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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bill,

(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.

What is your take on this? How far are you willing to go with the official account?

Jim

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tom,

Something else that bothers me (apart from any indications that this debris came from a Boeing 767)

is that, in New York, the alleged crashed created cartoon-like cut outs of the planes--down to the tips

of their wings--in those massive steel and concrete buildings. Yet the Boeing 757 that is supposed to

have hit the Pentagon did not leave a comparable cut out in the side of the building--see (1) above--

even though the facade of the Pentagon is relatively soft and porous limestone. What is your take on

this? Don't you find this the least bit strange? Apparently it doesn't bother Evan or Bill, among others.

Jim

John, Boeing builds their 767-200's "Ford tough" if this is an indication.

http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390

You can probably assume the same of the 757's. Envision what amounts to a hollow metal tube with a relatively thin, sheet metal skin, hurtling at a building like the reinforced, newly revamped section of the Pentagon at 800 km/h, with the only real resistance coming from the engines and the hard points, where the wings

mount to the fuselage. Consider that in all three impact incidences against the walls of three substantial structures, the tails sections

of all three airliner fuselages seemed not slowed in the least by the full on frontal impact, 50 meters forward of the tail, of the comparatively flimsy forward fuselages....

...at least that is what the government is representing in the scant video evidence it has released of the Pentagon impact.

http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/2009/07/zero-interaction-physics-or-zero-crash.html

July 18, 2009

Zero Interaction Physics or Zero Crash Physics

by The Anonymous Physicist

...In the first few “plane entering tower” frames of the videos, what some have called “melding” occurs. That is the front part of the plane appears to DISAPPEAR into the tower--without ANY interaction of the tower....

...I have also written that from the moment of a real plane hitting the 4 inch steel of the tower, a shockwave would have traveled down the plane at 5000 mph and would have deformed the back of the plane almost instantaneously or caused it to break off. ...

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/06/further-proving-911-plane-hits-are.html

une 03, 2008

Further Proving The 9/11 Plane Hits Are Bogus: The Missing Deformation/Shock Wave In The Plane

....Now many have noted that all the videos of the “second plane hit” violate the Laws of Physics in many ways. Basically the simple CGI shows the plane slicing through the building like a knife going through butter. The outer structure of the towers was hard steel that supported 40% of the weight of the towers, while the alleged Boeing 767’s fuselage was composed of aluminum with some composite material. As many have noted, the simple Physics of Newton’s Third Law means that the “hit” is the same as a steel tower moving at the alleged 500 mph into a plane whose fuselage is mostly aluminum, and empty space. The plane would crumple and not make it into the tower in any appreciable sense-- except possibly for parts of the engines....

Edited June 20, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Bill Sherwood]

Bill,

I've been away from this thread for some time. Just to be sure I understand you correctly, you claim (i) that a Boeing 757 could travel at full throttle (over 500 mph) just skimming the ground, (ii) that it could hit multiple lampposts and not have its wings torn off or its fuel tanks in those wings burst into fire, (iii) that its trajectory would not be affected by hitting those lampposts but would continue unabated, and (iv) that this 100-ton airliner could impact the ground floor of the Pentagon and not leave a massive pile of aluminum debris, no wings, no tail, no bodies, no seats, no luggage?

Just to press on point about physics, are you familiar with Newton's laws, including his third law of motion? Do you understand that the effects of a Boeing 757 impacting with a stationary lamppost at 500 mph would be the same as a stationary plane being hit by a lamppost travelling at 500 mph? We know the damage caused by impacting with a tiny bird on commercial carriers, where those birds weigh only a few ounces. What do you think would be the effect of a plane traveling at 500 mph at 25,000 feet, for example, impacting with one of those lampposts suspended vertically in space?

Jim

I'm not into pages and pages of questions and answers, I keep replies short so I'm not going to go through all those questions one by one.

Yes a 757 could easily keep going even with large chunks of wing removed and not significantly have its flight path deviate. The reason is simple - It's going so fast that in the short time between hitting poles (call them 1,000' from the Pentagon) the plane would only drop about 20' or so and that's if you removed both wings completely. (plane is doing about 730 ft per second, so 1.3 second transit time. Vertical acceleration over that time is about 20' so not much at all) However, even with hitting a pole or two, they simply will not make a wing fall off. Just not going to happen sorry, they are far too strong for that.

To give you an idea just how strong they are, look at the China Airlines 747-SP accident a few years back - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006

They pulled five G's in the recovery and the wings didn't come off, and that's with a plane that weighs up near 300 tonnes. A couple of frangible poles are going to put some good dents in the wing for sure, but they simply are not capable of making the wing come off, full stop.

I am also well aware of the damage that birds can cause to an aeroplane, having had it happen a few times. To do any real damage they have to be large birds, not small ones. More relevant would be to look at an airliner flying through hail; Flying through patches of air that contain solid lumps of ice hammering away at the airframe can cause some damage but again they do not cause large chunks of airframe to fall off. The worst I've seen is the fibreglass nose cave-in, some dents in the leading edges of the wings and tail, and a few cracked windscreens.

The absence of debris is completely understandable as virtually all the aeroplane would have entered the building and then been shredded. Take a look at the multiple videos of the other aeroplanes hitting the twin towers and take special note of how much of the aeroplane gets blown backwards out of the hole they make - It's very little to none in each case. The only bits I can remember seeing leave the second tower where the engines, as they kept going out the other side due to the inertia of them - They are five to six tonnes each.

The video looks fine to me. Blurry for sure but it's not a high-resolution or high frame-rate camera so I'm not surprised there's some distortion.

An example of how some of those cameras can distort things, I took a photo out the window of the propeller of one of the aeroplanes I used to fly.

Note that on Garrett TPE-33's there are four blades and they are all attached to the hub quite strongly. But if I didn't know that and only went on that photo I would say it has about eight blades that obit the hub in some weird pattern/ My point being that one photo like that doesn't really prove anything. The Pentagon photo certainly shows something in the right position, speed, and about the right size to match the data.

I've already answered how I think some smaller bit of debris could have been blown backwards onto the lawn.

The photos that apparently show a hole not large enough for a 757 are cherry-picked for angle and visibility to make it look smaller than what it is - I have seen others that show the hole correctly and it is the right size for a 757 hitting it. You also cannot use the example of the holes in the Trade Towers to show how the hole should look in the Pentagon as they are totally different structures. The steel walls of the towers were structurally very different in the way they worked to the stone of the Pentagon.

[Evan Burton]

More of those 'impossible' manoeuvres.

[Evan Burton]

Another

[Evan Burton]

And again

[Evan Burton]

[Evan Burton]

http://www.madskies.com/208/pass-compilation-no1/

[Bill Sherwood]

This one's pretty cool. It shows how distorted things can get with the wrong camera.