Jump to content
The Education Forum

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, since its fuel is stored in its wings, they should have exploded on entry—which is comparable to the failure of the 757 at the Pentagon to have its fuel explode when its wings hit those lampposts.

Kerosene - quite similar to diesel - is pretty hard to ignite. For example if you pour a litre or two on the ground and throw a lit match into it, it probably won't ignite. And in any case to get ignition you need substantial vapour and not liquid, hence the delay from when the fuel tank starts to come apart and ignition. At the speed the plane was travelling at that could be up to tens of metres.

So how can a Boeing 767 travel at am impossible speed

Yet again I can confirm that the speed they were doing is not impossible at all and is not particularly difficult to do if you ignore the overspeed audible warnings and wind noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

I'm not an expert in those matters, but the footage doesn't seem incorrect to me at all.

What you need to do is go to a nearby university, and see if you can hunt up some QUALIFIED people in the physics / engineering departments. Show them what you have and ask them for their opinions. Then go to another university and ask those people what they think.

In each case, ask if they can give you some time to explain what is happening, and why it is happening, so you can get a better understanding of it and have confidence in whatever opinion you come to.

You might want to start with these people, who are experts:

http://www.cs.purdue...ase3/index.html

http://www.cs.purdue...ase4/index.html

When forming an opinion without expert knowledge, just keep in mind that we have never had modern airliners like that deliberately flown into buildings of similar construction before. We've had an accident or two that are similar in some respects, but there is not a lot of data to go on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the first plane crashes in its history that have not been investigated by the NTSB.

This is patently untrue and Fetzer knows it. The NTSB only investigates ACCIDENTS; IT does NOT investigate intentional crashes, “…the Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity…the NTSB will surrender lead status on a transportation accident…if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Safety Board, notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act.”*. Fetzer knows this of course because he repeatedly cited (and at times misquoted) the law and NTSB policy quoted above in his book and articles about the Wellstone crash [other links]. In American Assassination, chapter 7, ‘Alternative Explanations’ section, pgs. 129 – 130 (1st edition) he even provided the above NTSB link as his source.

* http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/investigations/investigations/investigations/index.html

http://www.assassinationscience.com/ThompsonReview.pdf

http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_the_Death_of_a_Senator.pdf

www.assassinationscience.com/About_AMERICAN_ASSASSINATION.pdf

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070605_wellstone.shtml#_edn56

As for the claim about flight 175 not slowing down enough when it hit the WTC, Fetzer has yet to prove that this is the case or that if true that it would be anomalous, he should get back to us when a qualified engineer has backed his hand waving. The Boeing was flying at about 520 MPH before impact which works out to 760 ft/sec. A 767-200 is 159.2 feet long and would have traveled its length in 0.21 sec or 6 – 7 frames of 30 fps video and even a 10 - 15% reduction in speed could have taken the same number of frames. It is also is quite probable the airframe accordioned upon impact and thus the tail would have slowed down after the rest of the plane.

As Even pointed out Fetzer’s claims have repeatedly been shown to be false as the one about the NTSB but that does stop him and other “truthers” from repeatedly repeating them.

PS – I have posted for a couple of weeks because I was traveling.

EDIT - Emphasis added

Edited by Len Colby
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...