ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags jim fetzer , moon landing hoax , no planes

Reply
Old 6th July 2014, 02:52 PM   #281
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
On 9/11, I explaln how we know that the Twin Towers were taken out by a sophisticated arrangement of micro or mini nukes, where they were blowing apart in every direction from the top down, being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust and l, unlike WTC-7, left no pile of debris.
nukes with no radiation, no emp, no seismic signature, no blinding flash, etc. Basically no proof of their existence at all. Otherwise known as a fantasy.


Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005.
And how do you know these weren't paperwork errors? Do you have ANY proof that the planes for 93 and 175 flew afterward?
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
frenat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 02:54 PM   #282
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,822
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
You do understand that cosmic rays would have destroyed photographic plates, do you not? Have you ever taken a serious look at the Moon photo archive? There are so many anomalies it will astound you. When I get back on line here, I will give you some links. Search for "Jack White, Apollo Studies", for example, and track down the conspiracy work of Winston Wu.
Well there you go Sir Fetzer, a thread just for you to defend your lunar photography baloney. Feel free to hold forth.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 02:56 PM   #283
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,701
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Army Corps of Engineers estimate about 309,000 tons of structural steel was recovered from the three WTC sites. None of the steel showed any residue from explosives or thermite.
Not to mention the thousands of pictures (and many more that saw them in person) of the piles he says don't exists.

He's not worth a yellow card. Readers can see what's going on................
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 6th July 2014 at 02:59 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 03:06 PM   #284
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 657
My grandfather once told me…”We need a few stupid and crazy people in this world. How else would we know what normal is!”

Moderators please note…this post is not directed at anyone on this great forum. MHM
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 03:32 PM   #285
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
You do understand that cosmic rays would have destroyed photographic plates, do you not?

About 25% of cosmic rays make it to the surface of the Earth. So all photographic film on Earth should be destroyed after 40 days. It obviously isn't destroyed so obviously there is something wrong with your claim.
__________________
Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000
probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 04:05 PM   #286
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
I would like to hear more about these mini- and micro-nukes! How many were there and what was their yields?

If I ever get an answer I'm going to use this quote from The Nuclear Weapons Archive to see how many minutes all the responders should have died:

"The fission of 57 grams of material produces 3x10^23 atoms of fission products (two for each atom of fissionable material). One minute after the explosion this mass is undergoing decays at a rate of 10^21 disintegrations/sec (3x10^10 curies). It is estimated that if these products were spread over 1 km^2, then at a height of 1 m above the ground one hour after the explosion the radiation intensity would be 7500 rads/hr."

The fission of 57 grams will yield 1 kiloton.
__________________
Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000
probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 04:06 PM   #287
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,501
Prof. Fetzer: Has your friend Wolfgang Halbig flown the coop with the cash he raised re Sandy Hook? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...249587&page=31)
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 04:12 PM   #288
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon
I'll admit I haven't read whatever whatever, so can you sum up for me your difficulty with the engine found at Church and Murray? I've studied the footage and the travel time and distance from the tower is consistent with a specific piece of spiraling ejecta seen in all the footage.
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
Sure. It was found under a steel scaffolding on an undamaged sidewalk. Any object that massive at its alleged velocity would have shattered the sidewalk. It was of the wrong make to have come from a Boeing 767.

Jack White discovered Fox News footage of three agents wearing FBI vests unloading something heavy from a white van at that intersection. They even left the dolly behind, which can be seen in the photos I present.

My presentation at The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference runs about one hour and covers the problems with A&E911 and Judy Wood in relation to the Twin Towers and presents the proof that none of those planes crashed on 9/11.
So the FBI knowingly placed the engine in an impossible location? Did they do this just to taunt the Truthers, or were they too stupid to realize it was impossible? Is the Conspiracy all-powerful but utterly stupid? Or could it be that you are wrong?
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 04:48 PM   #289
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,392
If you happened to miss Conspiracy Con 2011 (shame on you!), here are two intellectual giants discussing -among other things- chemtrails (aka..."Death Dumps"). Keep in mind, these guys are investigative heavyweights, so anyone thinking of challenging these conclusions better eat their Wheaties!


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 05:42 PM   #290
Halcyon Dayz
Critical Thinker
 
Halcyon Dayz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nederland - Sol III
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
(1) they are all perfectly framed
Each and every time a hoax promotor claims that "all pictures are perfectly framed" we know that they are lying.

Either their implicit assertion that they have seen all pictures is besides the truth, or they lie about what they have seen.

Considering all the images are available on-line in high-resolution it is a very transparant lie, and the motive for resorting to it is rather unfathomable.
So enlighten us, Mr. Fetzer, why do you lie?


Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You simply endorse claims made by other non-experts without any indication that you have applied any form of critical thinking toward them, any competent literature search regarding existing refutations, or any attempt on your part to test or replicate them to ascertain whether they are valid. In most cases the claims you endorse were refuted as long as 15 years ago. Simply regurgitating old claims will not do.
Sounds like 99% of all hoax believers.

Frankly I'm disappointed. I was hoping for something new.
__________________
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. -- Don Marquis
Join the Illuminati
Halcyon Dayz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 05:47 PM   #291
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Originally Posted by Obviousman View Post
Many of us would be aware of Jim Fetzer and the fact he believes in a lot (all?) of conspiracies: JFK, 9-11, Moon Hoax to name just a few. By iteself, that is not particularly strange, but what is quite curious is the particular position he takes within the groups who hold those beliefs. In most cases he takes the most extreme - even bizarre - positions within them. For instance:

9-11. He's a no-planer, supporting the idea of holographic aircraft and laser beams.

...
It's this I want to discuss and hear opinions on: does he actually believe what he says?
That is a lot of nonsense. After 13 years why does Fetzer keep spreading false information based on hearsay, and lies. Not a single thing right on 911.

When I point out evidence, like RADAR which makes the hologram fantasy so silly it hurts my head to think people believe it.
I posted RADAR, he claims I never posted or picked a point he made. No idea that RADAR proves all his no plane junk bogus, so Fetzer has to ignore it was posted, and tap dance.

The mini-nuke proves no science/physics will be used, it becomes a game of repeating fantasy.

Last edited by beachnut; 6th July 2014 at 05:57 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 06:30 PM   #292
FromBelgiumWithLove
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Antwerp
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz View Post
Each and every time a hoax promotor claims that "all pictures are perfectly framed" we know that they are lying.
What the hell does "perfectly framed" mean in the first place?

Every single photograph ever taken can be said to be "perfectly framed", since what's in the frame is completely determined by the camera being used at the moment the shutter release button is pressed.

Otherwise, "perfectly framed" can only be used as an aesthetic value judgement about how pretty the resulting picture looks.

Last edited by FromBelgiumWithLove; 6th July 2014 at 06:34 PM.
FromBelgiumWithLove is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 06:33 PM   #293
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
I made the point before that this distinction about the weirdness of Jim Fetzer's belief system only holds up on places like the JREF. Outside of here, no one can tell the difference Jim and someone like Dusty or Jamonious. Ordinary people don't count the number of conspiracy theories or have some gauge of the difference between thermite and nukes. They just think it's all stupid. It's like trying to figure out who was the most evil serial killer.
__________________
See my blog,
Wonders of the Invisible World

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 6th July 2014 at 06:40 PM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 07:14 PM   #294
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by FromBelgiumWithLove View Post
What the hell does "perfectly framed" mean in the first place?

Every single photograph ever taken can be said to be "perfectly framed", since what's in the frame is completely determined by the camera being used at the moment the shutter release button is pressed.

Otherwise, "perfectly framed" can only be used as an aesthetic value judgement about how pretty the resulting picture looks.
.....the "perfect framing" usuallycomes at the time of printing......via cropping etc.

Similar are the claims of "they could not have got that perfectly timed shot" ....of course anyone with any knowledge of photography knows that the "perfectly timed shot" is the one that was published....and the other couple hundred go in the file drawer.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 07:59 PM   #295
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,298
Most conspiracy theorists alleged "perfect framing" in the Apollo photographs to mean that nothing was egregiously cut off.

The viewfinders were removed from the Hasselblad 500/EL bodies, to save weight and to reduce mechanical complexity. (Moving parts are problematic in space due to phenomena such as cold welding.) Also, they're not very useful with the cameras mounted on the space suit RCU (chest control unit). You can't look down effectively in a space helmet, and the viewfinders were the old-fashioned kind where you had to look straight down into the camera body.

But the Biogon lens essentially afforded a 45-degree horizontal field of view. To get the subject framed so it's not cut off, you basically just aim the camera in the general direction of the subject. The left-right alignment is a no-brainer. The up-down alignment takes practice.

Zig Zag Productions handed me (without warning) an Apollo-modified 500/EL and told me to take some pictures. We had them developed at a Hollywood lab, and the first time I saw the transparencies was when I was commenting on them on-camera. I had no practice. The Apollo astronauts were each given an Apollo-modified Hasselblad and told to practice. As I said, I had no problem at all with horizontal framing. With vertical framing I tended to aim low, but I never cut off any of the subjects. They were just a little farther below center than I would have anticipated.

Wow, Neil Armstrong did the same thing. The most famous photograph from Apollo, AS11-40-5903, actually cuts off the top of Buzz Aldrin's PLSS. Michael Light and Eric Jones graciously provided me the scans of the camera originals and I was able to determine that Armstrong tended to point the camera a little lower than he may have intended. In publication we tend to correct -5903 by adding a little black "headroom" over the top of the shot. But the facts remain that the top of Aldrin's PLSS was cut off, and the most famous photograph of lunar exploration is most certainly not "perfectly framed."

In short, Fetzer simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 08:04 PM   #296
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
My grandfather once told me…”We need a few stupid and crazy people in this world. How else would we know what normal is!”



Moderators please note…this post is not directed at anyone on this great forum. MHM

With your permission I would like to steal these words of wisdom.
ComfySlippers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 08:55 PM   #297
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 657
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
With your permission I would like to steal these words of wisdom.
No problem...
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 09:15 PM   #298
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

I fully understand the Mod warning but, without intentionally being a naughty boy, I must pose this question:

This thread was created to discuss Mr Fetzer's obsession with idiotic woo.
After the the thread was created MR Fetzer signed up and is now a subscriber to this forum.
Forum rules dictate that as he is now a member we have to bite our tongues and can not state the obvious.
So it's become a dangerous thread where cards will be issued if we stay on topic?

To reply to Mr Fetzer's post, #278:
Putting the record straight, and opposing your judgement of my knowledge of history, I know a heck of a lot more about pretty much everything you pretend to be an expert on.

I'm prepared to admit that a subject that fascinates me, (Apollo), if I have neither the required amount of knowledge or experience, I'll keep my mouth shut and listen to folks who do.
This is why JayUtah's posts are a source of knowledge based upon facts and real life experiences rather than copying nonsense from the world wide woo.

(same for ApolloGnomom, but I can't spell his name )

Mr Fetzer regurgitates ancient woo, claims it be his own "research", and takes umbrage when people call him out.

With regard that silly "conference" video... (Yes, I used scare quotes. How many times did Uncle Fetzer use the word 'allegedly' in his ramble? I'm allowed)....

Shamelessly promoting your works of fiction, in every single post you ever make, is weird.
Especially when your only talent seems to be that you've learned how to copy and paste other peoples woo.
Including Jack White's nonsense!

I reiterate my previous comment:
The first two parts of that video are embarrassing to watch.
The third is nothing short of vile racism.

#note:
Fetzer is the topic at hand.

ETA2: I award beachnut 1.5 internets also

Last edited by ComfySlippers; 6th July 2014 at 10:03 PM.
ComfySlippers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2014, 09:18 PM   #299
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
... Some of the obvious indications of fakery on the basis of the Moon photos:

(1) they are all perfectly framed, when the camera were mounted on the front of the space suits and almost impossible to focus; ...
FALSE - did you make this, because knowledge of photograph makes this statement silly. Simple research proves the claim is bogus.

What a load of BS.
The camera had three presets, near, medium and far for focusing, simple research busts your claim.

They only have to estimate the distance. With a wide angle lens, relative large depth of field, min f-stop of 5.6, sharp images were possible. Simple knowledge and research bust your faked claim.

http://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the...lblad-cameras/
Knowledge of photography and research prove this to be BOGUS. Where did you get this an anti-intellectual claim from?

Last edited by beachnut; 6th July 2014 at 09:26 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 01:12 AM   #300
FromBelgiumWithLove
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Antwerp
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The viewfinders were removed from the Hasselblad 500/EL bodies, to save weight and to reduce mechanical complexity. (Moving parts are problematic in space due to phenomena such as cold welding.) Also, they're not very useful with the cameras mounted on the space suit RCU (chest control unit). You can't look down effectively in a space helmet, and the viewfinders were the old-fashioned kind where you had to look straight down into the camera body.
I stand corrected. I'd assumed they had the standard configuration, with the viewfinder at the top (it seemed to make sense to me that you could still, somewhat, see what was in frame with a space helmet on and the camera fixed on your chest).

Quote:
To get the subject framed so it's not cut off, you basically just aim the camera in the general direction of the subject.
So basically the same way a lot of people take pictures these days. The first time I tried to take some pictures with a digital compact camera in bright sunlight, I realized it was impossible to properly see what was on the LCD display (indoors, it's fine), so I had to use the "point in the general direction and hope for the best" method as well. I vowed that if I ever decide to spend money on a new digital camera, it has to be one with a proper viewfinder, something I can hold to my face. IOW, a proper camera.

Last edited by FromBelgiumWithLove; 7th July 2014 at 01:17 AM.
FromBelgiumWithLove is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 04:16 AM   #301
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
I fully understand the Mod warning but, without intentionally being a naughty boy, I must pose this question:

This thread was created to discuss Mr Fetzer's obsession with idiotic woo.
After the the thread was created MR Fetzer signed up and is now a subscriber to this forum.
Forum rules dictate that as he is now a member we have to bite our tongues and can not state the obvious.
So it's become a dangerous thread where cards will be issued if we stay on topic?
You're allowed to attack his ideas not the man himself.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 08:49 AM   #302
jfetzer
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So Jim. Why don't you show everyone here why you believe that engine is not a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D. Could it be because you found a guy that works in the APU division of Pratt & Whitney and he says he can't identify it?

You have enough posts now to include links.
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...-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.
jfetzer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 08:59 AM   #303
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,298
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
...unloading something heavy from a white van.
<snip>
..plant parts....
Unsupported inference -- i.e., a "leap of logic."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 09:04 AM   #304
jfetzer
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
jfetzer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 09:17 AM   #305
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
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 by beachnut; 7th July 2014 at 10:11 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 09:22 AM   #306
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,641
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
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.
How many agents?

How big a dolly?
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 09:48 AM   #307
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,298
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
This...
Personal attack deleted and reported.

Quote:
We have an obviously planted engine...
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.

Quote:
We have footage of a van at that intersection, where agents wearing FBI vest are unloading something heavy.
"Something heavy" is by no means necessary a planted engine part.

Quote:
WHAT ELSE COULD IT POSSIBLY BE?
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.

Quote:
Not only is unloading the engine the only reasonable inference, they even LEAVE THE DOLLY BEHIND.
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.

Quote:
This guy...
More personal attacks deleted.

Last edited by JayUtah; 7th July 2014 at 09:49 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 09:48 AM   #308
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
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.

... .
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?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 10:34 AM   #309
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
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"



Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 10:37 AM   #310
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,701
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
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.
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?

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 7th July 2014 at 11:03 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 10:45 AM   #311
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
... 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.
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/2011/0...israel-agenda/
http://www.fighthatred.com/web-of-ha...nial-materials

If you want dumb claims, go to Veterans Today.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07...e-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_1...tudy_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.
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
... if there had been an actual crash.
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.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 10:57 AM   #312
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,298
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
How exactly do you know this engine had the wrong duct?
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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 11:00 AM   #313
jfetzer
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by frenat View Post
nukes with no radiation, no emp, no seismic signature, no blinding flash, etc. Basically no proof of their existence at all. Otherwise known as a fantasy.

And how do you know these weren't paperwork errors? Do you have ANY proof that the planes for 93 and 175 flew afterward?
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!
jfetzer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 11:04 AM   #314
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 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.

Last edited by I Ratant; 7th July 2014 at 11:06 AM.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 11:08 AM   #315
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
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...-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.
It's not damaged?? Doesn't look like a pristine engine to me.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 11:08 AM   #316
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,758
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post
WHAT ELSE COULD IT POSSIBLY BE?
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.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

Last edited by eerok; 7th July 2014 at 11:13 AM.
eerok is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 11:09 AM   #317
jfetzer
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
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/2011/0...israel-agenda/
http://www.fighthatred.com/web-of-ha...nial-materials

If you want dumb claims, go to Veterans Today.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07...e-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_1...tudy_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.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...dingflying.jpg
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.
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 LashL; 7th July 2014 at 07:58 PM.
jfetzer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 11:17 AM   #318
jfetzer
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
It's not damaged?? Doesn't look like a pristine engine to me.
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!
jfetzer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 11:20 AM   #319
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,701
Originally Posted by jfetzer View Post

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.
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?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 7th July 2014 at 11:22 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2014, 11:21 AM   #320
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
It's not damaged?? Doesn't look like a pristine engine to me.
.
Like Cyril Wecht's "pristine bullet", that motor can be bolted back in place and fired up! Just buff out a ding or two!
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.