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?? :-\

All,

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:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html
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.

Jim

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
points.

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
weighing
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.

Ken

Views: 203

Comment

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 22, 2009 at 7:55pm
Sandy, I've gotten in the practice of making a copy of long posts, which might disappear
because it has taken so long to post them. Is this something that you think I'm not going
to like? You've got me wondering. I hope everything is going well, including on the forum.
Comment by sandy rose on June 22, 2009 at 5:11pm
crap heck, i just wrote out another lengthy response to you, Jim, and meant
every bleep bleep word of it and didnt' freakin copy it and it went out into nowhere.
dang, when will i ever learn... this assy puter keeps shutting down on me. crap.
maybe after i make mashed potatoes (life goes on) i can try again.
right on, power to the people, let's do this, what the bleep are we waiting for, i'll
try to blab it all out again in a bit. dang it. this computer is a %^&$#%& $#%&*/
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 22, 2009 at 2:11pm
Thoth II, Your remarks are right on target! My interview with Laura Ingraham is an
interesting case, because, when it was posted by her network, the omitted the last
15 minutes, when I was scoring point after point and we were getting along great!

I haven't listened to it lastly, but if anyone wants to check it out, here are some of
the links that should lead to the program itself or to an (at least partial) transcript:

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=47

30 June 2006:
Interview: Jim Fetzer will be the guest
discussing 9/11 with Laura Ingraham
9:30 AM/CT (10:30 AM/ET, 7:30 AM/PT)
http://www.lauraingraham.com/site, (mp3-1), (mp3-2), (mp3-3)
Partial Transcript (transcriptor unknown)

30 June 2006:
Interview: Jim Fetzer will be the guest
discussing 9/11 with Laura Ingraham
9:30 AM/CT (10:30 AM/ET, 7:30 AM/PT)
http://www.lauraingraham.com/site, (mp3-1), (mp3-2), (mp3-3)
Partial Transcript (transcriptor unknown)
Comment by Thoth II on June 22, 2009 at 1:57pm
To quote Ken :

"Your statement above implies that you do not know the reasons why the no
planes in New York idea is a hot button issue. Although there are various
reasons for the upset, I believe the main reason is quite straightforward.
Even if it were true, the concept that no planes hit the Twin Towers sounds
crazy to most people, and thus undermines our efforts to expose the big lie
that is 9/11. It is hard enough to get people to change their beliefs about
what happened on 9/11 even without introducing this large, additional burden
of no planes. Many think we are crazy just to suggest that the official
story cannot be true and/or that the 3 WTC Towers came down because of
controlled demolition. After all, most of us have been working to reveal the
truth of 9/11 for many years, some of us for nearly 8 years, and although we
have made much progress, we still have far to go. So to add to that difficulty
an idea (no planes) that even most of the 9/11 truth movement thinks is
wrong and crazy is just too much. And even if no planes in NY were true, it
would still be a self-defeating strategy to put it out there publicly as
evidence, since such an outrageous notion undermines our credibility regarding
our more solid evidence. So either way, there are serious problems with
no-planes as regards our primary goal of convincing more of the public about
9/11 truth."

I don't get his logic. For example, he claims that no-planes will make us look crazy to the public. But the fact that 911 truthers are claiming the official story is false appears to be doing just that, judging by the pundits: for example, I remember Jim being interviewed on a radio program by Laura Ingraham and she did all she could to make him look crazy, even though I don't think he mentioned no planes.

Clearly, getting the facts about what happened as close as possible from the science should be the goal. I believe the devil is in the details on things, so the closer to the truth, the better we can step back and get a handle on what went down.

For example, in Jim's JFK books, he has experts who have nailed all the details of the medical and Zapruder film evidence, and this gives us a much better idea of exactly what happened and which specific people/groups were involved.
Comment by Thoth II on June 22, 2009 at 1:44pm
I remember in 1996 when ValueJet crashed into the everglades, parts were found all around the crash and put into an NTSB hangar.

I don't remember any such thing on 911. Every crash has thousands of parts found, why none of them on this day? Even if an engine was found on the street, that wouldn't convince me a plane had crashed, it must have been planted. Why? Because why only an engine? Why not a thousand identifiable parts? Answer: because it would have been impossible for the perps to plant all those genuine parts, so they did it the easy way by just planting a handful of parts, and then had the feds gather them up before they could do the inspection.

I once read in a book a good quote (probably from ancient Rome, but still applies): "who will guard the guards?"
Comment by Thoth II on June 22, 2009 at 1:09pm
To quote Anthony Lawson:

"And please stop acting as though John Lear is the only pilot in the w"orld.
He is not, and other pilots and a military aircraft maintenance Lt. Colonel
thinks that a plane, which looked like the one in the 50-or-so videos could
have achieved that speed, for a period of about ten seconds, at that
altitude, following a rapid descent of 4,600 per minute, from an altitude
of over 20,000 feet, on a very fine day, with only a slight headwind."

He seems like he is special pleading and grasping at straws. This idea he quotes is absurd and almost as bad as those absurd things the Popular Mechanics article tried to foist on the public about the towers.

First of all, I don't necessarily agree with the science. I think John Lear has explained this ad nauseum that flying at the speed required is impossible aerodynamically. Secondly, how could they even pull off such a maneuver. I never heard any eyewitness reports about such a ridiculous maneuver?

And then, Lawson is totally ignorant of physics. I say to him, look at the interaction of the planes with the buildings in those videos. They are so very obviously cartoons that to me his believing them is as ridiculous as him believing a Road Runner cartoon, I really mean it.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 22, 2009 at 11:45am
Sandy, I appreciate your posts. I hold Dean Velvel in high esteem and have featured him as a guest on one or more of my past radio programs. Personally, I believe that the evidence I have cited in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" would be legally admissible. You cannot do better in refuting a position than by showing that it violates laws of nature, including, in this case, laws of aerodynamics, of engineering, and of Newtonian physics.
Comment by sandy rose on June 22, 2009 at 11:41am
oh and p.s., to add one more thought to the stuff i jes said, one person i think
would be good to have the fakery/no plane info fall into his lap would be Lawrence
Velvel, (i guess he's still) dean at andover school of law, in massachusetts maybe?
as you all probably recall, he recently had a conference there about prosecuting
you know what, and reading his stuff, he is fierce about desiring that to happen. i
might have happened to forward him a number of 9/11 things, one at a time, some
of which involved fakery/inside job/no planes, i think. he didn't respond, but i feel
a good vibe from him and didn't take that as a "no" or a "not interested". i just
now cracked myself up thinking hey, wouldn't it be swell to have Dean Velvel
and Vincent Bugliosi on the no planer trail? heh heh.
anyway i am always all for doing what we can to get this job into court,
9/11 generally, and the reality of what we saw on video specifically, too, no
matter how whacky it might seem. maybe there's a whacky clause, where
ya can introduce evidence even tho it sounds whacky. (kidding).
i still have Velvel on my contacts, haven't sent him anything lately, but
if anyone has an already neat package of fakery proof, etc. it might not hurt
to send it his way. i'd be glad to forward stuff to him. :) hollah!
Comment by sandy rose on June 22, 2009 at 11:03am
Jim i am glad you posted these comments. it's interesting to see what some
of these people skeered of the no planes theories are really worried about. we
keep hearing that over and over from various people who seem really worried
about us talking about no planes. we don't want to make ourselves look whacky,
it's counter-productive, etc. blah blah blah. well wouldn't they feel stupid if (we) were able to
break the whole case wide open by exposing the fake video, etc. in court.
then who would look whacky? i'm pretty sure it wouldn't be us.
i'm wondering if all of our superb video experts and scientific types etc. have
worked up enough evidence from 9/11 and have it handy to use in a court of
la. we know they have done years and years of studies and videos and info,
etc.. if (we) can prove in court that the videos were fake
not airliners, that there were no
planes, or highjackers, or boxcutters, etc. then do we not have them by the
gonads, if we could work to come up with a way to get it into court? course
there are evil judges and problems like that, and money, and doing everything
exactly by the book, etc.,
wouldn't it be good for us as a group of whacky no planers/alternative planers
to have a fully laid out case for fakery/no planes that would be court worthy? or
is it already all printed out with smiley faces sitting in the magazine rack? :)
if the whole truth was brought out for the whole world to see, which of course
would involve somewhat of a media takeover since they were in it up to their
criminal eyeballs, then we'd see who the whacky ones would be, and all the
ones who keep on whining about us talking about no planes (if ya don't wanna
hear it, don't listen, people!) would think, crap, why didn't we do that.
the criminals had this exact thing in mind, they used such whacked out
means on 9/11 that very few would actually figure out/believe what they did,
and they're probably giggling in the corner because we're still bickering about it.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 22, 2009 at 7:31am
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:00:38 -0500 [06/20/2009 11:00:38 PM CDT]
From: "Jack & Sue White"
To: "Jack & Sue White"

Subject: Re: On Can't we stop quibbling and Work Together?? :-\

Let's be logical.

It is pointless to have a discussion based on PLANES or NO PLANES.

The discussion should be HIJACKED PLANES or NO HIJACKED PLANES.

If your position is HIJACKED PLANES, you support the government story.

If your position is NO HIJACKED PLANES, it is logical that you should
consider ALL alternative possibilities:

1. Substitute 757-767s were used
2. Similar or other jet aircraft were used
3. No aircraft were used
4. Secret military technologies were used
5. PsyOps were used
6. Video manipulation was used
7. Special effects were used
8. Television networks were used for fakery
9. Controlled demolition was used
10. Missiles were used
11. Unknown means were used
12. Combinations of above were used
13. Other

There is much evidence supporting some of the above possibilities. Making
ad hominem attacks on supporters of any one position is counter productive
if your position is that NO HIJACKED PLANES were involved.

If you support HIJACKED PLANES, you are a government shill.

Jack

On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:38:56 PM, Jack & Sue White wrote:

Jim...this fellow says I did not establish the time of day. WRONG. The video
CLEARLY is just moments after first building collapsed, because it shows
people fleeing down the street ahead of the dust cloud. This raises several
curiosities...the FBI took photos of the Church Street "engine" both BEFORE
and AFTER the dust cloud. Photos show it both pristine clean, and then covered
with dust.

People making ad hominem attacks on me without knowing the facts are annoying.
Had he or anyone asked the time of the FBI men unloading something, I
would have told them. Nobody asked. Yet that is taken as a negative excuse
to attack me.

. . .

Jack

On Jun 20, 2009, at 12:35:28 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:

Anthony,

Alas, not much can be said on behalf of your powers of reasoning. Here, for
example, you demonstrate that you are unable to separate "evidence" in the
form of premises (some of which is photographic) and "conclusions" based upon
them. "Answers" are conclusions, Anthony, whether they are verifiable or not.
The fames and other photos Jack has identified represent evidence that raises
questions which need to be explained. I dare say seeing agents in FBI vests
offloading something heavy at Church & Murray constitutes a lot more than an
"iota" of proof. This makes me worry about your ability to think, Anthony.

Now what do you suppose the are all doing there in the process of unloading
something that looks to be quite heavy. And it just happens to be at the
intersection of Church & Murray, where the cowling of an aircraft engine is
subsequently discovered--sitting on the sidewalk, which is undamanged, and
under a canopy, no less! Now I don't want to impugn your mental functions,
Anthony, but do you see a possible relationship of cause and effect at work?
But, of course, those who offer opinions contrary to yours "must be lying"!

Moreover, you cognitive impairments are woefully apparent when you offer up
--for the umpteenth time!-- Field McConnell, who has admitted that his view
is only an opinion about which he could be mistaken! John Lear has replied
with proofs related to the aerodynamic properties of aircraft in flight, and
area in which he is a leading expert. Gee, I wonder which of them ought to
be taken more seriously? Of course, I understand your methodology, Anthony,
which is accept the views of those who agree with you and discard the rest!

Jim

P.S. I will post the promised exchange here very shortly. Stand by! Thanks.

The jpgs are meaningless, and you must know it. A bunch of questions does
not constitute evidence. Only verifiable answers can do that, and there is
nothing in either jpg to suggest an incontrovertible answer to anything.

© 2024   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service