the post or location, sorry). That may be an unintended consequence of the forum software. Linking to photobucket or a similar service would be permanent (at least as long as that service exists), save this forum and others their bandwidth and allow others to link to your studies as well.

I have to remove older images to make room for newer ones. Administrators allot each member the SAME

number of image space, regardless of whether they use it or not. This is dumb.

I do not need the extra aggravation of PhotoBucket. I must operate quickly and simply. I am 83 and have

much ground to cover before time expires. I stay extremely busy. It is now 10:30 p.m. I have been going

since 6:30 a.m. And...I missed my afternoon nap because the weather was nice today.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

I'm staying out of this for the moment, but I can get at least two people qualified in aerodynamics to show that Jim and Jack are wrong.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Wrong about what? A 757 flying 500 mph just above ground level? I will

be glad to learn more. I am willing to correct any mistakes I have made.

Moreover, that is only one argument about the Pentagon. For more, review

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

I find Matthew Lewis' attitude rather odd. I have already indicated that

I am not an expert and want to go back to Nila and John for confirmation.

In fact, I have changed my mind in the past. For years, I was unable to

take seriously the idea of no planes/video fakery, which I now support.

Having just sent this response to a friend, I thought it would be worth a

post here, since I am laying out a lot of the evidence for video fakery.

Jim,

I think most of us who believe in video fakery regard "September Clues" as

an interesting but flawed effort to make the case. The arguments I would

propose are those in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" from OpEdNews at

http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html

(1) the impossible speed, which has also been confirmed by Pilots for 9/11

Truth;

(2) the impossible entry into the building, which violates all three laws

of motion for physical objects;

(3) the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same

number of frames it passes through its own length in air;

(4) the Herman-Munster (or Roadrunner) like cut-outs in the sides of the

buildings; and,

(5) the planting of fake evidence of the plane having hit the South Tower,

such as the engine found at Church and Murray Streets.

I am attaching a study by Jack White concerning point (e), where the engine

is not from a 767 and was found sitting on an undamaged sidewalk and under

an awning, which is most unlikely if an object of its mass had actually hit

the sidewalk at high speed. The FBI appears to have dropped it off earlier.

Let me know if this helps. If we take "September Clues" as a bad argument

for reasons such as those you have described, that does not mean there are

no good arguments supporting video fakery. These are the ones that I have

found most convincing, where the article includes supporting links.

Some of the most important information about the planes in New York comes

from John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots. John gave

an affidavit to a court in New York about the aerodynamic impossibiities

of a 767 flying at around 560 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude. Go to the

forum at http://911scholars.ning.com and then enter "John Lear affidavit".

Stafan Grossman has been analyzing this phenomenon since as early as 2003,

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.45.html, where he

and John Lear have suggested that it may be an image created by using holo-

graphic technology, possibly enveloping a cruise missile. The alternatives

seem to be CGIs, video compositing, or some sophisticated kind of hologram.

The visual evidence is important,where the first fifteen slides of my Buenos

Aires presentation http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html

lays out some of relevant evidence, which I discuss in greater detail here:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-presentation-in-seattle.html

Is this enough? Because ironically video fakery appears to be a reality.

Best wishes,

Jim

Quoting jconditjr@fuse.net:

> Having watched part A of 9-11 clues to the end --- Again, the ending with

> all the people from the newsmedia saying they saw a plane --- will serve to

> convince people there was a plane - not the opposite. There is no narration

> to explain WHY the film maker thinks that all these reports are false.

>

>

>

> Are you saying they were all Jewish and Mossad agents? What other force

> could coalesce these people into reporting a false sighting of a plane?

> Filmmaker doesn't saw - but throws up at the end, "Birth of the plane myth."

> - NO! That will be taken by 99 out of 100 people as proof that there was a

> plane. Including me. Video fakery could have been made so that they had

> something to show the public for sure - but it does not rule out a real

> plane, which I believe was involved.

>

>

>

> This September Clues film part a is NOT convincing, and actually often leads

> the discerning viewer to the opposite conclusion it is trying to make. When

> "who wrote this stuff?" is thrown up on the screen --- it is in the middle

> of the report of a guy who sounds sincere, and who seems to be speaking from

> the heart - not reading something. The film as many interesting shots, but

> you cannot leave the viewer to interpret for himself so much information.

> What are the film makers trying to say at many points in the film? Botch

> job, is all I can say.

>

>

>

> Jim Condit Jr.

>

>

I'm staying out of this for the moment, but I can get at least two people qualified in aerodynamics to show that Jim and Jack are wrong.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

All,

By the sheerest coincidence, Bill Giltner, a member of the Scholars forum,

has just posted this, which is a slow-motion study of real amateur footage:

For most people the following will mean nothing. I did a slow motion review of

one of the less analyzed videos of the 2nd hit on 9/11. Voice over annotation.

Link: http://screenr.com/P2O

Jack has observed that this is not conclusive but that it does not look like

a plane. Indeed, it looks very much like a cruise missile to me, which, if

John and Stefan are correct, may have been enveloped with a hologram.

The exchange with Bill Giltner on the Scholars forum can be found here:

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/was-911-an-inside-job-an?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A7135&xg_source=msg_com_blogpost

I hope that Matthew will hang in there. I appreciate his interest and he is

raising important questions, where I would be glad to correct any mistakes.

Jim

Edited August 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

I'm staying out of this for the moment, but I can get at least two people qualified in aerodynamics to show that Jim and Jack are wrong.

Tell that to Professor Eberhardt. Are their qualifications better than his?

[Jack White]

Jim...the Church & Murray "engine" was not under an "awning" but under some construction scaffolding.

Jack

[Len Colby]

I think my understanding is consistent with http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml, but no doubt there are

more complex ways to explain it.

Interesting that Fetzer chose to cite this author and site, perhaps he could explain which part of it he THINKS supports his view. He seems to have missed that another article by the same author on the same site was linked at the bottom of the page

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

After a long discussion of the technical aspects the author concluded “These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11.”

He went on to explain that…

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low.

[…]

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!"

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

He agreed with Matthew that ground effect DECREESES with speed,

This form of drag is referred to as induced drag because it is induced by the generation of lift. Induced drag is the dominant type of drag acting on an aircraft at low speed, such as during takeoff and landing. It becomes considerably less significant at high speed during cruise flight where a different type of drag called parasite drag is dominant.

The author’s bio

Biography: Jeff Scott is an aerospace engineer specializing in aerodynamic analysis and conceptual design. His primary expertise is applying aerodynamic prediction software and trajectory simulations to flight test programs and flight clearance efforts. Among the projects Jeff has supported during his career are airframe design, flight testing, guidance and control software, modeling & simulation, system engineering, performance predictions, wind tunnel tests, high-speed propulsion research, and aviation safety. Jeff is the chief editor of Aerospaceweb.org.

Professional Interests: Aerodynamics, flight mechanics, airframe design, six degree-of-freedom simulation analysis, trajectory prediction and visualization, computational fluid dynamics, flying qualities, flight simulation, vehicle performance.

[Len Colby]

Here's a nice article that explains what's really going on in the world of the "war on terror", which is a fabricated offensive intended to justify looting and pillaging Iraq and Afghanistan and, if the Neo-Cons and their Israeli associates have their way, the destruction of Iran as well, which seems to have been thwar...ted by Iran's possession of sophisticated anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems they have acquired from the Russians. (I interviewed Gordon Duff on "The Real Deal" on 6 August, by the way, which is also archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.)

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/07/gordon-duff-new-al-qaeda-leader-may-be-israeli/

GORDON DUFF: NEW “AL QAEDA” LEADER MAY BE ISRAELI

August 7, 2010 posted by Gordon Duff · 56 Comments

Costumes and makeup by Bin Laden Studios, Tel Aviv

PHONY TERRORIST LEADER BEING “BRANDED” BY ASSOCIATED PRESS, THE “VOICE OF ISRAEL”

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Adnan Shukrijumah, 35 formerly of Brooklyn, New York and Miami Beach is more likely to carry the real name Levine or Goldstein. The “legend,” intelligence jargon for a false background constructed for an imaginary person, created for Shukrijumah is paper thin. An FBI Agent named Brian LeBlanc in an “exclusive interview” with the Associated Press warned the world of this new “bin Laden” clone.

What reason is there to believe this guy is Jewish? He was born in Saudi Arabia, his father is an Iman and he certainly doesn’t look Jewish.

Interesting that Fetzer who insists one has to document their claims drops such demands when he finds an author accusing Israel/Jews/Zionists. His source is a xxxx and a Holocaust denier he wrote :

"The total Jewish population of countries controlled by Nazi Germany, prior to the holocaust according to the Jewish Virtual Library was 5, 811, 900. About one million survive today, we are told.

With so many Nobel Prize winners, mathematics is no longer Israel’s strong suit. Neither is truth."

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/20/gordon-duff-cnn-coverup-is-former-idf-kapo-eden-abergil-a-whistleblower/

But the figure 5,811,900 appears no where on the linked page which cited “the total Jewish population of Europe at about 9.5 million in 1933” deducting countries not controlled by Nazi Germany and its allies, 390,900 we are still left with over 9.1 million even deducting the total for the USSR {even thought large parts of it were occupied} we still are left with 6.58 million. Lest one think they fiddled with their numbers after Duff’s "essay" the Internet Archive shows the page is the same since 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/20020625230704/http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jewpop.html

Totals on the page for unoccupied countries

Great Britain 300,000

Ireland 3600

Spain 4000

Portugal 1000

Turkey 56,000

Sweden 6500

Switzerland 18,000

Finland 1800

This is what was done with Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative and minor player in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

There is no real evidence OBL was a "CIA operative"

He was branded as a terrorist mastermind, blamed for 9/11 though there isn’t a single shred of proof of his involvement and has been chased around the world for the last nine years though he has been dead that long. Bin Laden died December 14, 2001. Adnan Shukrijumah, or whoever he really is, may well be the next “patsy” blamed for a “much too convenient” terror attack meant to send the United States to war with Iran, another war fought for Israeli business.

Now we are told that Adnan Shukrijumah of Miami Beach, probably enraged at the closing of Wolfie’s “Rascal House,”

another BS claim

One other problem is that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist, never has.

No one who studied the matter would agree with this.

Journalists joke about these films along with the phony bin Laden videos. We call the Israeli group that puts them out “Bin Laden Studios.”

I seriously doubt any real journalists believe this Fetzer ask him to name ONE.

Why is this game being played, attacks in London and Madrid, New York and Detroit now, why the games? The answer is simple. The Caspian basin has trillions of dollars in gas and oil, controlled by new and highly corrupt countries whose governments turned to Israel years ago for technical support. With Russia, the Gulf States and Nigeria controlling most of the world’s oil supply and money supplies almost exhausted, every loose cent that can be stolen already stashed away, looted by the banksters with the help of the Rothschilds and the Federal Reserve, this is the last great prize.

A pipeline has already built it goes through Georgia and nowhere near Afghanistan. Why mention the Rothschilds who have not been major players for a longtime, could it have anything to do with their ethnicity?

Edited August 25, 2010 by Len Colby