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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Len, I have to admire your stamina. You are willing to introduce faulty comparisons on any occasion. The plane, in case you are unaware, was a Boeing 757 that is supposed to have flown on a level trajectory just barely skimming the Pentagon lawn at about 500 mph and impacted with multiple lampposts. If you buy into that, your reasoning powers are even more limited than I have previously surmised. It was not some other type of aircraft flying at lower speeds or on different trajectories. So I am not impressed. And of course I consult experts in fields in which I am not--as I have demonstrated during my entire career.

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

Edited May 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Len Colby]

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.

This has been gone over already lampposts are designed to breakaway when impacted by cars at low speeds, about 20 MPH IIRC this is to reduce injury to people in the cars

And I suppose you can explain away the billowing dumpster smoke as

a Hollywood special effect?

1) the photos you posted weren't clear

2) there is nothing unusual about combustible material in dumpsters adjacent to a building fire burning.

3) obvious people who were there would have noticed if only the dumpsters were burning.

or the absence of debris?

There was a good anout of debris outside the building most was inside.

or the piece of fuselage that's been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia in 1995?

You failed to provide evidence in support of this claim

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So who are we going to believe: Len Colby or our lying eyes? You are too much, Len. Really! Let's try this one for size to see how much you are willing to stretch credulity in defense of an impossible story:

Now since this frame (conveniently labeled "plane") was released by the Pentagon, while the plane shown is far too small to be a Boeing 757, which is it: fake footage it released or the plane was not a 757?

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.

This has been gone over already lampposts are designed to breakaway when impacted by cars at low speeds, about 20 MPH IIRC this is to reduce injury to people in the cars

And I suppose you can explain away the billowing dumpster smoke as

a Hollywood special effect?

1) the photos you posted weren't clear

2) there is nothing unusual about combustible material in dumpsters adjacent to a building fire burning.

3) obvious people who were there would have noticed if only the dumpsters were burning.

or the absence of debris?

There was a good anout of debris outside the building most was inside.

or the piece of fuselage that's been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia in 1995?

You failed to provide evidence in support of this claim

[Len Colby]

Already dealt with in post #5, please do and keep up.

"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."

[Len Colby]

Fetzer wrote "I consult experts".Funny, because he failed to cite any. On the other hand Evan, Matthew and I (the 1st 2 of whom are pilots themselves) cited several.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Len Colby

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The plane cannot have hit the lamppost at 500 mph and not had their wings massively damaged and

their fuel ignited in enormous fireballs. Look at the damage tiny birds inflict upon commercial planes

when they only weigh a few ounces. Suppose that one of these lampposts were suspended in space

and not attached to the ground at all? What do you think would happen, Len? Would it bounce off? I

cannot believe you think anyone will be taken in by your desperate efforts to defend a false account.

Already dealt with in post #5, please do and keep up.

"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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, among the experts I consult is Pilots from 9/11 Truth, which has confirmed that the official account

of the Pentagon attack is not consistent with the actual FDR data it was provided by the NTSB. If the FDR

data does not substantiate the official account but actually contradicts it, why are you here deceiving us?

Fetzer wrote "I consult experts".Funny, because he failed to cite any. On the other hand Evan, Matthew and I (the 1st 2 of whom are pilots themselves) cited several.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For those who may not already know, the videos of the

Boeing 767 at hitting the South Tower show the plane

flying at an impossible speed, entering the building in

violation of Newton's laws, and passing through its own

length into the building in the same number of frames

it passes through its own length in air, which would be

possible only if a 500,000-ton building posed no more

resistance to its flight trajectory than air. Impossible!

"9/11 Fake: Cartoon Flight 175"

And of course the esteemed commentators here will

have more utter nonsense to distract you from these

findings, which have also been confirmed by Pilots

for 9/11 Truth, including its new documentary, "9/11

Intercepted", which explains that the plane shown

is not only flying at an impossible speed but that, at

such a speed, it would have been unmanageable in

flight and come apart physically. So we have expert

confirmation that these videos of Flight 175 are fake.

Edited May 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Len, just as those fires at 500*F in the Twin Towers could have burned forever and not caused the steel

to weaken much less melt, 1,000s of phony arguments cannot defeat the truth about the Pentagon and

the incredible story the government has given us, which apparently has even deceived Matthew Lewis.

Now here's an argument that's simple enough that, like my others, any rational mind finds it convincing.

After the alleged plane crash, while the fires were being extinguished by the civilian lime-green firetrucks,

the lawn is conspicuously bereft of debris: the are no plane parts, no body parts, no luggage--nothing:

Later in the day, however, parts start turning up. Even if we leave to one side the striking piece of fuselage

that is bright and shiny, showing no signs of having been singed by the enormous fireballs that are said to

have accompanied the crash, WHERE DID THIS DEBRIS COME FROM if not dropped from the circling C-130?

It would have been just a bit too obvious to have had officers and enlisted men carrying pieces of debris

out onto the lawn and given the game away. The plane just happened to be there and, by dropping it from

its cargo bay, it could drift to the ground as though it had always been there--except we know that it wasn't!

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.

This has been gone over already lampposts are designed to breakaway when impacted by cars at low speeds, about 20 MPH IIRC this is to reduce injury to people in the cars

And I suppose you can explain away the billowing dumpster smoke as

a Hollywood special effect?

1) the photos you posted weren't clear

2) there is nothing unusual about combustible material in dumpsters adjacent to a building fire burning.

3) obvious people who were there would have noticed if only the dumpsters were burning.

or the absence of debris?

There was a good anout of debris outside the building most was inside.

or the piece of fuselage that's been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia in 1995?

You failed to provide evidence in support of this claim

Edited May 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Matthew Lewis]

I'm NOT wrong. And it also appears you don't understand angle of attack in the part I've bolded. Angle of attack increases with nose UP. You are saying it backwards. The profile of the 757 at the Pentagon would have had zero or even a negative angle of attack. Ground effect is highest at LOW speeds with a high angle of attack. It appears that Len has dug up my old posts and more so there really is nothing more to say. Ground effect would be negligible. At that speed the plane will pretty much go where you point it.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't comment before and I'm not commenting now.

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?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Matt, Think about this. You are offering only one rebuttal, which would not salvage the official account

even if you are right! Do you understand that? Scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available

evidence, not simply part of it. And if a Boeing 757 had been just skimming the ground at 500 mph and

low enough to hit lampposts, it would have been disrupting the lawn with its thrust effect, if not its low-

hanging engines. But that is falsified by the completely clear, green, unblemished lawn. Do you see that?

While I am glad you are thinking about this, I really hate to see someone who appears to be sincere taken

in by a host of bad arguments. I hope you can see that, even if I were to grant you the point that you claim

about ground effect, that is only one part of a theory proven false on multiple grounds. I don't like seeing

anyone being played for a sap, which is the indelible impression I have of the pastime of certain others

posting here. Even if I am wrong about that specific point, the official account cannot possibly be true.

I'm NOT wrong. And it also appears you don't understand angle of attack in the part I've bolded. Angle of attack increases with nose UP. You are saying it backwards. The profile of the 757 at the Pentagon would have had zero or even a negative angle of attack. Ground effect is highest at LOW speeds with a high angle of attack. It appears that Len has dug up my old posts and more so there really is nothing more to say. Ground effect would be negligible. At that speed the plane will pretty much go where you point it.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't comment before and I'm not commenting now.

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.

. . .

Edited May 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Matthew Lewis]

Where did you get the impression I care what you think? Why would the thrust have an appreciable effect when it was at any one point for a fraction of a second? Remember the high speed and all? How long do you think it took to cross that lawn? As for the engines, the wings of nearly every plane flex upward in flight. They are designed to. They wouldn't be hanging quite as low as some think.

All I wanted to comment on is the ground effect falsehood that you are still spouting despite the available evidence and our previous discussion. That's all I really care about right now.

Matt, Think about this. You are offering only one rebuttal, which would not salvage the official account

even if you are right! Do you understand that? Scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available

evidence, not simply part of it. And if a Boeing 757 had been just skimming the ground at 500 mph and

low enough to hit lampposts, it would have been disrupting the lawn with its thrust effect, if not its low-

hanging engines. But that is falsified by the completely clear, green, unblemished lawn. Do you see that?

While I am glad you are thinking about this, I really hate to see someone who appears to be sincere taken

in by a host of bad arguments. I hope you can see that, even if I were to grant you the point that you claim

about ground effect, that is only one part of a theory proven false on multiple grounds. I don't like seeing

anyone being played for a sap, which is the indelible impression I have of the pastime of certain others who

are posting here. Even if I am wrong about that specific point, the official account cannot possibly be true.

I'm NOT wrong. And it also appears you don't understand angle of attack in the part I've bolded. Angle of attack increases with nose UP. You are saying it backwards. The profile of the 757 at the Pentagon would have had zero or even a negative angle of attack. Ground effect is highest at LOW speeds with a high angle of attack. It appears that Len has dug up my old posts and more so there really is nothing more to say. Ground effect would be negligible. At that speed the plane will pretty much go where you point it.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't comment before and I'm not commenting now.

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.

. . .

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Stop playing games, Len. Here's the question I had not even posed when you posted post #5. Unreal.

So who are we going to believe: Len Colby or our lying eyes? You are too much, Len. Really! Let's try this one for size to see how much you are willing to stretch credulity in defense of an impossible story:

Now since this frame (conveniently labeled "plane") was released by the Pentagon, while the plane shown is far too small to be a Boeing 757, which is it: fake footage it released or the plane was not a 757?

Already dealt with in post #5, please do and keep up.

"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 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Very impressive, Matthew Lewis. Where did I get the impression you care about the truth or your country.

Very sad. You haven't even addressed a plane flying 500 mph encountering a lamppost floating in space!

I don't claim to "know it all", Matt, but I am a former Marine Corps officer and DO CARE about my country.

Where did you get the impression I care what you think? Why would the thrust have an appreciable effect when it was at any one point for a fraction of a second? Remember the high speed and all? How long do you think it took to cross that lawn? As for the engines, the wings of nearly every plane flex upward in flight. They are designed to. They wouldn't be hanging quite as low as some think.

All I wanted to comment on is the ground effect falsehood that you are still spouting despite the available evidence and our previous discussion. That's all I really care about right now.

Matt, Think about this. You are offering only one rebuttal, which would not salvage the official account even if you are right! Do you understand that? Scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available evidence, not simply part of it. And if a Boeing 757 had been just skimming the ground at 500 mph and low enough to hit lampposts, it would have been disrupting the lawn with its thrust effect, if not its low-hanging engines. But that is falsified by the completely clear, green, unblemished lawn. Do you see that?

While I am glad you are thinking about this, I really hate to see someone who appears to be sincere taken in by a host of bad arguments. I hope you can see that, even if I were to grant you the point that you claim about ground effect, that is only one part of a theory proven false on multiple grounds. I don't like seeing anyone being played for a sap, which is the indelible impression I have of the pastime of certain others who are posting here. Even if I am wrong about that specific point, the official account cannot possibly be true.

I'm NOT wrong. And it also appears you don't understand angle of attack in the part I've bolded. Angle of attack increases with nose UP. You are saying it backwards. The profile of the 757 at the Pentagon would have had zero or even a negative angle of attack. Ground effect is highest at LOW speeds with a high angle of attack. It appears that Len has dug up my old posts and more so there really is nothing more to say. Ground effect would be negligible. At that speed the plane will pretty much go where you point it.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't comment before and I'm not commenting now.

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 something 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.

. . .

Edited May 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Matthew Lewis]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? To help you out I've bolded what I said and what you warped it into. DON'T twist my words to suit your agenda. That's really a despicable thing to do. I NEVER said I didn't care about the truth or my country. But I don't care to argue with the likes of someone like you.

The lampposts were addressed by someone else and as I said "All I wanted to comment on is the ground effect falsehood that you are still spouting despite the available evidence and our previous discussion. That's all I really care about right now."

Now, are you done trying to put words in my mouth? Because I'm done with you.

Very impressive, Matthew Lewis. Where did I get the impression you care about the truth or your country.

Very sad. You haven't even addressed a plane flying 500 mph encountering a lamppost floating in space!

I don't claim to "know it all", Matt, but I am a former Marine Corps officer and DO CARE about my country.

Where did you get the impression I care what you think? Why would the thrust have an appreciable effect when it was at any one point for a fraction of a second? Remember the high speed and all? How long do you think it took to cross that lawn? As for the engines, the wings of nearly every plane flex upward in flight. They are designed to. They wouldn't be hanging quite as low as some think.

All I wanted to comment on is the ground effect falsehood that you are still spouting despite the available evidence and our previous discussion. That's all I really care about right now.

Matt, Think about this. You are offering only one rebuttal, which would not salvage the official account even if you are right! Do you understand that? Scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available evidence, not simply part of it. And if a Boeing 757 had been just skimming the ground at 500 mph and low enough to hit lampposts, it would have been disrupting the lawn with its thrust effect, if not its low-hanging engines. But that is falsified by the completely clear, green, unblemished lawn. Do you see that?

While I am glad you are thinking about this, I really hate to see someone who appears to be sincere taken in by a host of bad arguments. I hope you can see that, even if I were to grant you the point that you claim about ground effect, that is only one part of a theory proven false on multiple grounds. I don't like seeing anyone being played for a sap, which is the indelible impression I have of the pastime of certain others who are posting here. Even if I am wrong about that specific point, the official account cannot possibly be true.

I'm NOT wrong. And it also appears you don't understand angle of attack in the part I've bolded. Angle of attack increases with nose UP. You are saying it backwards. The profile of the 757 at the Pentagon would have had zero or even a negative angle of attack. Ground effect is highest at LOW speeds with a high angle of attack. It appears that Len has dug up my old posts and more so there really is nothing more to say. Ground effect would be negligible. At that speed the plane will pretty much go where you point it.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't comment before and I'm not commenting now.

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 something 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.

. . .

Edited May 28, 2011 by Matthew Lewis