9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Pilots for 9/11 Truth publicizes Rock Creek Free Press article exposing 911blogger as a disinfo site

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:49:05 -0700 [06:49:05 AM CDT]
From: "Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum" <forum@pilotsfor911truth.org>
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side? ( Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum )

jfetzer,

Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?, Rock Creek Free Press examines censorship

Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?
BY RCFP STAFF WRITERS

In the nine years since the attacks of September 11, 2010, 9/11 truth has become a significant social movement, with hundreds of millions of adherents worldwide. A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll in 2006 found that 36% of Americans believe that the US government either promoted the attacks, or intentionally sat on its hands and let the attacks unfold.

Since 2005, the leading portal for news and discussion about 9/11 has been 911blogger.com. Of the many websites for researchers investigating the events of 9/11 (a Google search for “9/11truth” brings up over a half a million results), 911blogger is the most heavily trafficked. The content is user-generated; registered users post items of interest and other users post comments.

But over the past two years, many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause, while the moderators have become heavy-handed in squelching the views of one particular group. These actions have caused many of the banned activists to suspect that Blogger has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side, i.e., those tasked with keeping the truth about 9/11 from gaining widespread acceptance.

Click here for full article and other Hot Topics and Latest News.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20721

Views: 236

Comment

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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Mehmet Inan on November 15, 2010 at 2:52pm
Jim,

I am expecting an answer from you.
Comment by Mehmet Inan on November 9, 2010 at 4:04pm
Sorry for this late answer; I was out and unable to connect for some time.

Mehmet wrote: "We can only consider the concrete floor slabs as strong and indestructible. But as they are thin, 4” over 144” floors space, they will act like cutter to the plane. "

Jim Fetzer wrote: “That implies the plane should have been cut apart, as if the building were an enormous cheese slicer (with thicker wires) and that substantial parts of the plane should have crumpled, broken off, and fallen, as I have described it many times.”

Yes the plane parts were cut apart. But there is no reason for them to fall down out of the building. If they were broken, that means they entered into the building. Without entering into the building it’s impossible to be broken apart. When the cheese is cut with a slicer, it crosses trough the slicer. That’s why most of the parts of the plane entered into the building. The parts which were not entered the building were so small that they were invisible in the video, so they seem entered the building.

Mehmet wrote: "When the tanks are broken, the kerosene will enter the building and when well mixed with air, it will explode. That’s what we saw.

Jim Fetzer wrote: “The explosion was delayed in relation to the impact and ignition, which should have occurred during the entry, not after.”

The explosion could only happen when the good mixing of air and kerosene happened. Such mixing requires some time, so it happened some time after. The explosion could not happen at entry time.

Mehmet wrote: "Only the heavy right engine could cross the building and exit from the north-east corner.”

Jim Fetzer wrote: “The engine to which you refer, I presume, is the one found at Church and Murray, which turns out not to be from a Boeing 767. An interesting study of this is found here: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1829738/1/

I must study that more in detail. I can’t speak abut it. But that does not prove no plane hit the towers.

Jim Fetzer wrote: “There is much in your Powerpoint with which I would agree, including the critique of the claims about molten metal. For now, let me say that, if I and others are right about the four crash sites, we are dealing with phantom flights.”

Nothing permits us to claim that the planes were phantom.

Jim Fetzer wrote: “If we consider the studies by Elias Davidsson (that the government has never shown the alleged hijackers were even aboard the planes)”

Yes the government did not show evidence to prove that the hijackers were on board. But that does not prove the planes were phantom.

Jim Fetzer wrote: “by David Ray Griffin (that all of the phone calls from the four alleged flights were faked)”

Yes, the phone calls were faked and were impossible to be made from the planes. But that does not prove the planes were phantom. The phone calls were made by software like “screaming bee”.

Jim Fetzer wrote: “Colonel George Nelson (that of the millions of uniquely identifiable component parts, the government has yet to produce one)”

Yes the parts of the planes should be identified by their serial numbers, that proves the government hidden this information.

Jim Fetzer wrote: “not to mention the FAA Registration records I have in hand, which show that the planes corresponding to #11 and #77 were not deregistered until 2001 and #93 and #175 not until 2005”

Record of cancelling is not evidence. It’s just an administration work which was made later. That does not prove the planes were phantom.

Jim Fetzer wrote: “and I believe there is a very strong case that this was all "smoke and mirrors".”

Sorry Jim, your arguments are not strong enough.

Jim Fetzer wrote: “So I am having a hard time concluding that you have it all right.”

As scholars, we must stick to the truth and strong evidence. I do my best to stick to strong evidence. If you refuse to stick on strong evidence, you should stop to claim to be scholar and you should start to do something else.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on November 4, 2010 at 8:52am
I am having trouble posting this at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, so I am posting it here first to make sure it isn't lost.

Tamborine man,

You and Bill seem to me to be "right on"! I think the specifics of the New York events are compounded by many other more general considerations that strongly suggest the four may have been "phantom" flights.

Consider:

Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has never been able to prove the alleged hijackers were aboard: http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias...

David Ray Griffin has shown that the phone calls from the planes--all of calls from all of the planes--were faked: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, of the millions of uniquely identifiable component parts from the four aircraft, the government has yet to produce even one!

FAA Registration Data, which I have in hand, shows that the planes corresponding to Flights 11 and 77 were not de-registered until 01/14/202 and those corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 not until 09/28/2005.

This post came to me today, which expresses a fighter pilot's concerns about some of the improbabilities of 9/11:

Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 1:15:11 AM
Subject: found on a 911 blog...opinions of a jet pilot

In my professional opinion as an Aviator, I have the following concerns, which I would like to title “Aviation Improbabilities”. Now, I am not saying that these are impossible to happen as individual occurrences, but that it is highly improbable that they would all occur in series to have the outcome as professed by the US Government.

-Improbability of ALL 8 Airline Pilots voluntarily giving up control of their aircraft to individuals stating they have box cutters and have or will kill passengers; this is not the established protocol to give up control of aircraft and responsibility of safety for your passengers and crew

-Improbability of ALL 8 Airline Pilots being killed without a deliberate violent flight control reaction that would upend any cockpit invasion

-Improbability of ALL 8 Airline Pilots not entering the Hijack or Emergency Code into the transponder, alerting ATC of a serious problem

-Improbability IF the above occurred that the marginally-trained hijackers would be able to operate the navigational systems and fly to specific points in airspace using Instrument Flight Rules

-Improbability of maneuvering the airliners above 400 kts airspeed (considered high speed) and precisely striking the comparatively small WTC 1 & 2 (Professional pilots in simulators have about a one in three chance of accomplishing this maneuver.)

-Improbability of maneuvering AA Flight 77 from 35,000 feet descending to hit the Pentagon, as stated by USG in an analysis of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR); specifically a 330 degree turn from 7000’, descending at a controlled airspeed of 290-300 kts, to precisely strike the Pentagon at ground level by a minimally-trained, unqualified hijacker

-As a military fighter pilot, I have questions as to why numerous Air Defense systems were not utilized that day, including intercept aircraft that had plenty of time from 8:14 am when Boston Center Air Traffic Controllers realized something was wrong with AA Flight 11, after it did not respond to authorization to change flight levels. There were 3 Air Defense Exercises ongoing on Sep 11, and their command posts and chain of commands were fully staffed. Otis AFB, MA had ANG F-15 fighter-interceptors nearby which were airborne “too late” (8:53 launch); Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:45 am, followed by Flight 175 hitting the South Tower at 9:03am. Many other bases, including Andrews AFB outside Wash DC and Langley AFB VA have fighters on alert or available - why did none of them launch in time to intercept Flight 77, as it did not strike until 9:37 am?

-Finally, as an experienced aircraft investigator, I have serious questions regarding several of the crash sites. Again, it is IMPROBABLE that of the 8 “black boxes”, in reality a bright orange FDR and a bright orange CVR on each of the aircraft, only the FDR from Flight 77 into the Pentagon and both recorders from Flight 93 in Pennsylvania were recovered. With over 1.5 Million man-hours of time sorting through debris at Fresh Kills site in New Jersey, it is IMPROBABLE that we don’t have more aircraft evidence of what actually occurred in each of the unfortunate airliners that day. Thank you again for your time and consideration of these important facts."

There thus appears to be strong evidence, not only of fakery in New York, but of fakery throughout the events of 9/11.

Jim

[quote name='Tamborine man' date='Nov 1 2010, 09:25 AM' post='10790669']
I'm pleased that Fetzer's and my own response to the post by 'amazed' pretty
much deal with the same problems we have with the content. We must have
submitted our posts rather simultaneously!

Now that my "questions" appear[i] after[/i] the reply from 'amazed', i'll try 'gracefully'
to bow out and leave further responses to those two dear gentlemen.

Cheers
[/quote]
Comment by Thoth II on November 3, 2010 at 7:14pm
Ben: "It's very strange, where did the idea get started that seemingly far out ideas (such as no-planes) were harmful to the truth movement and needed to be silenced for the greater good of "reaching people"? How do they come by their belief that even tolerating discussion of these ideas is harmful anyway? In my experience several people that I have talked to - far from being turned off by no-planes - immediately grasped what I was saying and saw the reasonableness of the no-planes hypothesis."

you are so correct. In fact, I would argue that a fair scientific technique, like abductivism, must be applied to all topics in 911 "truth" , because, that in fact is the way to "truth". These ideas of suppressing hypotheses are very stupid and dangerous ideas. In fact, if they are suppressing hypotheses from discussion, they are engaging in "special pleading" , a classic logical fallacy, or worse. How can a 911 truth movement be based on logical fallacies and still sustain the test of time? It can't , pure and simple.
Comment by Ben Collet on November 2, 2010 at 5:37pm
The Rock Creek Free Press article criticizing the censoring policies of the 911Blogger site struck me as pretty fair and well documented. It stirred up a storm at 911Blogger and reopened a discussion that has been on the back burner recently - the discussion about the whole fact of censorship of ideas within the 9-11 truth movement.
It's very strange, where did the idea get started that seemingly far out ideas (such as no-planes) were harmful to the truth movement and needed to be silenced for the greater good of "reaching people"? How do they come by their belief that even tolerating discussion of these ideas is harmful anyway? In my experience several people that I have talked to - far from being turned off by no-planes - immediately grasped what I was saying and saw the reasonableness of the no-planes hypothesis.
I hesitate to call anyone disinfo agents (and actually I wish the Rock Creek article had not over-reached by making that charge against 9-11Blogger). Infiltration may be true, in fact it almost certainly is in some cases, trouble is the proof is lacking.
Whether they are deliberate disinfo or not there are some strange things going on. There seems to be a concerted effort to convince the movement to accept that a plane hit the Pentagon. A few years ago it was almost universally understood within the 9/11 truth movement that no plane hit the Pentagon - now that has changed - and 911blogger is largely responsible. But others are too.
There is a site called "pumpitout", run by Jeffrey Hill of ambush interview fame, that used to be a no-planer site. Then suddenly that changed and Hill and his followers overnight accepted the official story not only that planes hit the WTC but also that they hit the Pentagon. People, such as me, who continued arguing for no-planes, and against their rather weak arguments for planes, found themselves squeezed out of the discussion.
The 9/11 truth movement as a whole has been harmed by these policies - not least by the way they have marginalized Dr. Fetzer, and thus deprived their audiences of the benefit of his well-supporte arguments, his intellect and his leadership.
We need to push back against censorship in the movement. I agree with Jim that we should express our support to Rock Creek Free Press for their critique - and also urging them to follow their own argument a little further and to, in addition, oppose 911Blogger's censorship of no-planers.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on November 1, 2010 at 10:34am
Mehmet wrote: "We can only consider the concrete floor slabs as strong and indestructible. But as they are thin, 4” over 144” floors space, they will act like cutter to the plane. When the tanks are broken, the kerosene will enter the building and when well mixed with air, it will explode. That’s what we saw. Only the heavy right engine could cross the building and exit from the north-east corner." That implies the plane should have been cut apart, as if the building were an enormous cheese slicer (with thicker wires) and that substantial parts of the plane should have crumpled, broken off, and fallen, as I have described it many times. The explosion was delayed in relation to the impact and ignition, which should have occurred during the entry, not after. The engine to which you refer, I presume, is the one found at Church and Murray, which turns out not to be from a Boeing 767. An interesting study of this is found here: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1829738/1/

Mehmet wrote: "Do not forget the damages on the facades, the hundreds of eyewitnesses, the fire, … also the disappeared victims in the planes. The planes were real ones and nothing permits us to claim that they were not AA11 and UA175. Instead of revoking the planes, we should work to explain the facts by using them. And the answer to that is in my power point at http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/". There is much in your Powerpoint with which I would agree, including the critique of the claims about molten metal. For now, let me say that, if I and others are right about the four crash sites, we are dealing with phantom flights. If we consider the studies by Elias Davidsson (that the government has never shown the alleged hijackers were even aboard the planes), by David Ray Griffin (that all of the phone calls from the four alleged flights were faked), and Colonel George Nelson (that of the millions of uniquely identifiable component parts, the government has yet to produce one), not to mention the FAA Registration records I have in hand, which show that the planes corresponding to #11 and #77 were not deregistered until 2001 and #93 and #175 not until 2005 and I believe there is a very strong case that this was all "smoke and mirrors". So I am having a hard time concluding that you have it all right.
Comment by Mehmet Inan on October 31, 2010 at 6:39pm
Jim Fetzer said: “What is the area of the facade of the tower that is glass? that is steel? Since there are no windows between the floors, I infer that more than 50% -- let's call it 60% -- of the building is steel-plated and 40& is glass.”

Yes. But we must not consider the steel at such high floors as strong ones. At such high floors, the thickness of the columns and spandrel plates is smaller than lower floors.

Jim Fetzer said: “I agree that the strongest part of the plane is between the engines. And you agree that the ends of the wings should have broken off. The same for the tail. This plane was intersecting eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with 4" of concrete (or about an acre of concrete per floor). You can see a diagram of the floors it was intersecting on my Buenos Aires Powerpoint on http://911scholars.org. How much horiizontal resistance was posed by those structures? how much by those structures combined with the external steel support columns, which were connected by the trusses to the 47 core columns?”

We can only consider the concrete floor slabs as strong and indestructible. But as they are thin, 4” over 144” floors space, they will act like cutter to the plane. When the tanks are broken, the kerosene will enter the building and when well mixed with air, it will explode. That’s what we saw. Only the heavy right engine could cross the building and exit from the north-east corner.

Jim Fetzer said: ”My suggestion is that your calculations are incomplete, because you are considering only the external force from the plane and not the resistance of the building.”

We always have action force = reaction force. If the column was able to bore the action of the plane, the generated forces are equal. If the column was unable to bore the action of the plane, it reached its limit force and was broken. Especially when massive parts of the plane impacted a bolted extremity of outer columns, these columns were broken.

Also the generated force by the action of the plane is limited to the inertia of the parts and their resistance face to shearing effect by the concrete floor slabs. At such speed, we can consider only inertia forces, because all light parts in a plane are easy to shear. So the available resistive force to make the plane decelerate is very small. And it only become some significant when the wings begin to hit the tower, because the nose is very weak. As the duration of the impact of the wings is very small, about 0.1s, they can not increase the crossing time in a significant manner. Also, the tail part is unable to decelerate so much, because after the wings the fuselage is not strong and unable to create enough resistive force to make the tail decelerate; the fuselage had to be broken after the wings and the tail continued its movement. Finally the time difference is almost invisible.

All that stuff is well summarized by the calculation F=m*a --> a=F/m=dv/dt --> dv= F*dt/m, F is limited (see here up), dt is very small 0.25s, m is big (whole weight of the plane), so dv is small. We must also calculate the length difference: dv=d2x/dt ==> d2x = dv*dt = F*dt*dt/m ==> we have the square of dt appearing in the formula; the square of a small time gap is more smaller. And we must calculate in how much time that length diference (d2x) will be crossed by the plane to get some time difference. Let’s say d2x=~5m (0.1*length, this is too much), at speed of 370kts, it requires about 7µs to cross this distance. Can we measure 4µs on basis of that video? Forget it.

As conclusion, we can simply state that the time difference is invisible. So, measuring the frame number variation can not prove the absence of decelaration; it can not be used to claim that the plane was not there.

Do not forget the damages on the facades, the hundreds of eyewitnesses, the fire, … also the disappeared victims in the planes. The planes were real ones and nothing permits us to claim that they were not AA11 and UA175. Instead of revoking the planes, we should work to explain the facts by using them. And the answer to that is in my power point at http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/

Jim Fetzer said: ”Since John Lear, PIlots, and even NIST agree that the plane was traveling around 540 mph, I am at a loss as to why you would dispute it.”

NIST report is full of lies, and John Lear could simply be disinfo. Also why you and Pilotsfor911 do not measure the speed on basis of the time taken by the plane to cross its own length? I made that measurement, and got 377kts. This difference should be explained! I told you, the basis of my measurement is simple: the plane crossed its length in 0.25second. On basis of that, you can measure its speed, you’ll find 377kts. Do the job and check if I made any mistake.

Jim Fetzer said: ”Where have you take in into account the massive resistance of the tower?”

During the impact, there is no move of massive parts. Only outer thin columns were broken and moved some. But nothing else moved. The floor slabs did not move. So it’s meaningless to consider 500,000 tons of weight of the tower.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 31, 2010 at 4:24pm
What is the area of the facade of the tower that is glass? that is steel? Since there are no windows between the floors, I infer that more than 50% -- let's call it 60% -- of the building is steel-plated and 40& is glass. I agree that the strongest part of the plane is between the engines. And you agree that the ends of the wings should have broken off. The same for the tail. This plane was intersecting eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with 4" of concrete (or about an acre of concrete per floor). You can see a diagram of the floors it was intersecting on my Buenos Aires Powerpoint on http://911scholars.org. How much horiizontal resistance was posed by those structures? how much by those structures combined with the external steel support columns, which were connected by the trusses to the 47 core columns? My suggestion is that your calculations are incomplete, because you are considering only the external force from the plane and not the resistance of the building. Since John Lear, PIlots, and even NIST agree that the plane was traveling around 540 mph, I am at a loss as to why you would dispute it. Where have you takein into account the massive resistance of the tower?
Comment by Mehmet Inan on October 31, 2010 at 11:33am
I looked the pilotsfor911 site. They base their study on the reported speed by NTSB, (510kts). Why none of them measured the actual speed on basis of the time needed to cross its own length? This is too much more precise, and easy to make? Why should we all believe some numbers given by NTSB without any possibility to check them? That behavior of pilotsfor911 is suspicious to be disinfo and needs to be explained. I believe pilotsfor911 are disinfo.

I made the speed measurement, and got the number of 377kts for UA175. This speed is smaller than the reported maximum speed of 425kts. Please ask to pilots to make the speed measurement on that basis.

If you compare the 500,000 tons towers to a tree, the conclusion is simple: The towers remained intact, like a tree does it face to some car impacts. But we are not considering the connection of the towers to the bedrock. Sure the towers still stand and they should do it. Here, we are considering the entrance of the plane into the tower. And in that case, we must only consider the resistance of bolted outer columns and the behavior of (4”concrete / 140” empty space). In that case, the bolted columns are too much smaller then 500,000 ton massive steel. And the (4”concrete / 140” empty space) would act like a cutter to the plane, leaving all parts hitting the 140” empty space to enter the building. When you speak about 8 floors you include the extremity of the wings; we know that the wing tips did not enter the buildings. As I told, only the parts situated between the engines will enter the tower, and that’s what we saw. That also means all parts situated before and after the engines will enter the towers too, because the heavy parts opened the door and pushed the parts which were before them. These parts include the entire fuselage, so all seats also.

Jim Fetzer said : “If you think that the plane could possibly pass through its own length into this massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air--especially when it is intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with 4" of concrete (or an acre of concrete apiece), then I think you need to go back to school. I am very sorry, but this argument, of them all, demonstrates your incompetence.”

I do not THINK the plane “could possibly pass through its own length into this massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames it passes though its own length in air”, I PROVE it using physics law F=m*a, and I ask you to use the same mathematical thinking method to understand the facts. Here is the mathematics again :

F=m*a --> a=F/m=dv/dt --> dv= F*dt/m. m is the weight of the plane and is very big. F is the resistance force which can be made the plane parts and the outer columns of the tower. Plane parts are weak, except the parts between the engines. The columns at such high floors are made by thin steel plates, ~=0.5inch. Also these columns are bolted and bolts can not create big resistance force. The slab thickness is 4 inches, and there are 140 inches empty space. As conclusion the columns resistance is exceeded oly during the impact of the central parts between the engines. During all other impacts only the plane parts resistance cen be considered. During most of the time, the resistance force is very small made by fuselage. We can tell the force is very small and meaningless. The time duration during which the speed reduction is made is very small, it’s 0.25s for whole impact, let’s say 0.1 for the impact of the biggest parts.

On basis of these considerations, we can clearly tell that there could not be any significant speed reduction because, dv=F*dt/m, F is small, dt is small, m is big. This is physics law applied by mathematics. I must also tell that at the beginning I thought that some speed redcution must happen, but when making this calculation, it’s clear that there is meaningless or invisible speed reduction.

About the strobe lights, I disagree to follow any body like John Lear, who ever he could be. I’ll always make my own truth about each subject on basis of material evidence and loical scientific considerations. The conclusion of all that stuff, the planes were real ones, nothing gives us any evidence to deny their true number, AA11 and UA175 for the towers.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 31, 2010 at 10:58am
Today, 10:41 AM
Post #21

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735

No, the point I was making is that there is NO decleration. Think of driving a car into a massive tree at high spoeed. It's velocity should have fallen to zero except for the engines and other parts that would have entered through the windows. Most of the plane should have crumpled as I have explained. And we even have the Evan Fairbanks video, which shows the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through air, which is not only preposterous but demonstrates there was no loss of speed.

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Oct 31 2010, 07:16 AM)
thanks for links jim, i will most certainly take a look!

well yeah

the point i was trying to make was that softer materials can deform harder ones. the 767 may be an aluminum can, but it is a big and heavy one.

yes, the aircraft should most definitely have started to shred beginning at the moment of impact. isn't there video anywhere of a street level view just below the impact hole?

on the subject of frames, do you mean like 30 frames per second being what movie cameras used to shoot? or 24 frames per second movie theater movies? i ask because hoo fatt's analysis showed the aircraft ( whatever would have been left ) decelerating by half from it's initial velocity. the plane's ~48 meter length would have traversed that distance in .25 to .5 seconds, which could be up to 15 frames...

jfetzer
Today, 10:49 AM
Post #22

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735

Well, by your hypothesis, assume the side of the building was half windows and half steel plates, which were connected by steel trusses to the core columns and filled with 4" of concrete, which means that each floor represents an acer of concrete--and it was intersection with eight (8) of them! (Go to my Buenos Aires Powerpoint at http://911scholars.org and study the first fifteen slides and you will see the problem.) Given your assumptions, the parts of the plane that hit the windows should have passes through. But what about the parts that hit the steel plates? Surely they should not have passed through, too? So if roughly half of the plane, by your hypothesis, should have passed through, half should not. Moreover, the parts that would have passed through given your hypothesis were connected by steel members to parts that would not, surely more than half of the plane (including various interconnected parts) should not have passed through. Since that didn't happen -- the entire plane is shown passing effortlessly into the building -- something is very wrong. So how was it done?

QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 31 2010, 09:46 AM)
Mr. Fetzer

I think in your analysis of what an aluminum tube with steel components would ACTUALLY do when striking a building such as the towers, you're overlooking the obvious.

The building itself had windows about 2 feet wide, with about 2 foot spacing. Imagine a steel grate with those approximate dimensions. In any given horizontal section, about half is not steel, but glass.

My theory is that the exoskeleton of the towers were a type of sieve. The 350 knot aluminum tube had heavy steel nose wheel landing gear leading the penetration, followed shortly thereafter by 2 larger main gear assemblies made of steel, and 2 larger diameter engines with steel and other hard metal components.

Why would such a structure as the towers NOT be penetrated? Why would the aluminum components with such a velocity NOT be shredded by the seive? What laws of physics demand that the fuselage would flatten and fall to the ground below?

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service