Jump to content
The Education Forum

9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Believe what you want to believe, Bill. I know this is hard to accept. The very idea that the government could

have murdered 3,000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11 seems to some so threatening that many simply cannot

get their minds around it. There are significant differences in the weight of different kinds of evidence. If

you can discount the impossible speed, the impossible entry, and the equal frames arguments, then I have

to congratulate you, but that is not something that scientifically literate persons would do. No number of

witness reports (whose authenticity requires verification) can overcome violations of laws of aerodynamics,

of physics, and of engineering.

They have been demonstrated many times to be very possible.

I'm sorry but it's not even close to begin even thinking about calling all this a point or evidence, it's pure fantasy at the very best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Bill,

Then I hope you will contact Pilots for 9/11 Truth and John Lear to explain to them why they have it wrong.

They are the experts on the impossible speed issue. As for the impossible entry into the building, I would

have thought that even you could look at the plane entering the building and see that it is a fantasy, not to

mention the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it

passes through its own length in air, which you can verify for yourself using frame-by-frame advance. I

suppose it won't affect you that the plane has no strobe lights either, which ought to be visible if it were

the plane the government claims it to be. And of course there is no damage to the building's side as the

plane passes through it, which is a trick befitting David Copperfield! 9/11 was a magician's performance.

Jim

Believe what you want to believe, Bill. I know this is hard to accept. The very idea that the government could

have murdered 3,000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11 seems to some so threatening that many simply cannot

get their minds around it. There are significant differences in the weight of different kinds of evidence. If

you can discount the impossible speed, the impossible entry, and the equal frames arguments, then I have

to congratulate you, but that is not something that scientifically literate persons would do. No number of

witness reports (whose authenticity requires verification) can overcome violations of laws of aerodynamics,

of physics, and of engineering.

They have been demonstrated many times to be very possible.

I'm sorry but it's not even close to begin even thinking about calling all this a point or evidence, it's pure fantasy at the very best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

Then I hope you will contact Pilots for 9/11 Truth and John Lear to explain to them why they have it wrong.

No need to, as all the various explanations other than what actually happened have been thoroughly dis-proven.

There is no need to go over it again and again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I hope you will contact Pilots for 9/11 Truth and John Lear to explain to them why they have it wrong.

That would be worthwhile, except they don't let people who disagree with them stay there. Oh - and one tends to not like getting threatened with violence; another reason for those who disagree with them not to go there.

I suppose it won't affect you that the plane has no strobe lights either, which ought to be visible if it were the plane the government claims it to be.

This is new; who is claiming what and where?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth pointing out that aircraft have a pretty large safety factor built into them, so that if you exceed design limits the aircraft is not going to automatically break up on you.

failures.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth pointing out that aircraft have a pretty large safety factor built into them, so that if you exceed design limits the aircraft is not going to automatically break up on you.

Quite true, as I provided proof for in the other thread where I gave examples of the Chinese 747-SP that briefly went to 5 G's and still hung together, and the DC-8 that was deliberately flown faster than mach one. Very high speeds simply are not going to be a problem at all, even down low though the wind noise in the cockpit would be quite high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth pointing out that aircraft have a pretty large safety factor built into them, so that if you exceed design limits the aircraft is not going to automatically break up on you.

Quite true, as I provided proof for in the other thread where I gave examples of the Chinese 747-SP that briefly went to 5 G's and still hung together, and the DC-8 that was deliberately flown faster than mach one. Very high speeds simply are not going to be a problem at all, even down low though the wind noise in the cockpit would be quite high.

Although not pertinent to the gist of the thread, I am intersted in the deliberate occurrence of > Mach 1 velocity for the DC-8. Was this a sustained air speed? Was it in a dive? Was the nose modified (or blunted)? CFD modeling would indicate extremely high buffeting wind loads for designs similar to a DC 8. I had not heard of this before. Sorry for the off topic questions. Just interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC4 just had a 9/11 documentary on - both sides, scientists with proof, and Truthers without.

Scientists had calm, reasoned, logical, provable claims.

Truthers swore a lot at the interviewer, especially when their "claims" were shown to be not only false, but in many cases outright lies.

:tomatoes:lol:

Edit : You may just need to use a UK proxy...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fbd8g/The_Conspiracy_Files_Series_2_9_11_The_Truth_behind_the_Third_Tower/

Edited by Steve Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although not pertinent to the gist of the thread, I am intersted in the deliberate occurrence of > Mach 1 velocity for the DC-8. Was this a sustained air speed? Was it in a dive? Was the nose modified (or blunted)? CFD modeling would indicate extremely high buffeting wind loads for designs similar to a DC 8. I had not heard of this before. Sorry for the off topic questions. Just interested.

Sure - http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

The rudder trim-tab got a bit of a buzz happening and they unsurprisingly had to use elevator trim to recover from the dive but the aeroplane was otherwise easy to fly and undamaged.

Very high speeds simply aren't a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The number who reported a United Airlines plane hitting the South Tower was equal to the number who reported seeing a missile fired from the Woolworth Building hitting the North Tower: one!

That has already been proven incorrect; there are numerous witnesses to the impacts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pilots for Truth examined the flight data recorder for Flight 77 and found it to be faked. If an accurate barometer reading had been used for the data, the flight would have passed over the Pentagon at an altitude of 273 feet. There is a run through simulation of Flight 77 on the Pilots for 911 Truth site.

Riddle me this, Jim: you place a great deal of credence in the PfT "findings".

Did they "determine" it was faked themselves, or did they employ trained professionals who deal in FDR analysis?

What were the qualifications of the people who "...found it to be faked..."?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also see the constant reference to a B767 maximum speed of 360mph (about 313 KIAS) near sea level.

Jim, is that is a structural limit, or an imposed limit? Do you know?

(Hint: I do)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also see the constant reference to a B767 maximum speed of 360mph (about 313 KIAS) near sea level.

Jim, is that is a structural limit, or an imposed limit? Do you know?

(Hint: I do)

Evan,

It's an imposed limit, but that limit is set due to overall safety concerns. Some of those concerns involve the "control-ability" of the aircraft--at that speed and at that altitude--which is a very dubious adventure for even the most experienced of pilots. That it was pulled off by so-called TERRORISTS--turned into extremely IN-EXPERIENCED "pilots"--is suspect. Then we also have issues of structural integrity. There have been far too many experts that have challenged, if not impeached, the official findings to dismiss out of hand.

Evan, I don't know if Jim is right here or not. But, I do know your rebuttal arguments are sorely lacking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, Greg, I'm sorry.

Yes, it is an imposed limit... for birdstrikes on the cockpit front windows. Nothing to say the the aircraft itself can't fly a lot faster (and they have).

Regarding the pilots, they were mostly licenced pilots, some with commercial licences. Even if they weren't, flying an aircraft you intend to crash and die in is not difficult.

Regarding structural integrity - you are referring to the aircraft?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...