No Planes on 9-11 and Other Shocking Controversies with Special Guest Dr. Jim Fetzer PhD

Video Transcript:

The person whom you're trying to reach. Well, we're live and we're going to be joined momentarily by Dr. James Fetzer, here he is. Dr. Fetzer, hello. Yeah, Jason, we got it now. Perfect timing and we're live. We've just started our live broadcast, so let me share the screen with you so you can see what we're going to discuss. I'm really pleased to have Dr. Fetzer with us today and many viewers of CrowdSource the truth are going to be familiar with Dr. Fetzer. He is absolutely a pioneer in alternative media. He has been asking questions about some of the most inadequately explained controversies of our time and some of his answers to those questions are certainly equally controversial. Dr. Welcome to the show. Can you hear me, Dr. Fetzer? Dr. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Dr. Fetzer? Yeah, it throws up. Go ahead. I was just welcome you to the show, sir. I'd like to preface our conversation. Whoops. Well, we lost Dr. Fetzer. Let's try and get him back here real quick. Sorry, everyone, you know in the world of live streaming, there's always all sorts of technical gotchas that can arise. We'll just get the doctor back on the line here. Dr. Fetzer. Okay, no problem. I know you're no stranger to outside interference to broadcasts, but just to reiterate, I'm so pleased to have you on the show, Dr., you are one of the very first people that I became aware of when I started seeking out alternatives to mainstream news. Let me make sure you have the screen share here so that you can see some of the things that we'll be talking about and reviewing today. I first became familiar with your work on the new JFK show, which I think you've done some really amazing and excellent work with people like Larry Rivera and Ralphson K. Those guys have delved into scientific areas like photo-grammetry, exploring historical images of Lee Harvey Oswald standing outside the schoolbook depository as shots were fired from the sixth floor, exploring people like Raphael Cruz standing with Lee Harvey Oswald, not only outside the international trademark in New Orleans, but also at the motorcade itself with Mr. What's the guy's name from Alpha 66? Antonio Vesiana. Right. Antonio Vesiana. So there's been some amazing empirical evidence that's come out of your research, but of course, as with any friend, family member, colleague or associate, there are many things that we disagree on and you never shy away from controversy. So I'd like to commend you, Dr. on your bravery in questioning everything from the JFK assassination to Sandy Hook to 9-11. I think you are an important figure, sir. And we need to protect the rights of people who want to question these things rather than just cow-towing to the mainstream explanations of how I think most of us agree these events did not occur. Well, I commend you as a very astute journalist, Jason. What you're saying here is completely appropriate. We have established, for example, that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually standing in the doorway of the Texas Schoolbook depository as the motorcade passed by. Ralph S. K. and Pye and Eard studying the body as a chiropractor he's used to individuals working out so they're clothing will fit better. He made the argument that the height, the weight, the bill, the shirt, the t-shirt of the man in the doorway are the same as the height, the weight, the bill, the shirt, and the t-shirt of Lee Oswald when he was arrested. In order to obfuscate the similarity that Alice police had in remove his outer shirt a long sleeve, richly woven shirt, which Marina has acknowledged remembering having laundered. That argument therefore fell back on facial differences, but this is where Larry Rivera found suitable images to impose over the facial features of the man in the doorway. This, of course, is from the very famous Olchand 6 photograph as it's known for James Ike Olchand's an AP photographer who took at least sex. There's a Sabbath photograph attributed to him that he cannot recall having taken, which appears it's helped to be a complete fabrication. But in the Olchand 6 perhaps the most famous photograph of the assassination you see the presidential limousine in the foreground, the agents are looking around as though they have no idea what's going on. In the background however you can see in the doorway there's a figure who appears to be extending out that we have been able to establish was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald the alleged assassin which means that he not only cannot have been the lone-demanded shooter, he cannot have even been one of the gunmen. This is in accordance with Harold Weisberg, a very early first-generation student who in his second of the Whitewash series photographic Whitewash published already 1966, spent four pages on how the Warren Commission staff were doing their best to obfuscate the fact that Lee was in the doorway where even Jim Garrison the celebrated district attorney of New Orleans concluded too that Lee had been in the doorway. We've now been able to verify it with Larry's overlays are a completely brilliant. So I very much appreciate all those observations Jason. I think you guys have done some incredible work and it really is a shame that it hasn't gotten more mainstream play. Now it's my understanding doctor that the new JFK show has been banned completely from YouTube and people can no longer see it is that correct? Oh I hope that's not the case Jason if it is. Well my old blog was banned, my Facebook page has been banned. A vast number of my videos especially about Sandy Hook and other of these false flag operations have been banned. I've had to move to Bitshoot for example and to a new alternative. Yeah my Twitter page is still up I'm pleased to say what you're showing there but thanks to Jack Ballet who discerningly observed they were going to come for my blog where I had 770 individual blogs post since 2011. We spent 68 weeks moving to a new blog at James Fetzer.org and when I came back to report I was now at the new blog it was gone. Fandage no notice no warning whatsoever just deleted at the touch of a button. Wow and we've been hearing a lot about that from so many of our friends and guests on the show. Ole Damagard has had a lot of problems. It looks like you've restored James Fetzer.org so people of course can follow you there or on Twitter you're following these false flag events and we want to reiterate people hear false flag and sometimes they're confused by that terminology. It basically is just saying that the criminal to which the event is attributed is not in fact the perpetrator. And today what I'd like to focus on with you doctor is one of the greatest false flag events quite probably of all time and that of course is the array of events that took place on September the 11th 2001. An event that I personally witnessed from the roof of this very building lost friends in the destruction of the Twin Towers and have been quite interested in for the 17 years since its occurrence. It obviously has changed the world as we know it has affected every person both living and unborn at the time and has paved the way for a series of catastrophic wars that have cost millions of lives, destroyed families, wasted human resources, financial resources and basically sort of ruined the world. Well you're right Jason on all counts 9-11 was a monstrous false flag that was blamed on 19 Islamic terrorists 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia under the control of a guy in the cave in Afghanistan. The whole story is officially an absurdity. In fact Osama bin Laden was our man in Afghanistan. He was instrumental in getting the Stinger missiles into the hands of the Mujajidine. They used a shoot down Soviet helicopters and planes that drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. He was actually an official of the CIA colonel Tim Osman. He was visited in a hospital in Dubai when he was undergoing medical assistance for his kidney problems. It's tough to get those dialysis machines in and out of those caves in Afghanistan. Jason shortly before his death on 15 December 2001 in Afghanistan where he was buried in an unmarked grave in accordance with Muslim tradition. There were local obituaries at the time both CNN and Fox News reported on the 26th of December 2001 that Osama bin Laden had died but Barack Obama found it highly convenient to resuscitate him and kill him again in a raid on the compound that was all completely could drive in order to position himself for a triumphal reelection. That's a classic false flag too. In fact when we dig into it we find there's a general agreement among analysts internationally that there were only two agencies in the world that could have pulled off 9-11. Those were the CIA and the most sought and on 9-11 Jason they were working together to bring about the atrocities that we endured. I agree with you doctor and you know the issue that I've tried to combat on the internet is the conflation of elements of Mossad with the entire country of Israel and further the entire country of Israel with every living Jewish person. So I think it's important that we acknowledge that there are evil people in every country and every government of every race and every religion and I'd like to explore some of the facts and details related to 9-11 with you today. One of the topics that I've taken a great interest in and had hoped to have a debate with someone who I believe you're acquainted with who we won't discuss very much beyond the theory is Mr. John Lear. I had invited John Lear to join myself and Field McConnell on September 11th, 2018 in a debate specifically addressing the issue of whether or not airplanes were actually utilized to crash into the buildings here in New York City. I'm talking about World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 and to be very specific I certainly don't believe that an airplane crash or whatever incident we're going to discuss today was responsible for the collapse of the buildings but I just want to talk about this concept of holograms being utilized to either mask a missile or to completely replace whatever it is that we saw impacting the building and I believe you do feel that there were holograms that hit the World Trade Center, the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Yeah, we need to build up to the conclusion because like in so many other controversial cases, Jason, if you just hear a conclusion, such as that nobody died at Sandy Hook unless you look at the evidence unless you knew for example the school had been closed by 2008 that it was loaded with its bestest and other biohazards damaged by a hurricane. There was even a major flood in the area in 2007 that there were no students there that it was a two day FEMA drill for which we even have the manual with a rehearsal on the 13th going live on the 14th. If you didn't know that some of the participants became confused about the dates and put up donation sites the day before the event allegedly took place, if you didn't know that they fabricated the kids that they were fictions made out of photographs of older children when they were younger. For example, Noah Posner, the most photogenic. Just to pause you for a second doctor and to avoid the removal of my YouTube channel, although I agree with you Jack, you've got a lot of compelling evidence there. I'd like to keep the conversation to the issue of planes or no planes 9-11 for today. We can explore those topics later. When it comes to John Lear versus Field McComwell, I understand why Field wants to maintain real planes at the buildings in New York. John is completely in the right. I agree with him 100 percent. I'll lay out a lot of the evidence here for your and your audience consideration. Robert Damon Steele with my collaboration compiled a series of memoranda for the President of the United States about 9-11. There were 27 contributors, 28 memorandum because John Lear contributed to. Of course, these are nations most distinguished pilot. He holds some 15 international speed records, for example. He's qualified in every area of aviation, flight and maintenance. If you turn to the evidence on 9-11, let me make it very clear that the no plane theory does not mean that there were no planes in the air on 9-11. For example, there was a distraction plane that was flown toward the Pentagon on a different trajectory than the official route that swerved over the building in order to create the impression. It swerved over as the explosives were set off in the front of the building, create the impression that it had actually hit the building. It turns out that an aeronautical engineer has observed that that plane, which was supposed to have been a 757, could not have flown at the speed and altitude attributed to it by the official report barely skimming the ground at over 400 miles an hour because of the phenomenon known as downdraft, also sometimes known as ground effect, which would have kept the plane 60-80 feet above the ground. It couldn't have even possibly flown on the official trajectory, which is one indication of how preposterous this story is and also illustrates the principle that if you're observing a phenomenon or receiving a report that violates the laws of physics, engineering, aerodynamics and so forth, it cannot possibly be true. In fact, it turns out that, as Gerard Holmgren, who was a blues musician for most Australia, had initially observed neither flight 11 nor flight 77, the Pentagon were on the Bureau of Transportation Statistics records for 9-11. The Bureau of Transportation statistics keeps very detailed and meticulous records about every commercial flight in the United States from takeoff to landing from the time it's supposed to load from the time it's scheduled to depart from the time it has wheels off to the time it has wheels down to the time it actually reaches the gate. But as Gerard Holmgren observed, did I have copies of the record that can verify what he has noticed? Neither flight 11 nor 77 were actually scheduled to fly that day. That means they were not even in the air. That's quite fascinating. If you turn now to what we had in 9-11 because, of course, virtually everyone has seen videos, multiple videos of what appeared to be planes hitting, especially the South Tower or WTC 2. Yes, let's talk about that South Tower incident. There has been a 52 different videos, Jason. Now what's fascinating is a whole host of expert sources, including the US Marine Corps, the Royal Air Force, pilots for 9-11 Truth have studied the videos and found that while this is supposed to be a Boeing 767, it actually is flying impossibly fast at that altitude. It appears they committed the blunder of taking the cruising speed at 35,000 feet and assuming the plane could fly equally fast at only 700 to 1000, where the air is three times more dense. That means as John Lear himself has observed in an affidavit he submitted for a legal case related to 9-11 in New York City, which I have archived on my 9-11 scholars dot ning n-i-n-g dot com website, where you can go to 9-11 scholars dot ning dot com and just enter in the search bar, John Lear affidavit and you'll have access to it. The air is so dense that the turbines can't pump it through the engines and they begin functioning as brakes. What pilots for 9-11 Truth have also observed is that that plane at that speed would exceed its physical capabilities for flight and would physically come apart in the air. So we already know something is terribly wrong. Sorry, Doctor. Give us that website once again 9-11. What was it? Scholars 9-11 scholars dot ning n-i-n-g dot com n-i-n-g. Got it. Yeah. Where I have this was the discussion forum for 9-11 scholars dot org which I found it in December of 2005 with Jason. So I've been at this for a very long time. Absolutely. I've been flown around the world to address 9-11. The high point may have come in December of 2006 when my wife and I were flown all experts paid to Athens Grease to appear on a television program which was hosted by the leading muck raker in Greece has been responsible for the collapse of several Greek governments. It was broadcast worldwide by satellite for three and a half hours in extension. They had all kinds of video clips. I was told going in that while they had a panel of 12, usually they only a few ask questions I said not tonight. They'll all ask questions and indeed I was born out the all ask questions. It was a fascinating experience. In any case returning to the videos so we know something is wrong even before the plane approaches the building. But then the anomalies become massively compounded. You have the plane entering the building with no collision of X. Now Joe Keith who designed the shaker system for Boeing, this is on the ground system for applying stress to aircraft usilages to see under what conditions they'll come apart. Observed that if you study the videos the hazard conny and the oven fair banks for example where hazard conny is taken from the side, the oven fair banks looking up, you have an image from the oven fair banks right there. You will observe that the plane disappears. Its entire length into the building and the same number of frames it passes its entire length through air. Now that's a complete physical absurdity unless a massive 500,000 ton steel in concrete building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight than air. So we know something else is terribly terribly wrong. In fact I've analyzed the structure of the building in relation to the alleged impact by flight 175 and it's actually intersecting with eight different floors. Jason each of which consists of a steel truss filled with concrete and attached it one end to the massive core columns at the other to the external steel support columns which were quite formidable in and of themselves. Now because the buildings were 208 feet at a side because the trusses had four inch deep grooves the depth of the concrete varies from four to eight inches but it means there's an anchor of concrete on a steel truss on each of the eight floors which together with their connection to the external steel support columns would have provided massive horizontal resistance. Had these had these in either case been real aircraft they would have crumpled external to the building bodies seats, luggage, tail wings would have fallen to the ground. The engines which are virtually indestructible would have indeed entered the building and quite likely passed out the other side but instead what do we find? We have photographs of the streetway and the sidewalks beneath the facade of both the north and the south tower. There is no debris from an airplane crash, no bodies, no seats, no luggage, no wings, no tail. Not only that but in church and Murray we discover there is an aircraft engine that was planted as though it had come from flight 175 but it turns out they committed several blunders in perpetrating this fraud. In the first place it's under a steel scaffolding and a canopy which are completely unharmed. It's sitting on the sidewalk where a massive object of that sort of that velocity would have disrupted the sidewalk extensively. Jack White with whom I did extensive research on JFK discovered Fox News footage of a white van in a nearby location where four or five agents wearing FBI vests are unloading something very heavy and believe it or not, they left behind a dolly they appeared to have used. We have photographs of all of this and Jason let me just say for the benefit of those who want to see all the evidence for themselves. And yes, that's exactly the engine which is from an antiquated, it wasn't in use at the time it was the wrong type of engine so they committed a blunder. You can find it on Bitshoot where I did a two hour overview of 9-11 with Brian Rue who was responsible and why on Bitshoot, B-I-T-C-H-U-T-E because as I've observed so many of my videos have taken down, been taken down from YouTube. So all of that is very, very troubling. But once you recognize that we're witnessing a physically impossible event that violates the laws of physics and engineering, the question becomes how was it done? There are three different theories that have been advanced. Rosalie Grable, yes that's right on Bitshoot. Rosalie Grable who used the handle the web ferry, suggests it was done with CGI. The computer generated images. Ace Baker who's done a brilliant 9-11 psi opera, his own video study of 9-11 suggested it was done with video compositing where you can add images to the broadcast image during the 17th second interval before its broadcast law. The third was advanced by a fellow from the UK who appears to have it right, suggesting it was done using holograms and you can find his 9-11 3D video study online. Now here's the reason why we have to take the hologram hypothesis seriously right from the beginning. There are hundreds of witnesses who maintain that they observe a plane approaching the building. Now they vary in their description. Some say it was a large plane, some say it was a small plane, some say it was a commercial plane, some say it was a military plane. But the fact of the matter is there are witnesses who attest to scene a plane in real time approaching the building. Now had this bundon with CGI or video compositing there would have been no real plane to have been observed, no real plane to have been seen. It would only have been seen in the broadcast footage. So already we can exclude the first two of the three alternatives. And of course remember since you're witnessing these physical impossibilities with no collision effects violating Newton's law's emotion when there ought to have been enormous resistance from this massive building we know something is wrong from the beginning. Now the study that was perpetrated by the UK investigator he took the 53 videos and he found there were 27 that actually were sufficiently precise for the location and of the plane at a specific time. So he plotted the location of the plane at different times in relation to the videos that were sufficiently precise when he began looking into a NIST. He found they had a similar plot with the same locations in the same times that they claimed was based on radar data. Now he looked at what they claimed to be their source but it looked fishy to him. He was astonished however to discover that there actually was radar data but when he investigated it was for a plane that was a 1200 feet to the right of the images he had applauded. This led him to the realization that how it had to have been done was by the plane that was 1200 feet to the right of the official plots where the image didn't show up on radar because it wasn't a physical object but the plane projecting the image did was projecting the image that it was flying faster than physically possible for a Boeing 767 to preserve the integrity of the image as it would be observed from the ground that the noise of the plane which many witnesses reported hearing came from the plane projecting the image and here you're showing a page from an Australian military manual for an airborne holographic projector that shows exactly what appears to have occurred on 9-11 one plane projecting the image of another in Autelia, Jason. It has been argued that holography wasn't sufficiently sophisticated at the time to allow this that there had to be a hard surface which has led some to speculate that there was a holographic projection of the image of a 767 on top of a cruise missile approaching the building. That about two years ago was revealed that there's a new more sophisticated version of holograms that allow you to project on air molecules and it doesn't require any hard surface. In that appears to be precisely the technology that was used on 9-11. When he applied the same method of analysis to the North Tower, he obtained the same results as I'm describing here. Once again, none of the collision impacts. There we have much fewer in the way of video evidence. In fact, we have the Nadeye brothers footage which was taken from a location in New York where a Scottish student of 9-11 observed that it required the satisfaction of over 100 improbable circumstances for the cameraman for the Nadeye brothers footage. It simply raises camera and captures the image of the plane flight 11 ostensibly as it hit the North Tower and it even turns out that the Nadeye brothers, Nadeyes, is an anagram for Duane Street. It's just a rearrangement of the letters for Duane Street that they used to identify the footage and other indication that was completely contrived phony and fake. It's a lot of compelling evidence that you present. I think it is worthy of further exploration and investigation which is, as I said at the top of our discussion, the reason why I'm quite fascinated by the points that you raise. I don't entirely agree with everything that you've just said. I'd like to offer some counter points for you to consider because it's important to me that we explore all possibilities and eliminate those that seem implausible or impossible. The first thing I'd like to address is this hologram idea because I don't know how much you know about my background but I had an extensive career in Hollywood and prior to that designing stereoscopic camera systems, working in 3D animation and visual effects and I have a very broad understanding of display systems, holographic technology and a variety of the things that would need to happen in order for what you've just described to take place. I've also evaluated the documents and the theories put forward by John Lear including that document that we were showing of the aerial holographic projector which as you pointed out came from a military website and the thing I found interesting about this aerial holographic projector, I apologize that I don't have the, someone has archived it, maybe this is it, but it's been removed from the internet. The thing that I find interesting about this particular document is that of course it's not showing us a photograph or a video of this technology and operation but rather a crude sort of illustration and it also doesn't have very technically involved explanations of how this technology would work. It describes the capabilities and enabling technologies but it's really, it's just talking about precision projection of 3D visual images into a selected area, supports SIOP and strategic deception management and provides deception and cloaking against optical sensors. It doesn't go into great detail and even in the PDF version of this document it seems to me more like a request for proposal for a desired technology and when I looked around further at 3D projection technologies that could do sort of what this describes there are a lot of limitations for projecting objects into thin air as it were. Brigham Young University has been working, this is an article from 2018 earlier this year, Brigham Young University has been working on a technology that uses lasers that scan and arasterized pattern similar to the way that a cathode ray tube television works and many holographers that I've spoken to and researchers, researchers that I've spoken to over the years have been inspired by various holographic technologies that are depicted in movies, most notably Princess Leia recorded on R2D2 and the famous Help Me Obi Wan Kenobi You're My Only Hope. That's basically regarded as the holy grail of holography, the ability to project into thin air. What this technology from Brigham Young University does as I understand it is it suspends an array of very fine metal particles in the air and shoots rapidly scanning array of lasers that can actually illuminate the particles and here we see a scientist's finger showing one of those particles, it's sort of a three-dimensional pixel, almost a picture element floating in air but of course this requires a, you know, this metal particle cloud to float, to have a medium to project it onto. We can't get around the physics of reflection and optics and light and the way the human eye works and the way our perception works. We need some medium to project onto and in order for hundreds of thousands or more people to or even just several hundred the number of people that observed aircrafts with their own eyes on 9-11 we really would require some medium to project onto. Additionally, we see here the resolution of these images, they're raster scanned images so the resolution is only going to be as fine as that metal particle cloud, the resolution of the laser reflecting off of the cloud and we can see here that, sorry. Well Jason, I think you missed my observation that of course military technology is, you know, decades ahead of what the public is allowed to know. Absolutely. And that within the last two years I have received reports about new technology that can be projected onto air. They project onto air molecules in space, doesn't require a hard surface that serves as a temporary screen. But Jason, take a look at that. Sorry Dr., before we continue, let me just address the first points because we only have an hour and there's a lot that you raised that I want to talk about. I would like to see the information on that projection onto thin air because I disagree that that's possible. We know the properties of air, we know the properties of light, we know the properties of human vision and I do not believe that a technology could overcome those limitations. Additionally, some of the evidence that's been used to support this hologram theory utilizes other elements of evidence that I find dubious, for instance. One of the things that John Lear has spoken about and that other proponents of this hologram theory have spoken about is this video, which they report to represent one of these, you know, projected on air holograms, which is a whale jumping in an auditorium with a bunch of school children watching it. And this certainly looks extremely convincing as far as being a three-dimensional, highly realistic image of a gigantic animal jumping in a gymnasium. Now, the problem with that as far as it being evidence is that it is not a 3D projection presented to those children, it's an ad for a video game device produced by a company called Magic Leap. And in order for users to see that whale, they need to wear these glasses, which have a translucent lens that goes over each eye, they are covered with these sensors, which have the ability to in real time optically scan the room or the area that the viewer is in and to project on a screen inside the glasses stereoscopic computer-generated images, in that case it would be of the whale. So in order for people to observe an aircraft, holographically, and I'm making air quotes when I say that, impacting the World Trade Center, we would have had to have everyone in New York City who observed it wearing these Magic Leap glasses, which still have not been released. Well, Jason, Jason, I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. You've just committed a strong man fallacy by presenting a more elaborate version of the hypothesis than is necessary. I agree with you the whale image and so forth requires this technology, although initially I was deceived and taken in myself, but I agree with that. It's an elementary argument by elimination that leads us to holograms, however it was done. There appears to be no alternative when we only have three choices- CGI- I'm going to address those. I'm going to address those. Wait a minute, Dr. I let you speak for almost 30 minutes. I want to address the initial points because there's things we agree on and there's things that we disagree on. So please, let me just continue, because I think that there are other possibilities and as you've just said, you were initially deceived by that whale graphic, so I remain convinced that there's a possibility that other explanations may be currently believed but could be shown to be incorrect. Now, we've spoken about the speed at which this alleged aircraft was traveling at the altitude it was at. So I think we agree that it was not a Boeing 767 that was depicted flying there, but of course for every commercial aircraft, Boeing has military configurations of its aircraft and in the case of 767s, one of those military configurations is something called the KC-46. Now, it certainly stands to reason and I do agree with you that the military has technology that's classified and potentially vastly more advanced than technology that civilians are aware of. So the concept that a military jet that looks essentially very much like a 767 but has performance characteristics that greatly exceed that of a 767 seems very plausible to me. So in my view, it's possible that a KC-46 or a similarly configured military aircraft could have been used. Now, the reason why I wanted Field McConnell to participate in the debate with Mr. Lear is that I have no doubt that Mr. Lear is a very accomplished pilot, but that gives him no qualifications in the area of holography and computer animation, etc. I've seen many of the videos that you're talking about, particularly the ones that say it must have been CGI and one of the arguments that's made in those videos as to why it would be CGI is that upon stabilization of the handheld video, the airplane in the video appears to shake around and the conclusion that the creator of that video comes to is that the only way that that could occur is if a CGI plane were inserted and that causes the stabilization, the motion introduced by the stabilization, the counter motion that stabilizes the video to put the airplane into motion. But I disagree with that conclusion. There's another way that that same effect would be observed and that is if a physical airplane being controlled by an autopilot and piloting on a calculated path which would be equally precise to the path of a computer animated plane if a remote piloted plane were used, that same effect would be observed and I do believe there's quite a lot of evidence to indicate that a remote piloted plane was used. Now in the case of the engine that was found on the street, that I would like to see some more of the evidence that you've compiled with Jack White because I'm sad that Jack White left this earth before I had the chance to meet him. I have a lot of respect for Jack White's work particularly with regard to the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald and I've done some research on those photographs myself that I'd wanted to share with him but I haven't seen the work that he's done with regard to this engine. I would say that the observed fact that this does not visually match an engine that would be on a united commercial 767 could possibly be explained by the hypothesis that it may have been an engine on some form of military aircraft. Now Dr. I'm happy to allow you to continue to speak because I think there are more points we could cover about this but I don't think that we've arrived at the only possible conclusion that it was holograms. It's real simple Jason there are three alternatives that was CGI video compositing or a hologram no real plane. Military commercial, fancy, non-fancy, I don't care if had had to bleed it uranium on its wings which is an absurdity because it would completely alter the aerodynamics. You're ignoring the basic laws of physics Jason no plane could have entered that building with no collision effects that's what we see it's a violation of the laws of physics and engineering it's an impossibility no real plane. I also Jason I also pointed out that Joe Keith observed that the plane passes its entire length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its entire length through air which is completely absurd unless a massive 500,000 ton steel and concrete building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air. Now how it was done holographically is a question that I think is open to refinement but that no real plane entered the building is in my opinion beyond dispute no competent physicist would accept your line of argument because it's impossible for any real plane to have displayed the behavior we witness in these videos. Well doctor I don't know that I agree with that conclusion because we would need to explain how this proposed holographic technology would work with regard to what you've just said about the plane not exhibiting any deformation as it enters the building and I've not proposed that it would have depleted uranium wings I agree that that would be a very difficult plane to cause to fly but I think it is possible that elements of the plane could have been hardened specifically the nose cone may have been hardened and I also think that it's possible that some plane other than a 767 might be made to be able to fly at the speed that was observed and that that might cause the plane to generate such tremendous kinetic energy something that I have not really heard addressed adequately the degree of kinetic energy generated by the plane in the amount of force as I understand it. Jason you're committing an elementary blunder you want to calculate the force applied without calculating the resistance I've explained several times here we're talking about eight different floors each of which was filled with an acre concrete two hundred and eight feet on the side connected one end to the massive core columns and the other to the external steel support columns which were quite formidable. Dr. let's look at this plane let's look at this right here. Possibly have entered the building it was physically impossible. Let's take a look here's this video frame because that also remind you that the tools that we're using to evaluate this phenomenon are consumer-grade standard definition video cameras recording at 30 frames per second and in 2001 the most common consumer video format would have been mini DV many people probably also were using analog formats including hi-8 maybe even VHS who knows there are a number of anomalies that would be introduced by each of these recording formats that are affecting the images that we're using to evaluate this phenomenon. I think we don't have adequate information to evaluate like when I look at this I believe we do see crushing of the nose there is a change in this frame it might be difficult for viewers to see as we present it here but there is something happening and I don't think we have adequate resolution either spatially or temporarily to fully evaluate this phenomenon but I would like to hear from a physicist to get a precise calculation of what the kinetic energy of the plane hitting the building would be because I've seen testimony from one of the designers of the building who claims that despite the facts that you're pointing out the building was designed to absorb the impact of a jet crashing into it and he described it as a screen door with a pencil pushing through it so I think that there are a number of unexplained phenomena on here. Jason I've been at this for 10 years okay it took Morgan Reynolds and Judy would a year and a half of beating up on me to get me to look at the evidence. There's not an argument you're giving that I haven't heard before it's nonsense so we have a simple proof you can count the number of frames that takes a plane to pass its entire length into the building you can count the number of frames that takes the plane to pass through its whole length in the air they are the same that means there's no diminution in velocity which is preposterous the plane as pilots for 9-11 truth have demonstrated in their video 9-11 intercepted would have collapsed external to the building Jason all your talk about techniques is meaningless in relation to the elementary laws of physics no plane can violate those laws that's why there's such a tell here and while I appreciate the sophistication with which you're seeking to argue your case it is a failure I mean look honestly it's called inference the best explanation what's the probability of all these effects on the different hypotheses that the plane was real the plane was fake some kind of image the fact is all these effects have about a zero probability if the plane was real but very high probability if it was fake there's no way you could convince me or anyone who understands physics and engineering that a real plane really entered the north or the south tower Jason and the evidence for the south tower is overwhelming I'm sorry to say you're just committing blunders about elementary physics well I mean doctor we disagree I think that there are a lot of people who have a lot of qualifications in this area who disagree with the theories that you're putting forward and I would go back to saying that measuring the number of frames in these highly inaccurate devices which are 30 frame per second low resolution video cameras recording a phenomenon that takes place in such a short period of time that the differences that would be observed we are not measuring with enough accuracy to observe so Jason you're pretending that the reduction in velocity would be subtle and difficult to discern no would have been calamitous a plane with a crunch against the building parts falling to the ground I've explained we have photographs and videos from the ground there are no parts of the plane there was no collision no collision effects it was fake let me add this to pilots for 911 truth were able to track flight 93 on the basis of air ground communication and found it was over champagne or ban a illinois after it had purportedly crashed in Shang-Chiol they were also able to track flight 175 and found it was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh Pennsylvania after it had officially hit the south tower I didn't say flight 175 hit the building I obtained a registration data that showed that the planes that were used the actual physical aircraft used for those flights were the same plane of course could be used one day tamper to Chicago tomorrow New York to Los Angeles we're not even formally de-registered or taken out of service in Dr. you're deflecting from what we're discussing I'm not disagreeing with you Dr. Fetzer there's no need to get upset we're having a debate I don't disagree that these were not commercial airlines but I think that there is no adequate explanation for this hologram theory and I think it's important there are only three hypotheses Jason and two of them CGI and and and computer a video compositing are inconsistent with the eye witnesses now if you want to claim the witnesses are all lying about what they took to be a plane I didn't say that I agree I agree what they took to be a plane was not a real plane but I've emphasized I didn't say that so don't agree I didn't say that Jason I'm emphasizing as strongly as I can no real plane no real plane Dr. it's not my intention to upset you it's not my intention to upset you and you seem to be getting upset so let's calm down I'm embarrassed that you're giving an argument that's inconsistent with elementary classical physics and I suggest you go back to the drawing board on this okay Dr. Fetzer thank you for joining me I'm sorry for you to leave the program upset I had hoped that we would have a calm debate but that doesn't seem to be the case I've already bought it actually refuted every claim you've made no you've not you basically told me that I'm saying things that I haven't said with the exception that yes with the exact type of holography but that it had to be holography is that please review the video because you told me that I've said a number of things that I haven't said I think we should end the discussion because I don't want you to be upset and we're getting nowhere Jason I'm just very surprised that you really aren't more knowledgeable about elementary physics because none of this is complicated enough to deceive you if you put your mind to it so I wish you well in your studies but no real blame it was physically impossible for any real blame to enter the South Tower as for trade therefore it has to be I think we're going to agree to disagree Dr. Fetzer thank you for joining me I'll speak to you soon take care thanks for watching everybody I'll be back in just over an hour with David Hawkins thanks everybody