9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

From a recent email exchange about planes/no planes with Anthony Lawson, Clare Kuehn, me and Morgan Reynolds

(1) Anthony Lawson:

I really am getting quite a lot of amusement, on a rather dull Sunday morning, from these exchanges. 

Have you got a calculator anywhere handy?

If so, try this:  160 minus 48

Press EQUALS and the answer is 112

That means, according to Professor Dr James Fetzer, that 112 feet of aeroplane should have been left sticking out of the South Tower, had the plane had been real, that is.

Now send that off to the aforementioned physics departments and see what responses you get. 

(2) Clare Kuehn:

No, you miss the point. Like your orange, it's a thought experiment but it's an exaggeration. Point is: SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN STUCK ON ENTERING THE FLOORS ... stuck out or not fully entered, with parts breaking off, as he's said repeatedly.


So who's laughable, Anthony? 1. parts broken off different directions air vs. floorpan trajectory path


2. video fine all through, just grey in that part with NO HOLE; same blur all over (very little) and no interlacing.


So how's that for amusement?


(3) Jim Fetzer:

Well, let's see.  According to Anthony's hypothesis, a real plane really entered a massive, 500,000-ton building with no loss in velocity, which is a gross violation of Newton's laws and, as Clare has explained, there is no evidence of collision effects, which should have been numerous and varied due to the difference in resistance it would have encountered.  Indeed, it also does not explode on impact, which should have happened due to immense friction.

Moreover, as anyone can see from the videos, it passes completely inside the building BEFORE it explodes.  There is a discernible difference in time between the disappearance of the tail (where the building shows no signs of damage) and its subsequent explosion.  It has to have come to rest in that 48' traveling 500 mph, if Anthony is correct.  And if he now claims it was only exploding from the friction, it should have done that already. Q.E.D.

P.S. The man can't even substract!  The building was 208' wide.  The plane was 160' long. So had to come to a halt in 48' = 208' -160'.  I knew Anthony was dumb, but not this stupid.

(4) Morgan Reynolds:

WTC Tower 2 to Plane: So You Think You Can Take Me?
Morgan Reynolds

I have no trouble admitting error on 9/11.  Like many, I erred on the ‘demolition’ meme before Dr. Wood’s work.  And long ago I hypothesized a fly-by at WTC2 with the technology the perps have to turn the underside of a plane sky-blue, ‘disappearing it’ visually.  http://nomoregames.net/2006/08/27/how-they-did-the-plane-trick-at-w...  When I did not get attacked for that article, I knew it was the wrong idea for how they pulled off the WTC plane trick!?  I get attacked if I’m over the target, but not if I’m off target, which just adds more to the 9/11 clutter they love. 

I’m so glad to see Anthony Lawson’s camera expertise employed to explain away disappearing wings ‘n things like engines in the South Tower penetration images when other parts of the plane image are clear.  Isn’t that reassuring?  Whatever it takes, hey Anthony?  Then we’ve got Anthony’s expertise to explain impossible air speeds through air and little or no deceleration upon ‘impact’ with a steel/concrete tower despite an aluminum airliner supposedly encountering the resistance of a real steel/concrete building.  Ain’t imagery wonderful, whether cgi or images projected in the sky recorded on videos located on buildings or on the ground?   Road Runner physics but trot out anything and everything to defend the official story or some minor plane departure from it.  Planes are a vital key to the whole caper because Planes = Muslim hijackers = war on Muslim world = war on the world. 

Poor Anthony, it’s an impossible thesis to defend.  Let’s discuss three points here to disprove the proposition that planes crashed into the twin towers, with more proof to follow:

1) Fact: the core was 39’ from the wall in the case of the 9/11 South Tower hit.  Talk about a tight, hellacious collection of steel and concrete only a first down (that’s an American football term, Anthony) + 9’ away.  So it is not stupid, ignorant or arrogant to expect most of a 160’-long aircraft to be stopped cold outside the building.  It would have been.  That WWII B-25 bomber  was mostly stopped outside of the Empire State Building or stuck in it.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUlWpqLsOVs  Further, the 9/11 ST videos show no deceleration.  Impossible in a real collision, otherwise known as Newton’s first and second laws.  Don’t know them?  Look ‘em up.  Joe’s law might help.  http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/  Of course, Joe’s just a retired engineer who worked once upon a time in the aerospace industry, so he don’t know nuthin’.  Then we see no 9/11 aircraft debris visible in either WTC hole—rather unusual, no? (=impossible collision physics).  There was such debris in the B-25 crash.  Of course that was a real crash, not a fake one.  Further, there was no aircraft debris below the holes according to first responder testimony I cite in my legal affidavit.  http://morganreynolds.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/080128_reynolds93...  There should have been a lot.  Another physical impossibility.  Surprise!  You believe otherwise?  Prove it.  There was such debris in the B-25 crash.  For another instructive NYC crash seehttp://nomoregames.net/2012/01/19/what-911-should-have-looked-like/ 

2) Fact: Newton’s third law of motion was still in effect that morning; remember the ‘equal and opposite reaction’ deal?  The force of the collision is equal and opposite on both objects in a collision.  Same collision physics if the building falls on the 767 as the plane running into the building.  Doesn’t matter, force is equal and opposite on both bodies.  Either way, whichever body is in motion, the Boeing survivability is bulls**t.  Pardon my truthful language.  The building is hell strong vs. an aluminum plane.  Capiche?  The ‘damage-inflicted’ score in terms of an NBA contest (that’s a basketball league, Anthony) would have been WTC2 100, plane 2.  I’ve proven that every which way, go to nomoregames.net and dig in.  A zillion joules?  Whatever, says the building, bring it.  I’ll throw it right back at you.  No time lag.  See how you like it.  Have some.  Gonna run your VW convertible into my  18-wheeler?  Fine, bring it!  Stronger structure wins, big time.  Gonna run your airplane into a steel lighting rig?  Have at it.  It doesn’t require a whole lot of steel to destroy a plane.  Only takes a bit.  I could get up on a plane with my 10-lb. sledge hammer and make it unflyable in minutes.  Steel cables/lighting system?  OK, good example: Little Rock AR American flight 1420 landed in a T’storm and hit some steel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420 * destroying the plane.  Broke the fuselage into three sections.  Call it Joe’s Law.  OK, you’re gonna run your plane into 7-8 floors of my towers?  I’ve got about 4,545 tons of steel, glass, concrete, aluminum, etc., per floor to f*** you up.  That’s 31,818 tons vs. your 125 tons?  Hey joke, bring it.  I’ve got you 254 tons to one and I’m steel and concrete and you’re aluminum.  You want a piece of me?  Steel is about 3x stronger than aluminum per pound.  You think you can take me?  Let’s see what you got!  Run into me, come on!  See how much you hurt me!  OK, I’ve got thinner steel toward the top, so I’ll cut the margin by 5% (steel was 20% of tower weight and let’s say 20% lighter toward top = .2 x .2 = .04 = 4%).  Don’t like that number?  Put in another, it’s still a colossal mismatch.  So the aluminum plane runs into 7-8 compact 208’ squares of steel and concrete which outweigh the plane 241:1.  Can you say, “Plane go splat.”  Anybody see the Asiana flight 214 miss the landing a bit at SFO?  See the tail section snap right off?  Plane now uncontrollable.  Doesn’t take much force for that tail to go bye-bye, oops separation, cause it’s a 40’ tall heavy section hanging out at the end of that egg shell, er, airframe.  Mass centralization?  Not!  I pull a fifth wheel trailer, trails no problemo vs. a bumper pull travel trailer.  Fifth wheel hitch is over the rear wheel axle, like 18-wheelers do it, not hanging out hitched up past the bumper.  A travel trailer sways much more than zero and needs an equalizer hitch to control it.  Meanwhile, we have not a single tail section from four alleged airliners 9/11?  Bullshit!  I’m quoting George Carlin here.  If religion is bullshit, then 9/11 is bigger bullshit.  

3) Fact: the official seismic data on the Richter equivalent scale show  0.9 ML and 12 sec. duration at 8:46:26 for the NT hit and a weaker 0.7 ML and 6 sec. duration at 9:02:54 for the ST hit despite allegedly much higher speed by the 580-mph 767 (whoa, big boost in joules) and a hit lower in the tower.  And the ST hole was smaller than the NT hole too, though both were quite undersized to swallow the 767s whole.  At least that was consistent: the hole was too small at all four events.  NIST never gave the dimensions of the tower holes despite its 10,000-page report, predictably enough.  A 1.0 ML (local magnitude Richter) is equivalent to 30 pounds of TNT of force or energy yield (source: Wood, WDTTG?, pp. 78-9) or about 20 pounds at 0.7 ML.  This is a ‘micro earthquake’ not felt by humans.  Under 2.0 are micro earthquakes usually not felt by humans.  Since the towers were anchored in bedrock, the signal traveling through the earth would be bigger if a real 767 had hit but it was weak, weak, hardly above the background noise level.  Virtually no ground motion.  It had no P or S wave, just a barely detectable surface wave.  Like the destruction of WTC7 (ML=.06), we can say “there’s basically no seismic event,” Wood, p. 87.  That raises a question about manipulation to make the WTC 2 image sway as shown in Anthony’s favorite data point for the WTC 2 hit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPICd0o_kg   Let’s get the photographer under oath, etc.  Towers designed to withstand #5 hurricanes waving around like palm trees in a hurricane?  Hmmm...http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php.  Who buys that?  I don’t.  If the video is honest, and based on visual inspection and seismic data I have serious doubt, then the no-plane weapon that made the hole is responsible for the sway anyway, as previously pointed out.  Here’s a more credible video posted by the same guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIZO-zY3Cug&feature=c4-overview&... showing no deceleration in the Evan Fairbanks immaculate penetration ST video. 

4) Bottomline: the evidence shows the four plane “events” on 9/11 resembled no previous or subsequent plane crashes in history.  Why is that?  Duh.  Could it be because they weren’t real?  They were faked?  Isn’t it obvious? 


PS:  The 9/11 planners faked the ‘plane events’ well enough, however, to convince dullards, the inattentive, the fearful, trolls, and the bought-up that planes really crashed, here, there, everywhere.  Into what category does Mr. Lawson fall?  Who cares?  Tail sections?  Serial numbers?  Fuhgeddaboudit. 

*The aircraft skidded off the far end of the runway at high speed, slammed into a steel walkway with the landing lights for runway 22L and finally came to a stop on the banks of the Arkansas River.

"After departing the end of the runway, the airplane struck several tubes extending outward from the left edge of the instrument landing system (ILS) localizer array, located 411 feet beyond the end of the runway; passed through a chain link security fence and over a rock embankment to a flood plain, located approximately 15 feet below the runway elevation; and collided with the structure supporting the runway 22L approach lighting system." [2]

Such structures are usually frangible - i.e. designed to shear off on impact - but because the approach lights were located on the unstable river bank, they were firmly anchored and the impact destroyed the aircraft. It broke into three pieces and ignited.


Views: 118


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Danny White on July 15, 2013 at 7:57pm

Dr Reynolds has a very good way of wording things.  He is trying to explain common sense and basic physics to

someone who could be brain dead.  Wylie Coyote never managed to fly through a rock. He just went splat.

Comment by James H. Fetzer on July 15, 2013 at 2:07pm

Does that mean you find fault with his analysis of why what we are seeing in these videos is impossible?  If you find something wrong, please explain what it is he claims and how you know its wrong so we can learn from it.

Comment by Danny White on July 15, 2013 at 12:49pm
Thanks for Dr Reynolds' very
clear explanation of the situation. ha

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service