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

[John Dolva]

Steve: Cheers.

I've been trying to find a point of entry into this matter while a mate's been badgering me with this stuff about 911 for years to the point where it's an off limit point of discussions or we'd rapidly approach the point of coming to blows while screaming, no you're the x idiot. Short and sweet. Thank you.

A couple of dumb questions?

What were the plane models that hit the various places(of course assuning they did..bla bla bla)? Evan would you recommend an aero plane book or books that covers these models? Is world aircraft info files by bright star aero space publishing 7 vols adequate?

edit: a coupla funny typos

Edited June 13, 2011 by John Dolva

[Bill Sherwood]

I nearly forgot about this - an example of what happens when you exceed the maximum speed of an airliner by quite a lot.

Here's a DC-8 that would normally be limited to about M 0.9 or so, deliberately flown supersonic in a test.

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

As it turns out, nothing fell off and they didn't lose control.

[Bill Sherwood]

Here's another good video of what even a large aeroplane can do - a Boeing 707 doing a barrel roll.

[Len Colby]

- 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?

Don your post was full of fallacies and factual errors.

1) The passport was found before either collapse

2) other paper /plastic objects were recovered from the flights

3) worms (part of an experiment) were recovered ALIVE from the shuttle explosion so why is it too hard to believe a singed passport could be found from flight 11?

[Evan Burton]

Steve: Cheers.

I've been trying to find a point of entry into this matter while a mate's been badgering me with this stuff about 911 for years to the point where it's an off limit point of discussions or we'd rapidly approach the point of coming to blows while screaming, no you're the x idiot. Short and sweet. Thank you.

A couple of dumb questions?

What were the plane models that hit the various places(of course assuning they did..bla bla bla)? Evan would you recommend an aero plane book or books that covers these models? Is world aircraft info files by bright star aero space publishing 7 vols adequate?

edit: a coupla funny typos

No such thing as dumb questions.

The aircraft involved were:

American Airlines 11, which was a B767 Model 223ER

United Airlines 175, which was another B767 but a Model 222

These were the WTC aircraft.

American Airlines 77, a B757 model 223, hit the Pentagon.

United Airlines 93, a B757 model 222, crashed in Pennsylvania.

Now, you might notice something: both American Airlines aircraft, although different aircraft (B767 / 757) had the same model number. Same with the United aircraft. That is quite common; it's a suffix that Boeing add to identify who purchased the aircraft.

So a B757-222 and a B757-223 are both 200 series, essentially exactly the same, just sold to different airlines.

The B767s are a little different because UA175 was a 200 series but AA11 was a 200 ER (extended range). Very similar but not quite the same.

Regarding the books - did you want a hard copy book or online references? There are a number of good online sites. For instance, have a look at 757.org.uk for information about the B757.

[John Dolva]

That's right Evan. Every journey starts with one step, miss the first step and you might as well not bother. (which kinda is what education is all about, questions and trusted answers. sometimes too the questions have to be to find out much more than the seeming answer. I think that you took your time, pointed this out and supplied the answer (sans the q re the particular hardcover data I do have. (unfortunately I have now found that the person who had the volumes pre me appears to have such that an interest in just that series of models. However (which is kinda interesting coming about as far away from anyone else on the forum (afaik)), those data sheets are either removed or shuffled into the wrong place as there seems to other sheets shuffled about and not missing so given it's perhaps some thousands of sheets to sort into the correct order, somewhere along the way I may find the sheets.) and invited dialogue.

Arising from it, I wonder if you could elaborate on the models (of which there were many, scrub that, I was loking at the 747. back to that later.

Evan, Is there any kind of standard model of any nation tha most resembles the characteristics of these particular models?

A hardcover book's great, as well as links,

thank you

edit typo

Edited June 15, 2011 by John Dolva

[Evan Burton]

John,

I'd just look at the -200 series of each model. That has the majority of the pertinent information.

As far as hard copy books, I'm not sure. I tend to specialise in military; perhaps Bill could offer some suggestions?

[John Dolva]

Thank's for that, Evan, I've found the (hardcover sheets) 747-200 with specs incl detailed cutout and specs. Is that radically different from the one that hit the pentagon?

edit add: what I'd like to do is look at things like malleability brittleness toughness plasticity shear and such like in material science or metallurgy particularly the effects of rapid application of force where metals can behave differently from slow impacts. Also joint types and their behaviour under same conditions plus a factoring in a of degree of fatigue through past service which I suppose inevitably means a look at the planes individual history to determine how relevant a look at fatigue is.

edit typos

edit add2 I'd also like to look at aircraft turbulence and how it behaves from a stationary pov re : http://www.nasa.gov/...S-013-DFRC.html ''NASA 905 NASA 905 was the first SCA. It was obtained from American Airlines in 1974. Shortly after acceptance by NASA, the SCA flew a series of wake vortex research flights at the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., in a study to seek ways of reducing turbulence produced by large aircraft. Pilots flying as much as several miles behind large aircraft have encountered wake turbulence that has caused control problems. The NASA study helped the Federal Aviation Administration modify flight procedures for commercial aircraft during airport approaches and departures.'' -

edit typo

Edited June 15, 2011 by John Dolva

[Guest Tom Scully]

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 16, 2011 by Tom Scully

[Bill Sherwood]

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

Not really - Don't forget the wing often have a lot of fuel in them and that has substantial mass, tonnes in fact.

FWIW a lot of airliners can carry their own weight in fuel alone.

The wing spars are also very solid as they have to carry the weight of the aeroplane in flight. The landing gear is also very solid as it is built to take a 1000'/min rate of descent on landing at maximum weight without damage. There's also a water tank on board for drinking & washing water, and also the APU in the tail. The structure of the tail, where the horizontal stabiliser is, is also very strong as it has to take the loads of the horizontal stab and also provide a large hinge for it. The rudder & fin assembly likewise has a substantial mount to keep it attached to the fuselage.

..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. ...

This is incorrect, the transmission of the force of a hit, sound, etc, is limited to the speed of sound so a bit over 10% of that figure. This is one of the reasons why you can't build a device that can transmit information faster than the speed of light, by having a very long pole that you wiggle back & forth to pass data; the push & pull on the pole happen at the local speed of sound. You can actually see it happen sometimes on some very long & smooth things like rails if you're lucky.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Bill Sherwood

[John Dolva]

wiki:

''Toughness and strength

Strength and toughness are related. A material may be strong and tough if it ruptures under high forces, exhibiting high strains, while brittle materials may be strong but with limited strain values so that they are not tough. Generally speaking, strength indicates how much force the material can support, while toughness indicates how much energy a material can absorb before rupturing.''

[Bill Sherwood]

wiki:

''Toughness and strength

Strength and toughness are related. A material may be strong and tough if it ruptures under high forces, exhibiting high strains, while brittle materials may be strong but with limited strain values so that they are not tough. Generally speaking, strength indicates how much force the material can support, while toughness indicates how much energy a material can absorb before rupturing.''

Yes otherwise plain materials can sometimes do amazing things in the right circumstances.

Here's a couple of photos of some ...

A bit of wind and physics goes awry.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

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.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bill,

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

which only occurred later. Can you explain 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. Can you explain the entirely clear, clean lawn with no

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

Just how is that consistent with a Boeing 757 having crashed there?

Jim

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bill,

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

is that in this frame 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. Do you think this is

a Boeing 757 and it's just a matter of perspective? and the plume?

(4) This 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, in 1995. Since there was no debris on the lawn after the

fires had been extinguished, where do you suppose it--and all the

rest of this debris--came from? It wasn't there originally [see (2)].

Jim