Fetzer is not "making an honest effort to understand 911." He has even been reduced to lying about the contents of Morgan Reynold's research in order to try to get more mileage out of absolutely discredited pod notions from a debunker/shill called OmegaPoint.
A Military 767 would not vanish into the building like a spoon into oatmeal either. Whether a "plane" has windows or not, a real plane is a delicate object which would respond to hitting something by exploding THEN, not 40 frames later, after an explosion on the opposite side of the building. Gravity would demand flaming wings crushing bystanders below. I don't know why you bring up William Rodriguez, who has distinguished himself by his honesty and forthrightness in the same message with an experienced Kennedy Researcher who thought he could cross over into 911 "Truth" pushing discredited lowbrow pod notions. It was our intent to help improve newcomers knowledge of 911. It still is. They are making an internal forum at the Scholars where people can ask questions about our research. I am planning to join as an associate member, facilitated by Professor Jones. I am sorry and ashamed that Professor Fetzer feels compelled to lie about our work and the conclusions of Morgan Reynolds, who is also a member of the Scholars. Whoever is coaching Fetzer needs to be fired for setting him up with a point of view that has already been designated a Bozo Nose Zone. Before shedding his reputation as a Kennedy researcher and a Video researcher, and modestly claiming himself inadequate to judge my work, professor Fetzer has problems with the fact close things look bigger than the same thing does farther away. He doesn't believe in databases, or that people might ever lie. His pronouncement that we make stuff up is pretty strange unless he thinks I made up the dozen or so early second hit cartoons myself so that I could tear them apart and show they are fake but nobody would believe it cos that would mean admitting they had been schnooked and brainwashed right along with everybody else. Once folks notice that the mind control potion that was the 911 Shock and Awe Mass Trauma Conditioning Event was CARTOONS meant to undercut their sense of reality and their belief in the concept of truth -- the difference in perspective is that we could have people like you, Sean McBride, helping to plot our course out of this nightmare, instead of standing on the sidelines wringing your hands and hoping we are not right. The Truth has it's own power. Not that Orwellianism "911 Truth" but the everyday all day kind of truth that holds molecules together and sounds like blues. Fetzer's old fashioned notion of "Noble Lies" being more useful or easier to swallow than Everyday Truth is, a world where gravity is not optional and documentary film cameras can see planes at least as well as a still camera with movie mode. http://911closeup.com/planes http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect shows a number of fingerprints of microwave/scalar/tesla energy. Plaguepuppy links to a couple of them. http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/ This page also links to Rick Siegel's 911 Eyewitness analysis that building & fell at the speed of Gravity in a Vaccuum. That is TOO FAST for traditional "controlled demolition." The second hit is made of cartoons mostly way more crude than Jurassic Park. Which direction that planes are coming from is more a matter of artistic convenience than any sure sense of direction or preplanned agreement. http://911review.org/brad.com/fake_video/WTC_plane.JPG Sean McBride wrote: > What purpose is achieved by insulting someone who may well be making > an honest effort to understand 9/11? Why not simply help the poster > improve his or her knowledge of 9/11? > > A few points: > 1. With regard to the alleged explosions which preceded the impact of > the alleged planes and which were reported by William Rodriguez -- > what was that all about? A mistake? > > 2. Could the towers have been brought down by an advanced and > classified military technology, and not conventional demolition > explosives? > > 3. Were the towers prewired with conventional demolition explosives, > according to some kind of classified official policy? One attempt had > already been made to bring down one of the towers in 1993 -- other > attempts were no doubt expected. Plans were probably in place to > bring down the towers in a controlled way in case of terrorist attacks. > > > */Bill Giltner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: > > Sean, > > > > I'm going to cooperate with the "respect your fellow posters" > request you've > made as much as I can... > > > > In reference to "MrOsario's" post, I didn't think it deserved a > response. > > > > I think the post was, seriously, a funny joke: Someone who had > some reason > to waste our time. > > > > In any case, since you replied, I want to provide a "real" reply. > > > > I respect your question: "test of common sense." However even > though I > agree with the gist of your reply, I think "common sense" is way > too loose > of a precept or concept of logic to apply here. To me, the > likelihood of > the truth of 9/11 using a test of common sense is only possible if > one has > key facts at hand, and even with those key facts, I have to say, I > have to > keep on challenging my preconceptions to try to allow for the real > truth. > > > > As an aside, when we watch a magician, we see things that "test > our common > sense". It's only through being shown how our own intuitions > mislead us at > times, that we comprehend how we've been tricked. > > > > So, let me get to my points: > > > > Point 1: When one watches the towers coming down, one clearly > sees the > charges going off from the top down. The idea that those charges > could have > been planted by Firemen on the top floors of the towers is absurd. > > > > The originally poster is either: > > > > A) ignorant of what the video evidence shows > > Or > > B) believes his audience will be ignorant of what the video > evidence shows > > > > I believe the above is only common sense if one has taken the time > to study > the demolitions. > > > > Of course there are many other reasons to consider the poster the > most crude > of hooey generators: > > > > Point 2: The physics of the crash and fires don't imply any kind > of massive > failure of the tower structures. There's no reason to think they > would fall > topple, or suffer any kind of structural failure. > > > > Point 3: There is strong evidence pointing to bombs going off > prior to the > collapse. The idea of these events happening in a way consistent > with the > posters logic, especially the bombs in the basement is totally > suspect. > > > > What your really have here is some Joe that takes us for a fool, > or is one > himself. > > > > -------Original Message------- > > > > From: Sean McBride > > Date: 03/27/06 21:36:08 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [political-research] Personal Attacks on Those Who > Disagree > with the No-Planes Theory > > > > If the towers were under threat of falling sideways from the > impact of the > hijacked planes, then why conceal an operation to force them to fall > straight downwards? Why the necessity for secrecy? > > > > Also, wouldn't some of the firefighters have spoken up about the > operation > by now? > > > > Does this scenario pass the test of common sense? > > > > > > MrOsario <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Twin Towers were to fall sideway and have a domino effect on > the other > buildings thereby > > Killing around 140,000. So the decision was made to send in 200 > firemen with > bombs to set them > > At strategic places so that the towers would fall the way a > building is > supposed to fall when it > > Is being demolished. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Sean McBride > > To: political-research > > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:59 PM > > Subject: [political-research] Personal Attacks on Those Who > Disagree with > the No-Planes Theory > > > > > > Sorry -- I am not interested in posting any more of that material. > I find it > extremely destructive for the overall effort to uncover the truth > about 9/11 > The people who have come under attack over this issue rank among > the best > minds in the 9/11 research community. The personal attacks are > disgusting > and despicable, and I find it incomprehensible why they keep coming. > > > > I am still very interested in any fresh and useful information, > analysis or > theories about how the towers fell that is expressed in a succinct, > reasonable and civil way, and which isn't designed to stir up > division and > hatred among serious 9/11 researchers. > > > > Morgan Reynolds just published some remarks on this controversy > which are > quite interesting. That's how to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/ > > > > Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at > http://rss.groups.yahoo <http://rss.groups.yahoo/> > com/group/political-research/rss > > > > > > > > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > Visit your group "political-research" on the web. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "political-research > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research>" on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/ > > Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at > http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "political-research > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research>" on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/ Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
