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
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
-
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 19, 2009 at 9:13pm
-
Bill,
I don't want to suggest you are taking things out of context, but the argument I was being given (against Newton) was in violation of the third law, suggesting there was a vast asymmetry (in observing that the effect of the interaction of the plane striking a stationary building would be the same as the effect of the building striking a stationary plane), because it would take an enormous force to get the building going 560 mph! Do you get the general idea? I don't want to dump on you, but this was a situation where the relativity of motion had to be explained. Is that alright with you? Or should I clear everything I write or say with you in advance? I mean, REALLY! If you want to base criticisms on your own personal ignorance, fine! Don't think I'll take it lying down.
-
Comment by Thoth II on June 19, 2009 at 6:39pm
-
Bill,
since you and I are equal posters, not moderators, I will throw in a vote of confidence for Jim to balance out your vote of no confidence. And 1-1 = zero.
-
-
By the way, you appear to be indulging in ad hominem arguments, which violate the only policy that I have advanced for this forum: mutual respect! If that's expecting too much from Bill Giltner, let me know. What I am finding puzzling is that you appear to disagree with me--in relation to this post, for example--but are not offering a critique of what I have said, only calling for a "vote of no confidence"! Well, we are not a parliament and there is no place for "votes" except by sharing your point of view. Participation here is voluntary. I am beginning to wonder if your presence is supposed to be subversive. Is that your role, Bill? Are you here as a provocateur? Because I don't mind disagreements, even strenuous ones, but I don't want our research to be undermined.
-
-
What's the problem, Bill? I thought you were doing great and making lots of contributions. What's wrong? I don't mind being challenged. I don't consider myself to be omniscient. Having founded this forum, I have an obligation to run it. If we have differences about that, I am glad to know about them. For example, you made the suggestion that I create events, groups, and blogs, which was a great idea and I did it! What's the deal? If you have problems here, share them. I am a fallible human being and make my share of mistakes. But I am very poor at reading other people's minds, so I must depend upon them to know what they are thinking. I get the sense that you think you should be the "big cheese". Well, that's fine. You have a blog and, in my view, are making a lot of contributions here. I think you are doing great! So what am I doing wrong? Tell me. You don't like something about the tone of that post? Egad! If you had followed the history of the thread, I doubt you would have any questions about it. I am a prime target for attacks from many directions. I would like to think that there is a core of support for the "big tent" approach that I represent. Is that what's bothering you?
-
-
Thanks, Thoth II. You're right! It's velocity diminished to zero, not is deceleration. I appreciate it. Best, Jim
-
-
That denzen guy sounds arrogant, and I don't fall for his false analogies. How can you compare a long, hollow, thin aluminum tube (obviously travelling at way less than the speed they travel at 35,000 feet), to a bullet which is small and solid or a straw hurled in a storm (again the straw isn't hollow but strong in some dimensions).
-
-
Jim, FYI, a small correction in your below quote:
"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"
That is correct as stated with one important difference, you should substitute the word "velocity" for the word "deceleration" in the quote. The deceleration represents the rate of change of velocity, and wouldn't be zero, but a constant value.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
About
Welcome to
9/11 Scholars Forum
© 2024 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum