Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
A RESPONSE TO ANTHONY LAWSON
Well, let’s see where things stand, Anthony. So far as I can tell, you have yet to refute any of my arguments. You spend a lot of time attacking Joe Keith while ignoring his observations. Moreover, since, as I use the phrase, video fakery covers any use of video to convey a false impression–whether the events that it presents are faked and the video was not altered, as in the case of a hologram, or the events it presents were introduced into the video, as in the case of CGIs or video compositing–one decisive way to prove that a video is fake is that it presents events that are physically impossible. Consider:
(1) Impossible Speed: I claimed that the plane is traveling at a speed that is impossible for a standard Boeing 767. That this is the case has been confirmed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Even you, Anthony, have admitted that 560 mph, which is its cruising speed at 35,000 feet, is impossible at 700-1,000 feet. So not only am I right about this, but you have acknowledged that I am right. It is for this reason that you have talked about a “special plane”, modified to travel at a higher speed. A “special plane”, however, is still a plane, which is a physical object that cannot violate laws of physics and of engineering. Take another look at the entry and the floors that it was intersecting with.
(2) Impossible Entry: Even a “special plane” is still a plane, however, and cannot violate laws of engineering and of physics. We know from Newton that objects remain at rest or travel in straight lines unless acted upon by other forces. We know that the effects of those other forces will be imparted in the direction in which thye are applied. We also know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The effortless entry of this “plane” into the building, given its design, intersecting eight (8) floors, is a physical impossibility. The plane should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground.
(3) Equal Distance/Equal Times: The argument that I found decisive when I began to investigate the possibility of video fakery is that the plane makes its impossible entry by passing its whole length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. This is impossible unless a massive, steel-and-concrete building poses no more resistance to the path of a plane in flight than air. It has been confirmed in both Hezarkhani and Fairbanks videos. Covering equal distances in equal times implies equal speeds, which means that there is no diminution in velocity under conditions when its velocity should have dropped to zero.
(4) The Planted Engine: An engine component found at Church & Murray has been claimed to have come from Flight 175. However, as even you have acknowledged, it is not from the engine of a Boeing 767. Moreover, it is obviously planted. We have footage of FBI agents unloading something heavy from a van at that location. Since the part was there later in the day, they are obviously delivering it and not picking it up. It is under a construction scaffolding and sitting on an undamaged sidewalk. If the plane had been real, then why would it have been necessary to plant an engine? Not only does this not support video authenticity, it further confirms video fakery.
(5) Joe Keith: The equal distance/equal times argument, which implies no loss in velocity upon entry, was advanced by Joe Keith, who was a software engineer for Boeing and programmed the software for its shaker system. It is archived as, “Joe’s Law” (with a $5,000 reward for disproof) at Morgan Reynolds’ web site, http://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/ Why you continue to dispute this is beyond me. You persist with the ad hominem that he wasn’t really an “aerospace engineer”, which appears to be baseless. More importantly, his argument stands on its own merits. It wouldn’t matter if he were a bar tender rather than a software engineer. I am taken aback that you can’t grasp this elementary point.
(6) Predictable Damage: The windows were only 18″ across, the support columns one meter apart. There were no windows between floors. Far less than 40% of the facade would have been glass. Steel and concrete are far more dense than aluminum. The effects of a plane hitting a stationary building at 560 mph would be the same as the building hitting the stationary plane at 560 mph. Imagine what would occur if a plane in flight impacted with one of those sections of the external support columns–or what would happen if a plane in flight were to collide with one of those steel trusses covered with 4-8″ of concrete? I’ve asked this repeatedly, but you have no answer.
(7) Why They Had to Fake It: They needed to coordinate the temporal sequence, so the explosions in the subbasements that drained the water from the sprinkler systems could be “explained away” as the effects of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts. But it is difficult for an experienced pilot to hit a target 208′ across, even with multiple attempts. And they needed the plane to enter the building before it would explode to have a pseudo-explanation for the building’s “collapse”. None of that would have happened with a real plane, so they had to fake it. And they were still 14 and 17 seconds late with their “hits”, as Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong explained and as I elaborated upon in “9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”. I am baffled that you seem to be unable to understand all this.