9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

My latest encounter with galen, Anthony Lawson, Ken Jenkins, et al.

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:52:19 -0500 [07:52:19 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: galen , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: RunyanWilde@aol.com, KenJenkins@aol.com, lawson911@gmail.com, Zn365@aol.com, oldickeastman@q.com, politicstahl@hotmail.com, politicaldavid@charter.net, "9-11 NeXuS" <9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: On Can't we stop quibbling and Work Together?? :-\


We know from Einstein that we can take the plane to be stationary and
the building moving or the building stationary and the plane moving and
the effect of their interaction is the same either way. We don't have
to explain why the building is in motion, which could simply be as an
effect of the rotation of the Earth. The outcome is equivalent either
way, because Newton's third law--that for every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction--is at work here. That Galen does not understand
the simplicity of the situation suggests to me a mind of stunning incom-
petence. Moreover, (1) the plane could not have traveled at 560 mpt at
700-1,000 foot altitude, as many, including Joe Keith, John Lear, and,
in relation the Pentagon, Russ Wittenberg in the DVD "Zero" have all--
repeatedly--explained. Those creating these deceptions appear to have
mistaken its cruising speed at 35,000 feet and not understood that at
lower altitudes the air becomes more dense. (He must be listening to
Anthony Lawson, who has displayed massive ignorance about all of this.)
(2) Precisely as Runyan remarks, apart from the engines, there should
have been massive debris outside the building. The external support
columns were bolted and welded to the trusses, which were welded to
the core columns and then filled with 4" of concrete. The diagram I
posted earlier showed that the plane intersected with eight (8) of
those massively horizontal structures, which should have brought the
deceleration of more than 50% of the plane (in shreds) down to zero.
(3) Its entry into the building as shown would have been physically
impossible by Newton's first and second laws, because it would have
continued in motion in the same direction until acted upon by a force,
which would have altered its velocity in the direction imposed by that
force. For these guys to be right, the 500,000 ton steel and concrete
structure cannot have imposed any more resistance than air itself, as
can be determined even by the simple expedient of counting the number
of frames it takes for the plane to pass through its own length in air
and the number of frames it takes to pass through its own length into
the building. Since violations of laws of physics, of engineering and
of aerodynamics are not possible, yet the videos show them, the videos
are showing physically impossible events and cannot possibly be real.
I have explained all of this many, many times, including in "New Proof
of Video Fakery on 9/11" (July 29, 2008), which may be accessed here:
That this "brain trust" cannot acknowledge even these
simple but decisive proofs that the videos have to be fake is beyond
me. There should have been massive debris, including wings, luggage,
seats, bodies, and tail, which should have broken off. It should not
have been necessary to off-load an engine covering at Church & Murray.
You don't have to fabricate debris from the real crash of a real plane!
These guys don't even appear to be aware that Elias Davidsson has shown
that the government has never proven that any of the "hijackers" were
aboard any of these planes--much less that they would have been able to
fly them! John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, has
observed that, before a commercial carrier can pull away from a terminal,
the pilot must submit "an envelope" including his flight plane, passenger
manifest, and check list of conditions required for airworthy flight, but
none of them has ever been produced. And George Nelson, USAF (ret.), an
expert on air crash investigations, has pointed out that, even though the
planes each had hundreds, even thousands, of uniquely identifiable parts
that must be replaced periodically for safety reasons, not one of them
has ever been provided by the government. We also know from studies by
A.K. Dewdney that cell phone calls would have been impossible at those
altitudes and speeds, that the alleged "cockpit voice recording" from
Flight 93 is a fake, and that at least six or seven of the "hijackers"
have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East! My God!
9/11 was a PERFORMANCE with staged events and multiple special effects.
Don't you guys know ANYTHING about this case? The physics is usually
taught in the 10th grade. I have featured many of these experts on my
radio programs, including Joe Keith, John Lear and Morgan Reynolds as
well as many students of video fakery, including killtown, Ace Baker,
and many others. Egad! You like to belittle my competence in matters
of this kind, but this group appears to be massively unaware of even
the simplest considerations related to the engineering of the building
and the physics of causal interactions between buildings and planes. I
find it painful to observe that galen, Lawson and their buddies have
completely missed the boat on the most basic aspects of what happened
in New York on 9/11. For in the process they are not only making them-
selves look ridiculous but creating an impression of gross incompetence
within 9/11 community. The situation we encounter here is quite absurd,
but precisely what we ought to expect from individuals of their caliber.


Quoting galen :

[Hide Quoted Text]
Runyan, i can see why you're such a big fan of Fetzer: you know as much about Physics
and make about as much sense to someone who has a degree in Physics as Fetzer does!
Have you ever heard of kinetic energy, the energy of motion? Have you ever heard of
momentum? Just in case you missed something in your high school Physics class, since
the velocity of the building was zero relative to the Earth, its kinetic energy and its
momentum were also zero. The plane was moving at 560 mph relative to the Earth. Since
the plane was moving, not the building, it had both kinetic energy and momentum. Gosh,
do i really have to explain to you people that it was the plane that flew into the
building and not the other way around?! For Fetzer to call anyone a moron is the height
of irony. Fetzer has to be the dumbest PhD on the planet, and when you consider that
includes the genius Judy Wood, that's saying a lot! -- galen

RunyanWilde@aol.com wrote:
Nobody is wrong, and everybody is wrong, because you've all left out some key terms of
the calculation. By one calculation, for example, we can show that the building, and
the planet to which it is attached, is moving at 1,000,000 mph, but then, so is the
plane. So the frame is significant: relative to what? The answer is that, relative to
each other, the 'moving' object and the 'stationary' object are in a particular
relation to each other, regardless of their relation to anything else. That is, _at the
point of impact_, their is no difference as to which object we regard as stationary and
which as moving; it's just a frame translation -- everybody's math knowledge should
confirm this. This really doesn't change the details of what is happening at floor
levels and between floors, and lots of computer models have been run showing these

That said, my expectation is that something quite messy should be happening as the
plane (or whatever it is) impacts the building, but what I see is more like a hot knife
through butter. What are the equations for that phenomenon?? Also, certain parts of
the plane (like the engines) just do not disintegrate at anything like the prevailing
conditions, but we don't find them; instead, we find a pristine passport purported to
have blown out of the 'plane', purportedly lying atop the powdered disintegration of
everything else.

But really, folks, why hold everything up for what amounts to a relatively minor
detail, when the Great Lie is the elephant taking up most of the room?

- Runyan Wilde

In a message dated 6/18/2009 3:29:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time, KenJenkins writes:

In a message dated 6/18/09 12:40:51 PM, denzen@umich.edu writes:
Fetzer, I'm a busy man and i really don't have time to argue with you
about the laws of Physics. That said, i have a question for
you. If
what you say is true, that it's exactly the same result if a 130 ton
plane moving at 560 mph hits a stationary building weighing
500,000 tons
or a 500,000 ton building moving at 560 mph hits a stationary plane,
then it would also be true that the result of a person weighing 224
pounds (0.1 ton) who jumps off a 50 foot building and reaches a final
speed of 38.65 mph before hitting a stationary Earth weighing 5.879 x
10*21 tons would be exactly the same as the result of an Earth
5.879 x 10*21 tons moving linearly at 38.65 mph hitting a stationary
person weighing 0.1 tons! Of course the result is not the same! Why?
...because the momentum (mass times velocity) is very different. The
momentum of a 500,000 ton building moving at 560 mph is much
greater --
3846 times greater (500,000/130) -- than the momentum of a 130
ton plane
moving at 560 mph.
Galen's example (backed up by math) is a good one to illustrate
the point. Here's another one: many are familiar with the
phenomenon of a tornado driving a piece of straw into a piece of
wood, due to the very high wind speeds. But can anyone imagine
that the reverse would also be true, that the wood could be thrown
at the straw at the same velocity and that the straw would still
penetrate the wood? No, the straw would be crushed and would not
penetrate the wood to any significant extent. The penetration is
totally dependant on which object is moving and which is stationary.

How about a moving bullet, that can penetrate all sorts of
materials with ease? Would hitting a stationary bullet with the
same materials moving at the same speed as the bullet yield the
exact same results? The results would vary, depending on the type
of material, but in most cases, the results would be very
different with a moving object hitting a stationary bullet than it
would with a moving bullet striking a statonary object.

What these three examples illustrate is that Fetzer is *totally
incorrect* in his previous statement that it makes no difference
whether the plane or the building is moving. In truth, *which
object is moving makes a profound difference*, because *the moving
object has the momentum and the energy of motion.*

An error of such magnitude, easily disproved both mathematically
and by thought experiment examples, clearly demonstrates that
Fetzer's grasp of physics is, to put it nicely, lacking. If he
can make such an obvious and blatant error in attempting to prove
his point in this case, does this not cast doubt on other
conclusions he has drawn, based on other similar potentially
faulty analysis? Put another way, can his claim of really
understanding science and the laws of physics be blindly trusted? I think not.
Rather I would suggest that anyone who makes such
statements that are clearly in error and make them with
dismissive, smug assurance should be subject to extreme skepticism
and doubt.


Views: 194


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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 23, 2009 at 5:38pm
OK, Bill. The addition to the Wikipedia entry reads as follows:

Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001.
The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

That means it is easily verifiable by going to www.bts.gov/gis/ .
Why don't you do that and report back what you find? In my
opinion, it would be at least faintly ridiculous to make an add
to the entry when it could easily be falsified. Try to do that.
Comment by sandy rose on June 23, 2009 at 4:30pm
ok, just tried to paste my other comment again and this is what i get

Your comment must be approved before everyone can see it.
Comment by sandy rose on June 23, 2009 at 4:27pm
bill, i didn't ask your opinion and i don't even know what you're talking
about but so far you're the only one i know who has moderated me, Jim
didn't do it and i don't trust you so stay out of it and leave me alone.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 23, 2009 at 3:24pm
Sandy, I am not moderating any comments or blogs. The only feature I have on now is approving videos before they are posted. Bill, of course, is moderating his own page. I think that reflects a certain degree of authoritarianism on his behalf. I don't have any idea why he thinks the American Airlines correction is supposed to qualify as "disinformation". Wike edits are recorded and usually public. If AA did that, I take it they had their reasons, which I believe is a desire not to be scapegoated over 9/11. When Bill offers his opinions, I personally would not mind knowing if he has any good reasons to back them up. I see none here.
Comment by sandy rose on June 23, 2009 at 2:54pm
Jim, could you please enlighten me as to how the moderation system
works on this group? others might like to know also. i wrote a comment
to one of yours below and again up came the 'hafta be approved' box. well,
i never! (i'm not a big fan of moderation. we're not five years old after all,
even if we act like it!) then i tacked on the two smaller messages which
flew right through. so i'm not gettin it. now, if you yourself have chosen
to moderate stuff, that i can deal with, tho i still won't like it. since you are
the group head dude i respect that you have that option. i don't quite know
how all of that works, can bill moderate a comment i made after his comment?
cause it still hasn't come up far's i can see.
bill, i'm not gonna pollogize to you if it wasn't you that dunnit, cause you
openly admitted before that you did moderate me, and probably whoever else.
but i just wanna know how this works. and for the record i'm gonna try'
to stick my SAVED post over on my own page and see if that works. uggg.
(if someone else is moderating public comments meant for everyone, then
that i would think would be a rather large receptacle of doodoo. thank you!
Comment by sandy rose on June 23, 2009 at 1:14pm
oh by the way, my daughter took this rose picture, she wanted me
to mention that. bill, gosh darn it do you hafta moderate me again?
i shoulda known better than to post after yours. oh brother. longer
comment may be coming, i saved it, bill, this time so if not i post elsewhere. ha ha ha.
Comment by sandy rose on June 23, 2009 at 1:11pm
oh crap, now i have to wait for approval. what everrrrrrrr!
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 23, 2009 at 11:05am
American Airlines admits that neither Flight 11 nor Flight 77 were scheduled to fly on 9/11!

Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 23, 2009 at 8:46am
Sandy, Nice post! I can invite Dean Velvel to be my guest again on my new show, "The Real Deal", where he has not appeared before. I have thought about inviting him, so this gives me additional incentive. I don' think that we are in physical danger at this point in time. I could be wrong, but I believe the perps think they got away with it--and for good reasons! When Bush and Cheney refused to even create a commission--for 441 days!--and only did so when the pressure from The Jersey Girls became too great and then appointed Philip Zelikow, an expert on the creation and maintenance of "public myths", they were well on their way to covering it up. And of course THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT did not disappoint them. It is a fantasy, alas, the fundamentals of which we have already taken apart and disproven, as "Why doubt 9/11?" and so much more displays. I'm very happy with this forum, too, Sandy, and grateful to Michael Morrissey for introducing me to ning. It gave me the chance to become familiar with how these things are done in a way that enabled me to do it myself!
Comment by sandy rose on June 23, 2009 at 7:23am
thanks, Jim, no, everything for me is going better than usual, and yeah, i
got in the practice of copying stuff before i sent, right up until that one!
my idiot computer upstairs has been constantly disconnecting me right
at inconvenient moments, it tends to do that after rainy, humid days!
now i'm on The Good Computer where i don't have that problem!
the problem is at our end, not the group. it's just so aggravating to
say a bunch of stuff just like you wanted to say it and then have it
disappear. makes me want to take a sledge hammer to the dang thing.

no, i was just excited about what you said about Dean Velvel!,
awesome that you featured him on your program, i'd love to hear that!
so what do you think about sending him the video fakery proof info
you mentioned? i don't really know how something like 9/11 would
go about getting into court, what has to happen first, etc. but heck,
time's a wastin, no time like the present, what are we waiting for, let's
do this, power to the people and all that. and i for one don't give a
flying fig about how crazy all of it sounds, doesn't mean it isn't true,
and if (since) it can be proved in court, (i hope we have a nice number
of experts in the various fields who would be willing to testify!) then
we all need to look beyond how it makes us look and just do the job!
we're not the whacky ones, the heartless bastards who did 9/11 are.
no, i'm very happy to have this group to hang out with, of course as
we all know these past years have been just torturous to go thru and
sometimes the despair and aggravation of it is quite hard to handle,
and i've been on various groups all along and that sorta helps, but i
think this group is extra good, specially cause it has pictures and
videos and i like seeing the others on the group. cool beans. what
am i trying to say? just that this group makes me feel happier
than i've felt in a while, about the whole 9/11 subject not being forgotten.
so i think we really have to do what ever we can to move it toward
the court room. i'm glad you have work that is ready to roll on that,
and that you like the Great Dean, what do you think about getting the
info into his lap, if it's not already there? this might sound insane, but
if he was game to review the info more maybe he could learn a lot
by visiting this group! i really don't know where he stands on 9/11,
but he's aware of the nature of the criminals, i doubt it would surprise him.
and it would be extra bonus if he maybe heard it from a well-known like you.(!)
and Bugliosi too, i know he was itchin to prosecute the thug criminal(s),
and that kinda itch doesn't go away. i like the idea of the two of them
together working it out.
anyway, let's do this. let's work up a plan to get the job done.
oh yeh, one other thing i said on the disappearing e mail yesterday
was that it doesn't hurt for each of us to have a plan for letting the
others know if anything happens to any of us, just because of the
nature of swine that we are dealing with.
carry on, love the group, i guess i'm very anxious to freakin get
the slime into court and shouldn't that be our next step? love, sandy!

© 2020   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service