Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

BTW - why doesn't Jim ask Rob Balsamo of PfT to apply to join here and defend his arguments first hand? I think John S wouldn't have any problems with that.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Then we also have issues of structural integrity.

As I've mentioned and demonstrated several times here, structural integrity is just not a problem when going fast. It can be if you want to do aerobatics, but not if you aren't pulling more than a couple of G's. Two G's is two G's at either 200 kts or 500 kts, it makes no difference.

I'm not rated on the 757/767 but I'm sure the maximum allowed airspeed is going to be in the upper 300 knot range - I'd estimate a good 360 kt to 370kts would be reasonable.

For example at sea level the 747 red-lines at 381 knots, and indeed down low there's more than enough power to climb away at that speed. As the power decreases with altitude though you have to bring the speed back to keep it climbing.

In any case, it's a bit like driving a car on the highway. The speed limit is 100 km/h and that's about as fast as you normally go. But the car could easily do 150 km/h and the car and occupants would be just fine. Yes it's just an analogy but it's still valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then we also have issues of structural integrity.

As I've mentioned and demonstrated several times here, structural integrity is just not a problem when going fast. It can be if you want to do aerobatics, but not if you aren't pulling more than a couple of G's. Two G's is two G's at either 200 kts or 500 kts, it makes no difference.

I'm not rated on the 757/767 but I'm sure the maximum allowed airspeed is going to be in the upper 300 knot range - I'd estimate a good 360 kt to 370kts would be reasonable.

For example at sea level the 747 red-lines at 381 knots, and indeed down low there's more than enough power to climb away at that speed. As the power decreases with altitude though you have to bring the speed back to keep it climbing.

In any case, it's a bit like driving a car on the highway. The speed limit is 100 km/h and that's about as fast as you normally go. But the car could easily do 150 km/h and the car and occupants would be just fine. Yes it's just an analogy but it's still valid.

Bill, I still haven't found the fact sheets for the 757 to 759 models in the volumes I mentioned elsewhere. (the last owner must have been studying it. The sheets might still be somewhere in the rest) but in the meantime given I have what seems to me pretty good sheets on the 747 is its 200 series significantly different from the 757's?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I still haven't found the fact sheets for the 757 to 759 models in the volumes I mentioned elsewhere. (the last owner must have been studying it. The sheets might still be somewhere in the rest) but in the meantime given I have what seems to me pretty good sheets on the 747 is its 200 series significantly different from the 757's?

Not significantly, they are all pretty much built the same. Just the scale of the machine is quite different from a 757 to a 747 - a 747 can carry the weight of a 757 in fuel alone. ;)

John,

Is this what you are after?

767limitations.jpg

Ta, EB, 360kts is Vno, much like my guess just before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. when saying scale do you mean load capacity, engine thrust, overall dimensions, mass?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. when saying scale do you mean load capacity, engine thrust, overall dimensions, mass?

Each of those carries different scales as such -

- Yes a 747 can carry a lot more than a 757 and it's because it's quite a lot larger. It has far greater internal volume so you can stick more freight in and also freight of larger dimensions.

- The engines on both types are quite similar, though there's four on the 747 of course and they also typically make a bit more power.

- The dimensions and mass of all types are pretty easy to find through Wikipedia or the Boeing site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. when saying scale do you mean load capacity, engine thrust, overall dimensions, mass?

Each of those carries different scales as such -

- Yes a 747 can carry a lot more than a 757 and it's because it's quite a lot larger. It has far greater internal volume so you can stick more freight in and also freight of larger dimensions.

- The engines on both types are quite similar, though there's four on the 747 of course and they also typically make a bit more power.

- The dimensions and mass of all types are pretty easy to find through Wikipedia or the Boeing site.

Ok, given that neither wiki nor boeing are likely to be a source for the info I wish to see and I have no equivalent craft to compare with that which I would like to zero in on (which includes detailed structural drawings of the building) all there is are available studies which I have no means of making any sort of comment on unless I take fundamentals on faith, which I wont, that's it for now afa I personally am concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah!

What you probably want then is the Purdue simulation studies:

http://www.cs.purdue...cmh/simulation/

They publish the assumptions they made. If you want to get further information on the parameters, you could contact the team directly.

See also:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuCISE03.pdf

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, thank you Evan, that's more like the kinds of studies I'm interested in. Lots there to ponder, and, like you say, contacts. thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Steve ought to keep up with the information curve.

We know more about these things than he thinks:

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2007/03/shanksville-resident-says-val.html

Heh. Poor research indeed.

no one saw the Flight 93 crash, my hairy arse.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blur_in_the_sky__th.shtml

I heard the plane going over and I went out the front door and I saw the plane going down," said Leverknight, 36. "It was headed toward the school, which panicked me, because all three of my kids were there.

"Then you heard the explosion and felt the blast and saw the fire and smoke.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp

Several eye-witness accounts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/10cnd-shanksville.html?ref=us

Not only a witness, but she took pictures! And is harassed by "truthers" for it. :angry: :angry: :angry:

Were YOU one of those harassers, Mr. Fetzer? Hmmm?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html

and more.

Now, who are we to believe? Dozens of eye-witnesses who ACTUALLY saw the event, or semi-anonymous idiots posting vague, defamatory, unsupported-by-evidence-or-proof and malicious fantasies on-line?

Answers on a postcard to :

The Bin

Office of Professor James Fetzer.

Somewhere.

USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Bill,

You make a practice of issuing denials with little or no evidence to support you. We are talking about a

Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' altitude, where the air is three times denser than it is at 35,000'. A mistake

was made by using its cruising speed of 560 mph, which is impossible at the altitude at which it these

videos show it hitting the South Tower. Pilots has a new documentary that discusses this, namely, "9/11

Intercepted", where the complete film is now available to view at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21456

I think it would help to bring you up-to-speed (no pun intended) to watch what they have to say on this.

Jim

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

Bill,

You make a practice of issuing denials with little or no evidence to support you. We are talking about a

Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' altitude, where the air is three times denser than it is at 35,000'. A mistake

was made by using its cruising speed of 560 mph, which is impossible at the altitude at which it these

videos show it hitting the South Tower.

It's somewhat more difficult to go supersonic than it is to fly at a high sub-sonic speed, no matter the altitude.

Again - and hopefully for the last time - high speed at low levels simply is not a problem at all. It's even easier than up high as you have so much more power.

Quick example - When I got type rated on the Cessna Citation 2 jet, because the pressurisation wasn't working properly we were stuck down at 10,000'. The training Captain was showing me how well it performed at that height, even on one engine. We were talking about something for a minute or so, and he'd left one engine idling with the other at full power, then after a minute or so the overspeed beeper started.

Another friend of mine told me of the time during training when his training Captain did a similar trick, but on takeoff; he slowly pushed up one throttle to full power and made an otherwise normal takeoff but only on one engine.

So having enough power to fly at very high speeds down low is simply not a problem at all. If you really want to go faster then you dive down a little and by doing that you can easily pick up another 50 knots.

I hope this is the last time you bring this up, it is completely dis-proven.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was confused about why Jim would raise such easily disproven points, why he teaches critical thinking but chooses not to apply those skills to his own 9-11 work, etc, but now I understand: Jim is actually on our side! He is some type of disinfo agent. I mean, all his claims have been rejected by the mainstream 9-11 truthers:

http://www.911review...agon/index.html

Then I found out about how many people questioned his actions and motives.

http://911research.w...dex.html#fetzer

http://gastronamus.p...int&thread=2635

http://en.wikipedia....or_9.2F11_Truth

Now it all makes sense!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was confused about why Jim would raise such easily disproven points, why he teaches critical thinking but chooses not to apply those skills to his own 9-11 work, etc, but now I understand: Jim is actually on our side! He is some type of disinfo agent. I mean, all his claims have been rejected by the mainstream 9-11 truthers:

http://www.911review...agon/index.html

Then I found out about how many people questioned his actions and motives.

http://911research.w...dex.html#fetzer

http://gastronamus.p...int&thread=2635

http://en.wikipedia....or_9.2F11_Truth

Now it all makes sense!

Interesting reading Evan.

No matter what evidence is presented to Fetzer (and he will always demand proof that his claims are wrong), he returns to his pattern of disinformation, making the same spurious unprovable claims. Fetzer demands proof of the negative, that his critics prove his versions of events did not occur, which is of course impossible.

That Fetzer is actually a disinformation agent sowing dichotomy in the ranks of his "truther" organization(s) makes a lot of sense. More sense than his claims anyway. For all his claimed expansive education, no other explanation seems to make much sense.

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...