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

[Evan Burton]

Oh - and thank you for the replies.

[Bill Sherwood]

And if you were not concerned about damaging the aircraft at all because you intended to fly it into your target in a minute or so? How fast do you estimate you could fly not destroying the aircraft but seriously over-stressing it?

There might be a couple of small inspection panels peel-off but I'd say you could firewall the engines and fly as fast as you like and the plane would stay intact. You wouldn't have enough power to go supersonic down low so it'd just be a very high indicated speed. That does mean a lot of dynamic pressure but if you don't fly around pulling big G's it'll be fine. Note that you can still pull enough G's to bend & break things at much slower speeds so you have to be a bit slower on the controls at high speed.

A lot of the limitations on the airliners are actually structural, they're simply the fastest/highest/heaviest that the maker tested. For example on the 747 the 20,000' maximum altitude limit for the use of flaps is there only because Mr Boeing only tested them that high. They'd no doubt work much higher but that's as high as they were tested so that's all they are certified for.

Another example is the maximum crosswind limit for the Fairchild Metroliner - It's an 'observed' limit of 20 kts, which again means that's the highest they tested them for. I know they can take 30 kts because I've done it ..... though I certainly wouldn't recommend it, it was a real handful!

[Steve Knight]

May I add that people have been flying large aircraft at VERY low altitudes (albeit at slow-ish speeds) since WW2?

Dambusters Raid immediately springs to mind. 100ft altitude for the trip from England to Germany at normal speeds, 60ft altitude @ ~240MPH for the attacks on the dams.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

[Evan Burton]

I love how you quote me out of context with no explanation for why I may have been saying whatever I may have said.

I quoted you directly, showing that you have said other people lack the experience, etc. Anyone can find the quotes themselves by going through this thread. If I get the time and / or inclination, I may add the links to the source quote in the post so that people can read what you said.

That you abuse your role as a moderator has revealed your bias again and again.

In no way, shape or form have I abused my position. I split off various posts because of member complaints. I have not touched your later posts because you complained about it! You have three other moderators participating in the thread - are they barred from taking any action simply because they choose to post? Sorry Jim, but as another moderator has once stated, just because I am a moderator it doesn't mean I am not allowed to have an opinion nor state it.

I deal with persons and groups in whom I have confidence, which does not extend to anyone you would cite. Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT, which I regard as credible sources, have both produced important documentaries that support my positions.

Personally, I do not share your confidence in them. Why don't you ask some of them to join the Forum? That way those of us that do have expertise can argue the facts, and laymen such as yourself can listen and form an opinion regarding who is right and who is wrong? Of course, when you cite people or groups as your source, it would not be unreasonable to expect people who disagree with those sources to disagree with you.

You say you have four members with extensive aviation experience "who all disagree with (my) assertions". So do they all disagree with all of my assertions? or do all of them disagree with some of my assertions? or do some of them disagree with one or another assertion and the others with one or another different assertions?

They would have to confirm for themselves, of course, but based on posts all have made in response to your assertions (or the same assertions but made by different people), I am reasonably confident in saying they are likely to disagree with all or your assertions.

Check out "What didn't happen at the Pentagon". Which assertions of mine do they disagree with in that particular article?

I'll let them speak for themselves, however, a question to be asked is will you reply to them?

[Greg Burnham]

If they weren't sitting in fire then they most likely wouldn't have been singed. I can imagine bit of the tail being blown backwards a bit as the air inside the fuselage compressed and started to blow away the tail, especially as the tail would have also started to come apart from the rapid deceleration as the plane began to crumple as it entered the wall of the Pentagon. Unsurprisingly, it would have been a bit like a bomb going off.

Bill,

Is the evaluation (quoted above) that you offered an expert opinion? I understand that you are a pilot, but did your training and/or experience ever include making such critical judgments as cited above? Do you have the necessary qualifications to determine what you wrote is true, conclusively, or is this simply a "layman's" opinion? I know a lot of pilots. I know of none who would rely upon that training and experience in order to justify the above opinion.

[Bill Sherwood]

Is the evaluation (quoted above) that you offered an expert opinion? I understand that you are a pilot, but did your training and/or experience ever include making such critical judgments as cited above? Do you have the necessary qualifications to determine what you wrote is true, conclusively, or is this simply a "layman's" opinion? I know a lot of pilots. I know of none who would rely upon that training and experience in order to justify the above opinion.

I don't have any formal qualifications much other than aviation, but I do have quite a bit of hands-on experience with physics from being on a science forum for a good decade and also nearly thirty years of being involved in motor racing. So I may not be correct but I am not making a wild guess, I make an opinion on how such structures would behave based on my knowledge of physics, metallurgy, etc. From this I can see how some parts of the plane could be blown backwards from the impact point, and this is against the otherwise initial intuitive reaction that all the parts of the aeroplane must have gone into the building.

Of course it may be as simple as someone moving the parts away from the burning mess to make it easier for the fire-fighters to get into the building.

[Glenn Viklund]

If they weren't sitting in fire then they most likely wouldn't have been singed. I can imagine bit of the tail being blown backwards a bit as the air inside the fuselage compressed and started to blow away the tail, especially as the tail would have also started to come apart from the rapid deceleration as the plane began to crumple as it entered the wall of the Pentagon. Unsurprisingly, it would have been a bit like a bomb going off.

Bill,

Is the evaluation (quoted above) that you offered an expert opinion? I understand that you are a pilot, but did your training and/or experience ever include making such critical judgments as cited above? Do you have the necessary qualifications to determine what you wrote is true, conclusively, or is this simply a "layman's" opinion? I know a lot of pilots. I know of none who would rely upon that training and experience in order to justify the above opinion.

Greg,

When it comes to someone having the same opinion that you do - layman or otherwise, just like yourself - you are there in an instant supporting opinions.

When it comes to a thread - like the one started by Phelps regarding the Z-authenticity - you are likewise very quick to question several peoples' behavior and conclusions.

But when it comes to questioning Fetzer, the supreme bully around here, and his conclusions - which are indeed questioned by many researchers, your silence is amazing.

How is that, Greg?

Edited June 13, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Bill Sherwood]

When it comes to someone having the same opinion that you do - layman or otherwise, just like yourself - you are there in an instant supporting opinions.

I'm not judging anyone here, but something that non-scientists really need to take the time to read and take on board is this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Don Jeffries]

Henry David Thoreau had a beautiful motto, which has seldom been followed by anyone, unfortunately; "Simplify." Most issues are made too complex and confusing, when the truth can usually be at least generally established by using a bit of common sense. Regarding 911, in simple terms:

- The WTC buildings should not have been able to be literally disintegrated by a jet aircraft crashing into one of the upper floors. If rocket fuel-leaving out all the information about it never being hot enough to melt the steel-had truly been the culprit, then why did the South tower- which was hit 17 minutes later than the North tower- collapse so much quicker, in less than an hour? The same fuel brought down one building in less than an hour, while it took about 1 hour and 45 minutes to bring down the other.

- Building 7, despite what debunkers claim, had no logical reason to collapse into itself, in an indentical manner as the North and South towers.

- Before 911, there was no previous example of a high rise building (not to mention something the size of the WTC) collapsing from fire damage. On 911 there were 3 examples of this. Since 911, there have been no more.

- The hole left in the Pentagon, by whatever hit it, is decidedly too small for a Boeing 757. Where did the wings go?

- Most of the remains from the WTC towers were finely ground into smithereens, yet we are to believe one of the hijacker's passports was found, in perfect condition, a few blocks away? Magic bullet, anyone?

- Planes were literally flying around like loaded weapons for a few hours that morning, yet we are to believe that the Pentagon- the heart of the #1 defense system in the world- was unable to shoot down or divert an airliner they had plenty of time to track, heading straight for it?

- We are also expected to believe that the Pentagon- which has security cameras everywhere- somehow managed to miss capturing a clear image of the craft that slammed into it that day?

There are lots more points, obviously, and I am not as qualified at Jim Fetzer or others to argue them. This is a clear case of "simplify." The Cold War is over- we needed another bogeyman, and after 911, we have those elusive "terrorists," which are nowhere and everywhere at the same time. Was is a Racket, as Gen. Smedley Butler termed it so long ago. Thus we are now bombing and/or occupying four small countries that have done nothing to us whatsoever, for the express purpose of rooting out this nebulous "enemy."

The debunkers will continue to answer with official sources and "experts." I know nothing about the pilots arguing that the official story is true, but if they making that argument, then their alleged expertise fails to impress me. I don't change my opinion merely because someone who has some related experience disagrees with me. I use common sense, deductive reasoning, and also judge political events in a larger context. Based on all this, my analysis of the official story of 911 is that it is demonstrably impossible.

As Thoreau said, we must learn to "Simplify."

Edited June 13, 2011 by Don Jeffries

[Bill Sherwood]

- The WTC buildings should not have been able to be literally disintegrated by a jet aircraft crashing into one of the upper floors. If rocket fuel-leaving out all the information about it never being hot enough to melt the steel-had truly been the culprit, then why did the South tower- which was hit 17 minutes later than the North tower- collapse so much quicker, in less than an hour? The same fuel brought down one building in less than an hour, while it took about 1 hour and 45 minutes to bring down the other.

It's actually very obvious as to why the second building to get hit cam down first - It was hit further down than the first one so the weak point (where the aeroplanes hit) was subject to far greater loads. From an engineering point of view, I'm actually really surprised that both towers didn't come down as soon as they were hit, the mechanical damage to the internal structure must have been massive.

- Building 7, despite what debunkers claim, had no logical reason to collapse into itself, in an indentical manner as the North and South towers.

Same reason as above - there was quite a lot of damage to it from huge chunks of debris crashing into it from the other two towers and that damage was mostly near the base. Because a weak point had been created right near the bottom of the structure the entire mass of the building was bearing down upon it. That, along with the nasty vibrations from the main two towers coming down right next to it make it more surprising that it too didn't come down at the same time - that's a better question in fact.

- Before 911, there was no previous example of a high rise building (not to mention something the size of the WTC) collapsing from fire damage. On 911 there were 3 examples of this. Since 911, there have been no more.

I believe there was (at least) one in Spain. But there certainly have been none that have nearly been cut in half by a heavy & very fast-moving aeroplane so we only have the two famous examples of that to work with. Again, I'm quite surprised they kept standing as long as they did.

[Bill Sherwood]

- The hole left in the Pentagon, by whatever hit it, is decidedly too small for a Boeing 757. Where did the wings go?

Already been demonstrated many times the hole is the correct size.

- Most of the remains from the WTC towers were finely ground into smithereens, yet we are to believe one of the hijacker's passports was found, in perfect condition, a few blocks away? Magic bullet, anyone?

Quite believable, though extremely lucky for it to happen. Finding the passport is not relevant anyway as the hijackers are already have known to board the airliners.

- Planes were literally flying around like loaded weapons for a few hours that morning, yet we are to believe that the Pentagon- the heart of the #1 defense system in the world- was unable to shoot down or divert an airliner they had plenty of time to track, heading straight for it?

Up until the first impact no-one knew what their plans were, so there was no thoughts to shoot them down. They had also turned off the transponders in the airliners so were harder to track. The military has radar good enough to track big targets like that without a transponder but they still have to be vectored to the right area to find the target.

- We are also expected to believe that the Pentagon- which has security cameras everywhere- somehow managed to miss capturing a clear image of the craft that slammed into it that day?

99.9999999&% of the objects that go in & out of the Pentagon, either planned or unplanned, do so at walking speed. If they'd planned for a high-speed aeroplane to hit them they would have no doubt done things differently - I bet they do now.

The real question everyone really should be asking is how the US government did not pick up on this terrible act before it was committed? Time wasted chasing easily dis-proven theories should be put to better use.

[Evan Burton]

Henry David Thoreau had a beautiful motto, which has seldom been followed by anyone, unfortunately; "Simplify." Most issues are made too complex and confusing, when the truth can usually be at least generally established by using a bit of common sense.

Don,

Some things are counter-intuitive or can be over-simplified. For instance, what if I said it makes no sense that two small pieces of uranium, apparently harmless by themselves, could cause a massive explosion when brought together? It makes no sense at all, totally ridiculous.

- Before 911, there was no previous example of a high rise building (not to mention something the size of the WTC) collapsing from fire damage. On 911 there were 3 examples of this. Since 911, there have been no more.

Before 27 March 1977, there has never been a case where two large airliners had collided on the ground causing massive loss of life. Indeed, it had been said it was a million to one chance of happening. Since then, it has not happened again. Do you believe that the Tenerife disaster was faked?

- Most of the remains from the WTC towers were finely ground into smithereens, yet we are to believe one of the hijacker's passports was found, in perfect condition, a few blocks away? Magic bullet, anyone?

In 1985, a British Airtours B737 caught fire on the ground, destroying the aircraft and killing 55 of the 137 on board.... yet there were items onboard (such as the emergency guide in the seat pocket) which were completely untouched.

- We are also expected to believe that the Pentagon- which has security cameras everywhere- somehow managed to miss capturing a clear image of the craft that slammed into it that day?

The Pentagon had cameras INSIDE it, and some external cameras looking at doors, etc. Wide area surveillance cameras would not be required because there were patrols and secured doors.

The debunkers will continue to answer with official sources and "experts." I know nothing about the pilots arguing that the official story is true, but if they making that argument, then their alleged expertise fails to impress me. I don't change my opinion merely because someone who has some related experience disagrees with me. I use common sense, deductive reasoning, and also judge political events in a larger context. Based on all this, my analysis of the official story of 911 is that it is demonstrably impossible.

In that case, Don, you fall victim to confirmation bias. Another example: if I were to say that I have no expertise in any of the relevant areas but have read Vincent Bugliosi's work and am satisfied that Oswald acted alone, because it aligns with my impressions of common sense and deductive reasoning, and that I need not know anything more about the assassination of JFK, you (and I would imagine most people here) would consider me foolish. Some might say I adopt that position because I don't like anything to do with a conspiracy theories.

(Incidentally, I have never read his works nor have I formed an opinion)

[David G. Healy]

If they weren't sitting in fire then they most likely wouldn't have been singed. I can imagine bit of the tail being blown backwards a bit as the air inside the fuselage compressed and started to blow away the tail, especially as the tail would have also started to come apart from the rapid deceleration as the plane began to crumple as it entered the wall of the Pentagon. Unsurprisingly, it would have been a bit like a bomb going off.

Bill,

Is the evaluation (quoted above) that you offered an expert opinion? I understand that you are a pilot, but did your training and/or experience ever include making such critical judgments as cited above? Do you have the necessary qualifications to determine what you wrote is true, conclusively, or is this simply a "layman's" opinion? I know a lot of pilots. I know of none who would rely upon that training and experience in order to justify the above opinion.

Greg,

When it comes to someone having the same opinion that you do - layman or otherwise, just like yourself - you are there in an instant supporting opinions.

When it comes to a thread - like the one started by Phelps regarding the Z-authenticity - you are likewise very quick to question several peoples' behavior and conclusions.

But when it comes to questioning Fetzer, the supreme bully around here, and his conclusions - which are indeed questioned by many researchers, your silence is amazing.

How is that, Greg?

and yes, we also know your feelings about Fetzer and his relationship to "Judyth", so we're attune to your bias towards anything relevant and curious about Judyth and LHO, so chill dude. The Aussie flyboys in this thread are having a tough go for the moment... a poster has been recruited, a pilot come-racecar driver whose got this 9-11 thing down, so let's watch the dog and pony show, eh?

Edited June 13, 2011 by David G. Healy

[Don Jeffries]

Evan,

I think your analogies are flawed. Two airliners colliding on the ground, for instance, would only be an appropriate analogy if this had happened numerous times, but on only THAT occasion did loss of life occur. As for the hijacker's passport being found, we would have to have an actuary calculate the odds that one of the few items-perhaps the only item- found intact was something that was so significant to a particular conspiracy theory (the official one). I don't think that many people would question a hat, a glove, a wallet somehow escaping the inferno, but one of the alleged hijacker's passports? Hmmm.

Your example about reading Bugliosi only would have some validity, but you have to consider that all 911 truthers have been exposed to the other side- the official one- through numerous viewings of local and national news reports on the subject, newspaper and magazine articles in the msm, discussions between conventional talking heads on network t.v., etc. You'd have a point if Fetzer or any other 911 truther had somehow never been exposed to the other side via the msm, which is a virtual impossibility for most people.

I realize some issues are complicated. However, I don't believe most are. I also think that the establishment benefits from the oft expressed (via msm and politicians) admonition that "things are not that simple." That kind of thinking is a guarantee that problems won't be resolved, and serves to absolve those entrusted with solving them from responsibility. As we can see by the state of the world, and my country in general, few if any of our leaders have any interest in solving them, and prefer to attribute complexity to various issues that just aren't that complex.

As I've noted before, I willingly acknowledge my inherent bias against the official view of most political events. I don't trust those in power, nor those who are highly paid to report on these events via the msm. I'd like to see some debunker admit their bias against "conspiracy theories," and their inherent trust in the same sources that people like me distrust. While some of us are predisposed to see conspiracies, others are predisposed not to see conspiracies.

[Steve Knight]

I think a lot of people here are either missing, or ignoring the fact that while The Pentagon is the headquarters of the (almost all?) entire US Armed Forces, it's basically nothing but the world's largest office.

It's not ringed with anti-air defences, and it's not overflown by a CAP (Combat Air Patrol) 24/7.

Its CCTV and internal security were somewhat adequate to protect against a few gunmen trying to break in, but not against a multi-ton aircraft at high-speed pancaking into it.