Jim Fetzer responds to David Lifton's claims regarding 9-11

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

Since I am increasingly convinced that you are not reading my posts,

much less the links I provide, I want to elaborate on some of those

reasons you give for doubting my research on 9/11. I have provided

a link to "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", which is archived at

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

But here I want to present some of the reasons why you do not under-

stand my arguments, which of course appears to be the reason why you

are attacking them, including a photo of the hit point, where a Boeing

757--which is 155 feet long with a 125 foot wing span--officially hit.

(1) The left shows the original hit point before the upper floors fell,

which didn't happen for 20-25 minutes. Notice the absence of a massive

pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton airliner. No wings, no tail, no

bodies, seats, luggage. Not even the titanium engines were recovered.

(2) Here are the two lime-green civilian firetrucks extinguishing the

modest fires. Notice the entirely clear, clean lawn, which shows no

signs of disruption and the complete absence of any aircraft debris,

which is inconsistent with the crash of a Boeing 757 having occurred.

Edited May 25, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David (continuing),

(3) The principal reason I believe a missile, not a plane, may have hit

is that in this frame--one of five it released--you can see a smaller

plane just above the gate mechanism, which is about half the size of

a Boeing 757, with the white plume that is characteristic of a missile.

If this photo is fake, of course, then I would revise my view about this.

(4) The piece of wreckage photographed on the lawn of the Pentagon with a

piece of vine attached has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia,

which occurred in 1995. Since there was no debris on the lawn after the

fires had been extinguished, it has to have come from somewhere. My best

guess is that it was dropped from the C-130 that was circling the building.

Notice that this piece of fuselage shows no indications of being singed as

the result of a fire, even though the official story claims that the plane crash

caused an enormous fireball. It looks quite shiny and clean, consistent with

its having been ripped off a 757 that had crashed in Cali, Columbia, as James

Hanson, an attorney from Columbus, OH, discovered. [Compare debris with (2).]

Edited May 25, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David (concluding),

(5) As an add-on, when rumors circulated that the Capitol would be the next

target, the members of Congress rushed out of the building and, looking at

the Pentagon over the Potomac, observed billowing black smoke, which was

coming from a serious of enormous dumpsters and not from the building:

This was a classic Hollywood-style "special effect". When I was in Duluth

before my retirement in 2006, another student of 9/11 came by and showed

me 44 more frames of what was going on here, where you could see the light

between the Pentagon and the enormous dumpsters. That's how blatant it was.

Edited May 25, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

Thread created so Jim Fetzer's posts regarding 9-11 can be moved from the JFK section to a more appropriate location.

[Len Colby]

We’ve been all over this crapola a few times already; the impact hole on the ground floor was more than big enough to accommodate all of the 757 except for the wingtips. I don’t know of anyone with relevant expertise who thinks the damage to the Pentagon or the debris found outside it was not what we would expect from a 500 MPH impact of jetliner.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

Just out of curiosity I want to know what Fetzer and White think low resolution, slow ‘shutter’ speed far out of focus video frames should have shown.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,

then you are obviously disqualified from commenting on these issues. If a plane at that speed

had hit lampposts, the effect would have been the same as lampposts traveling at 500 mph had

hit a stationary plane: the wings would have been ripped off, they would have exploded in flames,

and the plane would have been thrown completely off its trajectory. That you want to deny the

proofs I have presented above is hardly surprising, given your track record on this forum. But it

is instructive to notice the inconsistency between the gashes allegedly created by the 767s hitting

the Twin Towers and the absence of any outline of the 757 at the Pentagon, whose facade is very

soft limestone. And of course the absence of a massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton

airliner--with no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats, or luggage, where not even the engines were

recovered--tells us that no Boeing 757 crashed there, which we also know from April Gallop, who

stepped out of the alleged impact hole and saw no evidence of any plane having hit there--for

the obvious reason that no plane had. There is much more that supports this conclusion, but it

is pointless, since you are on a mission and will deny even the most persuasive evidence forever!

We’ve been all over this crapola a few times already; the impact hole on the ground floor was more than big enough to accommodate all of the 757 except for the wingtips. I don’t know of anyone with relevant expertise who thinks the damage to the Pentagon or the debris found outside it was not what we would expect from a 500 MPH impact of jetliner.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

Just out of curiosity I want to know what Fetzer and White think low resolution, slow ‘shutter’ speed far out of focus video frames should have shown.

Edited May 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Matthew Lewis]

If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,

Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is?

Edited May 27, 2011 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

Not forgetting the over 100 witnesses who saw the aircraft.....

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It's called "ground effect", which is the accumulation of a pocket of compressed gas (air)

beneath the fuselage in flight. I have discussed this with pilots and aeronautical engineers,

who explained to me that a Boeing 757 at full throttle could not get closer than one wing length

to the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible. (Evan

Burton is a pilot and has to know this, even though he is not about to admit that it is true.) Check

out Pilots for 9/11 Truth and its "Pandora's Black Box" on the plane that appears to have flown

over the Pentagon, CIT's "National Security Alert" on the witnesses they have found who report

seeing the plane approach NORTH of the Citgo station, when the official trajectory has it SOUTH

of the Citgo station, and Pilot's new study, "9/11 Intercepted", about anomalies with the planes.

If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,

Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is?

Edited May 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, there were less than 100. But Mike Sparks and I devoted

three two-hour radio interviews to discussing them archived at

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com:

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2010

Mike Sparks

Pentagon witnesses, Part III

MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 2010

Mike Sparks

More 9/11 Pentagon witnesses

MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 2010

Mike Sparks

9/11 Pentagon Witnesses, Part I

Not only were the vast majority either not in the position to have

observed such a plane, but most of their reports were ambiguous and

vague. Listen to our discussion of each of them in turn on the show.

Plus CIT has found multiple witnesses who report that the plane they

observed approached NORTH of the Citgo station, whereas the official

account requires a plane that approached SOUTH of the Citgo station.

A friend of mine from JFK research had a trucker buddy who was in

front of the Pentagon at the time driving a truck and who has told him

he had seen a big plane approach the building and then swerve over it.

Witness reports are easy to fake, where the aerodynamic impossibility

of the official account demonstrates that it cannot possibly be true.

No debris, impossible speed, hitting lampposts and all that shows it.

Not forgetting the over 100 witnesses who saw the aircraft.....

Edited May 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Matthew Lewis]

That's what I thought you'd say. I believe we have discussed this before. Ground effect DECREASES as speed increases and as angle of attack decreases (both of which the plane would have had) and is negligible at high speeds as it is caused by induced drag. Even IF it was present, it will NOT prevent the aircraft from approaching the ground, it would just make it slightly more difficult. I've produced links before showing the above to be true. I'm not surprised that you ignored it before.

It's called "ground effect", which is the accumulation of a pocket of compressed gas (air)

beneath the fuselage in flight. I have discussed this with pilots and aeronautical engineers,

who explained to me that a Boeing 757 at full throttle could not get closer than one wing length

to the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible. (Evan

Burton is a pilot and has to know this, even though he is not about to admit that it is true.) Check

out Pilots for 9/11 Truth and its "Pandora's Black Box" on the plane that appears to have flown

over the Pentagon, CIT's "National Security Alert" on the witnesses they have found who report

seeing the plane approach NORTH of the Citgo station, when the official trajectory has it SOUTH

of the Citgo station, and Pilot's new study, "9/11 Intercepted", about anomalies with the planes.

If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,

Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is?

Edited May 27, 2011 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

"Ground effect" is a phenomenon known to pilots whereby a plane, flying at extremely low altitudes, encounters a sudden increase in lift. It can be difficult to descend further until lift is reduced. According to the official record, Flight 77 approached the Pentagon at a very shallow angle, very low to the ground, and very fast -- too low, and too fast, for too long. The ground effect buffer would have forced the plane to stay higher, and the pilot could not have overcome this. Reality: The effects of ground effect can be mitigated by changing the plane's angle of attack -- in this case, that meant adjusting its nose-down pitch. This low-level finesse would have been a challenge for Hani Hanjour, but by no means impossible, especially if he'd coordinated his final descent with help from the autopilot, which can make the needed adjustments easily.

From: Ask the pilot.

"In the aftermath of 9/11, I have heard many claims that a 757 could not possible have hit the Pentagon because the plane cannot fly so low to the ground at speeds of 500 mph or more. The primary reason given is that ground effect prevents this from happening. Is there any truth to this claim?"

...One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

From: Aerospaceweb.org

"On the evidence available it cannot be proved that ground effect would have prevented the plane from striking where it did."

From: Journal of 9-11 Studies

"So, to sum up: the mythical air cushion does not exist in the flight regime and configuration presented by FDR data; the assertion of "aerodynamically impossible" is being made in complete ignorance of aerodynamic forces influencing aircraft in flight; ground effect is not going to prevent a collision between an aircraft travelling at 460 knots and the building right in front of it as it passed, at extremely low altitude, over the ground."

From: 9-11 Myths

Finally, some visual evidence:

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Without conceding the point (because I believe you are wrong, not least of all because the angle of

attack could not have increased when it was just skimming the ground, since increasing its angle of

attack at that point would have stuck its nose in the lawn), how about the lampposts being hit by

a plane traveling 500 mph, which is equivalent to a stationary aircraft being hit by a lamppost--or

several--at 500 mph, which would have ripped off the wings, caused huge fireballs to erupt (since

the fuel is stored in the wings), caused it to turn to its right (if the right wing was hit) or to turn to

the left (if the left wing was hit), but in no case to continue on its trajectory? Is this ALSO some-

thing you are going to deny? I can't wait to hear your argument. We actually have a multiplicity

of reasons why the official account cannot possibly be true. In assessing your position, you need

to take them all into account. And I suppose you can explain away the billowing dumpster smoke as

a Hollywood special effect? or the absence of debris? or the piece of fuselage that's been traced

back to a crash in Cali, Columbia in 1995? To defend the official account, if that is your intent,

you need to defeat all the evidence that falsifies that account. So your work is just beginning.

That's what I thought you'd say. I believe we have discussed this before. Ground effect DECREASES as speed increases and as angle of attack decreases (both of which the plane would have had) and is negligible at high speeds as it is caused by induced drag. Even IF it was present, it will NOT prevent the aircraft from approaching the ground, it would just make it slightly more difficult. I've produced links before showing the above to be true. I'm not surprised that you ignored it before.

It's called "ground effect", which is the accumulation of a pocket of compressed gas (air)

beneath the fuselage in flight. I have discussed this with pilots and aeronautical engineers,

who explained to me that a Boeing 757 at full throttle could not get closer than one wing length

to the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible. (Evan

Burton is a pilot and has to know this, even though he is not about to admit that it is true.) Check

out Pilots for 9/11 Truth and its "Pandora's Black Box" on the plane that appears to have flown

over the Pentagon, CIT's "National Security Alert" on the witnesses they have found who report

seeing the plane approach NORTH of the Citgo station, when the official trajectory has it SOUTH

of the Citgo station, and Pilot's new study, "9/11 Intercepted", about anomalies with the planes.

If you don't know that a Boeing 757 could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground at 500 mph,

Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is?

Edited May 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Len Colby]

Excuse me Fetzer but I failed to notice anything remotely resembling expertise in aviation in your bio. Did you go out and get a degree in aviation engineering and forget to tell anyone? We’ve been over this spurious claim a few times over the years.

As Matthew, who is a pilot, pointed out a few years ago, “ground EFFECT DECREASES with increased speed and increases with increased angle of attack.” He provided several citations in support of his claim.

In another post he wrote: “To clarify, there are two types of ground effect. The normal ground effect increases at low speed and high angles of attack, exactly the conditions one would find in a landing situation” he cited an article by Jeff Scott “an aerospace engineer specializing in aerodynamic analysis”. You can hardly dispute Mr. Scotts expertise on the subject because you said you thought another article he wrote on the same site was “consistent with” your “understanding” of ground effect.

In the article entitle “Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect”, Scott wrote

A second factor that influences the impact of trailing vortices on an aircraft is the speed at which it travels. A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong.

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

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

Citing Matthew again;

Ram ground effect (the other type) does increase at high speeds but only takes effect "where the wing is at an altitude of h/c=0.1 or less."

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/51083/01/51083.pdf

h is the height and c is the chord or distance from the front of the wing to the back of the wing.

From here

http://www.757.org.uk/spec/spec1.html

we can see the maximum chord of the 757 wing is 8.2 meters or almost 27 feet. This means that the plane would have to be flying with the wings at less than 3 feet off the ground for ram ground effect to have any effect. Actually less as the chord of the 757 wing decreases along its length and the average chord would be even less. So the only type of ground effect that comes into play in this situation is the normal type (there are two, normal and ram as described in the pdf linked above) and we already know that normal ground effect decreases with speed and lower angle of attack.

Ground effect would definitely NOT keep a 757 from hitting the Pentagon at the speed and trajectory it is supposed to have been at on 911.

After furthur discussion of the technical aspects Jeff Scott, the aerospace engineer cited above, concluded “These factors make it clear that Ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11.”

Scott went on to explain that:

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

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

[…]

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

The plane mentioned in the article below was a Boeing 777-300ER whose wingspan (212.7 feet) is 34% longer than that of the 767-200 (159.2 feet) and 70% longer than the 757’s (124.9 feet), one thing both sides agree on it that altitude in relation to wingspan is a critical factor in ground effect. Its rated cruse speed (560 mph) is only slightly higher than that of 757’s and 767’s (530 mph)

Jumbo jet pilot sacked for ‘fly-by’ at 28 feet

February 25, 2008

A British pilot has been dismissed for “buzzing” a control tower in a Top Gun-style stunt during the maiden flight of a Boeing jumbo jet.

Captain Ian Wilkinson astonished passengers by taking the 230-tonne Cathay Pacific jet to within 28ft (8.5m) of the ground shortly after take-off from Boeing’s US manufacturing plant.

The 322mph fly-by was cheered by onlookers, and the pilot, who is said to be one of the most senior aviators with the airline, later toasted the flight with champagne.

[...]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3427696.ece

Here’s a video of the incident:

An Airbus 310 flying very low at over 430 MPH (700 KPH) can be seen here. Its wingspan is less than that of 767’s but greater than that of 757s. It used the same engines as 767-200’s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dK5VOhKk8s&feature=player_embedded

Here is a video of a Boeing KC-135 (military version of the 707) flying very fast at very low altitude, its wingspan (136.3 feet) is 10% longer than a 757’s but presumably 4 engines would produce a lot more “ground effect” than two

And here’s a 737-200

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmB7mfYUGQk&feature=player_embedded

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And precisely which FDR data are you citing in that last quote, Evan? The FDR data that the NTSB provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which corresponded to a commercial carrier flying at 300 feet above the ground--too high to hit any lampposts--on a due east trajectory--not the acute north-east trajectory of the official account--and was 100 feet above the building at one second from impact--which means it swerved over the building rather than hit it, as my friend's trucker buddy reported. Pilots explained all of this in "Pandora's Black Box". So what FDR data are you talking about? This sounds fake. Kindly spell it out.

"Ground effect" is a phenomenon known to pilots whereby a plane, flying at extremely low altitudes, encounters a sudden increase in lift. It can be difficult to descend further until lift is reduced. According to the official record, Flight 77 approached the Pentagon at a very shallow angle, very low to the ground, and very fast -- too low, and too fast, for too long. The ground effect buffer would have forced the plane to stay higher, and the pilot could not have overcome this. Reality: The effects of ground effect can be mitigated by changing the plane's angle of attack -- in this case, that meant adjusting its nose-down pitch. This low-level finesse would have been a challenge for Hani Hanjour, but by no means impossible, especially if he'd coordinated his final descent with help from the autopilot, which can make the needed adjustments easily.

From: Ask the pilot.

"In the aftermath of 9/11, I have heard many claims that a 757 could not possible have hit the Pentagon because the plane cannot fly so low to the ground at speeds of 500 mph or more. The primary reason given is that ground effect prevents this from happening. Is there any truth to this claim?"

...One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

From: Aerospaceweb.org

"On the evidence available it cannot be proved that ground effect would have prevented the plane from striking where it did."

From: Journal of 9-11 Studies

"So, to sum up: the mythical air cushion does not exist in the flight regime and configuration presented by FDR data; the assertion of "aerodynamically impossible" is being made in complete ignorance of aerodynamic forces influencing aircraft in flight; ground effect is not going to prevent a collision between an aircraft travelling at 460 knots and the building right in front of it as it passed, at extremely low altitude, over the ground."

From: 9-11 Myths

Finally, some visual evidence:

Edited May 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer