Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
You're allowed to attack his ideas not the man himself.
Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies
- Thread starter Obviousman
- Start date
You're allowed to attack his ideas not the man himself.
It's a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A/7F/7J, not a JT9D-7R4D, and was not used on Boeing 767s. 7R4Ds were used on Boeing 747s, not Boeing 767s, and the Church & Murray was an "A"-line older version. it's either an 7A, 7F or 7J.
A key difference between 7A/7F/7J and the 7R4D is that the older (the kind found at Church & Murray) had a Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly (with those little "elbow" exhausts), which was replaced by a later version in the 7R4D.
Another clue that this engine did not come from Flight 175 is that it shows no fresh damage or markings indicating that it had impacted with anything hard, which would have created gouges in the steel. Dusty, but no fresh damage.
Had something that massive hit at high velocity, it would have been partially buried in the sidewalk. But instead it's sitting upright, which is improbable by itself on the official trajectory. And the sidewalk appears to be undamaged.
Significantly, as I previously observed, Jack White discovered FOX NEWS footage showing agents wearing FBI vests unloading something heavy from a white van. In fact, they even left behind THE DOLLY that was used to unload it.
A photo with these elements in a collage can be found on many of my articles about this, including "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'". The fallacy DGM commits is known as special pleading, by citing only the evidence favorable to your side and ignoring the rest.
For those who want to follow up. see http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/ When I figure out how to post images here, I will have a lot more to say. In the meanwhile, it would not have been necessary to plant parts if there had been an actual crash.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Unsupported inference -- i.e., a "leap of logic."
This is the kind of drivel I would expect from JayUtah. We have an obviously planted engine (which I have proven in my latest post). We have footage of a van at that intersection, where agents wearing FBI vest are unloading something heavy.
WHAT ELSE COULD IT POSSIBLY BE? Not only is unloading the engine the only reasonable inference, they even LEAVE THE DOLLY BEHIND. This guy appears to be incapable of serious reasoning, which appears to be surprisingly common on this thread.
The engine was not planted. Why do you make up lies against your fellow Americans. No evidence, just BS. You realize hearsay is not evidence, or do you.
The planted engine lie fits into your fantasy version of 911 in what way. The engine clearly came from the aircraft flown by terrorists, as proved by RADAR. RADAR tracked the plane from takeoff to impact, which proves the real engine type, and the real aircraft type. Not sure how you will refute RADAR if you fly, it is used to keep your safe - if you fly, you are debunking your own lie by trust in RADAR, trust in the FAA. Your fantasy claims are self-debunking claptrap.
Last edited:
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Personal attack deleted and reported.
No, it's not an "obviously" planted engine. You make a case for it being a different engine and for its not having been subject to impact damage, but neither of those claims is hardly uncontestable.
"Something heavy" is by no means necessary a planted engine part.
Shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to make an affirmative case that it must have been something else. You are the one affirmatively claiming that what you say the FBI agents were unloading must have been a planted engine part. As the proponent of an affirmative identification for what the evidence does not reveal, you have the burden of proof. "What else could it be?" is amateur debate trickery.
This and other factors are why I don't consider it a reasonable inference, let alone the only reasonable one.
If we accept for the sake of argument that the intent was to plant a fake engine part at the intersection, why would the people planting it clearly identify themselves as FBI agents? Why would they leave behind their equipment to be possibly photographed and found later? These do not fit into the expectations associated with a purportedly clandestine act.
For that reason I do not accept your inference that the "heavy equipment" must necessarily have been a false engine part. I require you to prove it with evidence, not with overt question-begging.
More personal attacks deleted.
Last edited:
Can't make up your mind. In your fantasy, why is it so hard to be exact? Did you forget to finish your fantasy?
The engine is a PW4062 - why do you lie.
You have nothing right about 911 - did you mean to make fun of 911 truth by doing a parody?
Animal
Master Poster
Claims of a planted engine are such fantasy..........why plant an engine when there is so many other plane parts that could not have been "planted" Just another troofer shouting "squirrel"
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
All these engines use a "stage 1" cooling duct. How else are they going to cool that stage? I bet you thought that was some sort of design designation.
Tell us, how do you know the JT9D-7R4D did not have the elbows? Would it be because you were told to look at this picture?
Did you also know that that picture shows an assembly where they would be mounted on the bottom (side not shown)? You might also notice it says "configuration 2". Do you have a picture of "configuration 1"? So, tell us. How exactly do you know this engine had the wrong duct?
ETA: Jim, did you know that all JT9D engine share the same "high pressure stage"? What do you think the odds are that this might just be a picture of "configuration 1"? Was the engine of flight 175 an early model?
Last edited:
Veterans Today have articles filled with lies and false information. Not a valid source for reality. Veterans Today spreads lies about 911, an anti-American publication, something Tim McVeigh or the Boston bombers would love, but low down garbage for the rational people. Your article tries to spread lies about 911 - not very intellectual.
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/01/06/buyer-beware-veterans-today-and-its-anti-israel-agenda/
http://www.fighthatred.com/web-of-h...es-anti-israel-and-holocaust-denial-materials
If you want dumb claims, go to Veterans Today.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/07/officials-site-thermo-nuke-in-911-demo/
Stupid to the n+1 power of woo, Veterans Today.
RADAR, simple electromagnetic radiation debunks your claims.
https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Flight_Path_Study_UA175.pdf
Do you fly Fetzer? If you do you depend on RADAR, the same RADAR which debunks your fantasy.
Then we have denial of reality, and then you make up lies about 911.
OOPS - you lied again. There was an actual crash; RADAR, video and eyewitnesses prove you wrong. Now what, a claim by your debunked again.
Flight 175 crash, tracked by RADAR from takeoff to impact, and the exact results you get from a plane flying 590 mph; the kinetic energy impact, matches physics, and engineering. Stuff 911 truth never uses.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Raising the larger question, I'm fairly certain that advanced degrees in the history and philosophy of science do not include specialized training in jet engine design, construction, and maintenance. So unless Mr. Fetzer has been moonlighting as a jet engine mechanic, his expectations on this point are likely being led by information produced and interpreted by others. We've seen in reference to Apollo that his choice of "experts" is -- shall we say -- colorful. Hence I don't trust Mr. Fetzer to have properly vetted his information. He'll have to prove he has.
Much of the previous "wrong engine" or "fake engine" claims are further based on expectations for how engines behave in various forms of airframe downing. Again, I highly doubt that forensic aerospace engineering was part of the philosophy and history coursework or Fetzer's subsequent academic career experience, so those expectations require a better foundation than "Here, read this link."
When I wrote above that the identification of the engine parts and the commentary on the circumstances of their recovery were not "uncontestable," this is largely to what I was referring. The expectations against which the conclusion has been drawn that the recovered engine parts are "obviously planted" derive from specialized information that Fetzer is not shown to possess and expertise he has not apparently acquired. Hence his mere dictum doesn't stand as evidence of facts and circumstances, nor is probative of some anomaly or misfeasance.
Given his propensity in the Apollo case simply to offer his academic imprimatur on work done by others, without any appearance of critical analysis on his part, I venture a similar thing is happening here. Then the discussion shifts from theories that belong to James Fetzer, to theories merely espoused in ignorance by him. The latter deserves some quarter since he would be, in fact, merely the believer and not the proponent. But it does smack a bit of intellectual dishonestly to endorse things one has not personally verified.
This is typical of the ignorant posts that have appeared in this thread. I have a dozen or more articles about the use of nukes on 9/11, including "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II", which includes a summary of the USGS dust sample evidence:
* Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
* Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
* Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
* Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
* Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
* Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.
* Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.
Just another nice example of the utter lack of research ability, which is the theme of this thread: attack Fetzer for his views but don't bother to figure out what they actually are, because that might undermine the vigor of our attack.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done the research on Flights 93 and 175 having been in the air that day, but of course you wouldn't know that because you won't lift your least digit to discover what I have said or why I have said it. Unreal!
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
Just read the last page here... and saw my old buddy Jack White is still around!
I was afraid of that.
And combining with Fetzer on a conspiracy.
I recall seeing Jack's "anal aysis" of the Zapruder film, where he and Robert Groden combined "expertise" and determined a woman seen walking in the background across the infield at Dealey Plaza was 8 feet tall!
When Jack admitted to the HSCA that he had no idea what photogrammetry was when asked, he never bothered to find out.
The JFK Research site had some exchanges between me and Jack and Debra Conway, but that site is tagged as a "known malicious site", and should avoided.
Using simple photogrammetric principles, I showed that lady was maybe 5 feet tall, and Debra confirmed that, saying she had talked to the woman.
Ask Fetzer about Tink. They have a love-fest going.
I was afraid of that.
And combining with Fetzer on a conspiracy.
I recall seeing Jack's "anal aysis" of the Zapruder film, where he and Robert Groden combined "expertise" and determined a woman seen walking in the background across the infield at Dealey Plaza was 8 feet tall!
When Jack admitted to the HSCA that he had no idea what photogrammetry was when asked, he never bothered to find out.
The JFK Research site had some exchanges between me and Jack and Debra Conway, but that site is tagged as a "known malicious site", and should avoided.
Using simple photogrammetric principles, I showed that lady was maybe 5 feet tall, and Debra confirmed that, saying she had talked to the woman.
Ask Fetzer about Tink. They have a love-fest going.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
It's not damaged?? Doesn't look like a pristine engine to me.
This must be one of those Kuhnian paradigm shifts I've heard about.
It streamlines science considerably: As soon as you stop thinking, there's your answer.
Last edited:
This is ridiculous. FAA Registration Records, which I have in hand, show that the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005. So how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still be in the air four years later?
<SNIP>
Edited by LashL:
Removed breach of Rule 12.
The best study about how it was done (faking the crashes into the North and the South Towers) is by Richard Hall in his "9/11 Flight 175 Radar Data 3-D Analysis", which can be found at http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=49497 He offers something that is far closer to the truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know some points are too difficult for those like tsig and JayUtah to absorb. Let me observe that we have a planted engine, which is not even from a 767. It shows none of the signs that it would show had it just impacted with the hard surface of a sidewalk: no shiny metal parts that are fresh and recent, only a lot of dust from an old engine.
Observing that it is "not pristine" is one of the trivial fallacies that occur with frequency in this thread, the "straw man", by exaggerating a position to make it easier to attack. I have not suggested that it was "pristine", which is clearly is not: it is old and dusty and seems to have been in storage before being planted for this special occasion.
Since it was planted, someone has to have planted it. JayUtah claims that the discovery of FOX NEWS footage showing men in FBI vests unloading something heavy at that intersection is irrelevant to explaining how it got there. But unless he is suggesting it planted itself, his position, like so much else he posts, is indefensible. They even left the dolly behind!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Can you tell me what section of the engine we're looking at? You do know the part that would have taken the most force in the impacts with the towers was not found on Church St? You do know those pictures were taken after the buildings collapsed, you know, the dusty part.
Are you saying this engine does not looked damaged enough?
Last edited:
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
.
Like Cyril Wecht's "pristine bullet", that motor can be bolted back in place and fired up! Just buff out a ding or two!