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 22, 2009 at 7:26am
-
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:54:43 -0500 [06/20/2009 09:54:43 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Jack & Sue White"
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: On Can't we stop quibbling and Work Together?? :-\
Yes, I think his full name is Colin Alexander Baker. But he still
does some interesting stuff, doesn't he? Maybe close to the mark.
Quoting "Jack & Sue White" :
I just did additional checking and find that COLIN ALEXANDER is a pseudonym of ACE BAKER.
Jack
On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:29:06 PM, Jack & Sue White wrote:
Jim...check these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbm5ewcIeU&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/user/CollinAlexander
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmcLQ_RMFBI&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjr-Wi3jqXc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F74T2YqTs08&feature=related
Are you familiar with Colin Alexander?
Jack
-
-
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:32:35 -0500 [06/21/2009 10:32:35 AM CDT]
From: "Jack & Sue White"
To: "Anthony Lawson"
Subject: Re: On Can't we stop quibbling and Work Together?? :-\
Part(s): Download All Attachments (in .zip file)
Mr. Lawson is correct that WE HAVE NO IDEA what was happening at Church and Murray as the first tower fell. The frame captures are from a VERY BRIEF video clip showing spectators fleeing from the cloud of dust coming down the street from the first falling tower. In THE BACKGROUND for a brief instant we see several men with blue jackets with big yellow FBI lettering. Some of them are around a blue van with a sliding side door. One of the men evidently has on a tilted mover's dolly a large wrapped object, tilted at an angle. This is in the BACKGROUND for only a few seconds, because the photographer is focused on people running down Church Street, one man in particular that is focused on as the photographer pans following the man. Mr. Lawson is correct that in A SINGLE MOMENT lasting just a few frames, we have no idea WHAT the FBI men are doing or what the object is
.
Our only contention is that the activity is SUSPICIOUS, with a large FBI team present at the location BEFORE THE FIRST TOWER FALLS. Just coincidentally, the famous engine part is found at this same location with an abandoned dolly a few feet away. What do you get when you add 2+2? I came up with 4. You may get a different sum.
I must correct my friend Jim on just one statement. Several times he has called the engine part a COWLING.
It obviously is NOT a cowling. Other than that I agree with all he says. And I guarantee that he is not a disinfo
agent nor is he lying. He presents the truth as he sees it when he writes it. We all learn more as we search
for the truth.
Jack
-
-
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:07:55 -0500 [06/21/2009 09:07:55 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: KenJenkins@aol.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: On Can't we stop quibbling and Work Together?? :-\
All,
If this is supposed to be your response to my post about the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, then I can understand why you didn't even
include the post to which you were responding. I have done plenty to refute
the government's "official account", including the summary of refuations that
may be found as the very first item on 911scholars.org at the upper left. But
were are dealing here with one of the greatest mysteries of history, and some
of us want to understand what happened and how it was done. Those, like you,
who want to take a less aggressive intellectual path are welcome to it. But
don't think that justifies you--either intellectually or morally--in placing
obstacles in the path of those who have more intellectual integrity and moral
courage than do you. Egad! That is compounding your offense. And those who
think they can make headway in a legal context without knowing the whole score
are, in my opinion, simply deluding themselves. So, if you want to play the
role of an intellectual mouse, you are welcome to do that, but stay away from
the intellectual lions who are not going to cease their investigation until we
have discovered the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of 9/11.
Jim
In a message dated 6/21/09 1:20:09 AM, wmgolden@verizon.net writes:
If your objective is to develop a demand for an open 9/11 investigation with
prosecutions, the most effective course might be to simply demonstrate that
the official explanation cannot be true, due to clear evidence, and you may
not want to prejudice the case with too many explanations, especially if they
are controversial. That will be the work of the prosecution, which you might
later work with.
This is a close statement of my objectives, and that of virtually everyone
I know in the 9/11 truth movement and supportive of this movement.
Ken
Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:
Ken,
Are you telling me that, even if I am right about (1) through (10) and
the evidence supports no planes in New York, in Shanksville, or at the
Pentagon--EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT, WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS THE
RATIONAL THING TO BELIEVE--neither you nor any of your associates will
admit it BECAUSE YOU THINK IT WOULD DISCREDIT THE 9/11 COMMUNITY?
AmI to understand this is your position? Is this why I have felt as if
I were beating my head against a stone wall--because none of you will
admit it, even if you know, in your heart of hearts, that I am right
and there is no evidence for any planes? Just tell me so I can get my
head wrapped around this. For 9/11 Truth, the Truth is not the goal?
For 9/11 Truth, politics takes precedent. For 9/11 Truth, some of the
truth is good enough and more of the truth or all of the truth is not?
Tell me that, while I may want the truth, all of the truth and nothing
but the truth, you do not--because it would defeat the 9/11 movement?
I just want to be very clear about this. In your view, politics has
to come before science and reason and rationality must be suppressed?
Because, if this is the case, then we diverge in our methodology for
the simple reason that we have different objectives, aims, or goals.
I want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
about what happened on 9/11. You and the rest of your gang do not.
But if that is the case, then cease feigning that I am wrong about
all these things. Stop claiming to be right when you are not. Tell
me that, even if I am right, you want me to leave it alone, because,
in your view, the truth not only will not set us free but will hobble
us politically. And is it also the case that, for reasons of a like
kind, you are not interested in indications of Israeli complicity in
the crime, because you think that would be similarly disadvantageous
in the pursuing the political objective of . . . ? Do tell me more.
Jim
What's wrong with this picture?
Moreover, as I shall explain below, an impossible speed is only one of
many indications of video fakery on 9/11, which also include the manner
in which the plane entered the building with no loss in velocity, with
no crumpling, damage or debris, including no breaking off of the wings,
no passengers, seats, or luggage, with the tail remaining intact. This
situation has been summarized by Mark Smith replying to Ralph Omholt:
______________________________________________________________________
(A) Crash Summary: Quoting "Mark E. Smith" :
Ralph wrote:
"No planes? Then account (rationally) for the damage, based on highly
probable or undisputable facts, versus highly improbable or fantastic theory
and baseless claims."
Planes cannot account for the damage either.
Never before or since has a plane cut into a building like a cookie cutter,
or sliced through a building like a hot knife through butter. The whole
reason for the limited hangout of controlled demolition is that the planes
cannot account for the damage.
Neither can they account for controlled demolition. Nor can controlled
demolition in the basement and throughout the height of a building be set
off by an aircraft hitting the building.
What's planes got to do with it? Nothing. I don't know of any WTC damage
that could only have been caused by planes. If I see something flying
towards a building, I'll probably assume it's a plane rather than a missile,
as I don't expect to see missiles in urban areas. (Lucky me--knock wood!) If
I then see an explosion and what resembles an airplane-shaped hole in the
building, I'll think a plane hit it. But if I don't see the end of the
aircraft sticking out of the building and debris from the crash falling to
the ground, I have to rethink the whole thing.
People who will fake crash scenes are certainly capable of faking videos. I
think the kids call it FX. People capable of high-tech controlled
demolition, are capable of setting off small explosions and blowing out
specific shapes in building walls. When they use plastique to blow open a
door, they need to be able to enter that door, thus no fiery, flaming
inferno, which is why there was a woman standing in that cookie-cutter
plane-shaped hole with no flames and no fire.
This is so basic, I can't believe we're back to this again. When an aircraft
hits a building, the aircraft falls down, the building does not. Planes do
not pass through buildings. Not even wooden buildings, no less concrete and
steel buildings. To put it in Mensa terms that even the most brilliant minds
can understand, the mass of a concrete and steel building is denser than the
mass of a bird, and hitting a bird causes immense damage to an airplane. If
a plane cannot pass through the feathers, extremely light bones, and some
soft internal organs of a bird, it cannot pass through a much denser
building.
Faster than a speeding bullet! Mor powerful than a locomotive! Able to
penetrate tall buildings in a single bound! Look! Up in the air! It's a
bird.....it's a plane....it's super-psy-ops!
--Mark
_______________________________________________________________________
(B) Evidence Summary: Quoting "James H. Fetzer" :
The fact is that John Bursill appears to be grandstanding by presenting a
biased and selective case in light of the mass of evidence that supports
the possibility that no planes may have been involved on 9/11. Notice,
especially, we have much more evidence to work with in thinking about the
videos than the videos themselves. In earlier posts about this question,
for example, I not only reinforced the proof we have that the events we
see in the interaction of Flight 175 with the South Tower cannot possibly
be correct--since it would have been intersecting acres of concrete, 4"
thick, poured onto the trusses, which were welded to the external support
columns at one end and to the core columns at the other, which would have
created enormous resistance and caused the place to crumple and break up,
with massive debris falling to the ground, which did not happen in these
videos--but we have many other indications there may have been no planes:
(1) Kee Dewdney has shown that cell phone calls would have been impossible,
which means that those we have heard about are fabrications, some of which
must have been created using sophisticated "voice morphing" technology, at
some considerable effort;
(2) Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has no proof that Islamic
hijackers were aboard any of these planes, where such evidence as has been
provided (the list from Atta's suitcase, the miraculous passport, and all of
that) is transparently fabricated;
(3) 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 plan, passenger manifest and
check list for fuel load, operation of electronics, and all that), yet not
one of the envelopes for any of these planes has ever been produced;
(4) George Nelson, a former USAF air crash investigator, has observed that,
although each of these planes had hundreds and hundreds of uniquely identi-
fiable, safety-related component parts, the government has yet to produce
even one from any of the four alleged plane crash sites;
(5) Joe Keith, John Lear, and various aeronautical engineers--even persons
at Boeing--have explained that no Boeing 767 or 757 could fly as fast at the
altitudes involved--700-1,000 feet in New York, skimming the ground at the
Pentagon--as the videos show or as the government has claimed;
(6) Multiple pilots, including some from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, have said
how difficult it would be to hit one of those towers at 500+ mph (where one
group tried it with their flight simulators shortly after these events and
found they were unable to do it after multiple tries, at best 1 time in 5);
(7) Video experts, including Ace Baker and killtown, have explained how easy
it would be to create fake videos and even have them played in very close to
real time (with a 17-second delay) or ever in real time (using compositing
by imposing a layer with the plane over images of the buildings themselves);
(8) 175 footage shows a plane traveling faster than aerodynamically possible,
entering the buildings with no loss in velocity (passing through steel and
concrete as effortlessly as it passes through air), with no debris or damage
to the plane and passengers (no luggage, no seats, no bodies);
(9) Jack White has discovered FOX footage that shows FBI agents offloading
something heavy at Church and Murray shortly before an engine alleged to be
from the impact was found, where the sidewalk is not damaged, it is sitting
under a canopy, and it was from a 737, not a 767; and,
(10) as David Ray Griffin has emphasized, some six or seven of the alleged
hijackers have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East, which
would not be possible if they had sacrificed their lives in acts of terrorism
by crashing these four aircraft as the government maintains.
We also have videos whose authenticity is not in doubt that were taken before
and after the purported "impacts" with the buildings, which provides further
bases for figuring out what was added to them or subtracted from them. Some
of those who have done the most work on video fakery, Ace Baker and killtown,
for example, have theories about how it was done, which implicate the media,
especially FOX television, if I understand them correctly, as the original
source, where FOX subsequently deleted its own feeds out and began playing
the videos from other networks as feeds in to conceal its role in putting
them into the public domain, which gives us insight as to how it was done.
We need explanations that can account for all of the data, not just some.
Quoting KenJenkins@aol.com:
In a message dated 6/20/09 3:47:54 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
For some reason, indication of video fakery or the possibility
of no planes in New York drives him nuts
Jim,
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.
For those of us who believe that planes did hit the Twin Towers, there is
of course more distress, because we not only recognize the problem of losing
credibility by including such an idea as part of our evidence, but we
further agree that it should undermine the credibility of anyone who would claim
such a notion. So there is a double added burden with no planes.
The bottom line is this: The no planes in NY idea generates the FEAR that
it will undermine our efforts to expose the big lie that is 9/11. And
since the future of our world as one of endless war vs. peace hinges on whether
or not 9/11 is exposed as a lie, the fear that the no planes idea induces in
many is intense. It is that fear that makes the no planes idea such a hot
button issue that drives some people nuts.
I hope this makes the reason for the upset clear.
Ken
-
-
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:51:17 -0500 [06/21/2009 08:51:17 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Anthony Lawson" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: On Can't we stop quibbling and Work Together?? :-\
Anthony,
Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know how to think:
(1) Reasoning can be inductive or deductive, where inductive
reasoning involves inferring to a conclusion that has more
content than the premises. Yes, that they appear to have
been unloading something heavy and that something heavy was
found in the immediate vicinity, which only appears to have
"shown up" when they made the delivery, is an inductive in-
ference, which could be mistaken, but for which supporting
evidence exists. You blunder by supposing that, if argu-
ments are not deductive, then they are not arguments at all.
Such arguments are probabilistic and fallible, unlike deductive
arguments, but are not therefore not "arguments". Indeed, in
this case, that the sidewal5k was undamgaged and the cowling
was under a canopy strengthens the case. You have never said
what it is you think they were doing there. I can't imagine
an alternative explanation that fits the evidence any better.
(2) You again blunder by using the "l" word. Anthony, how
many times to I have to point out that someone is lying only
if (a) they are making an assertion (b) that is false where
(c) they know it is false and (d) they are doing so with the
intention of misleading their audience. Both Jack White and
I believe what we are saying. We are making assertions that
we do not know for certain are true but believe to be true
on the basis of inductive evidence. We have no intent to
mislead our audience, even including you! So I think it is
time for you to pull in your verbal horns and admit that you
committed a blunder in suggesting that he or I were lying,
for the simple reason that you have never understood either
the nature of lying or the character of inductive reasoning.
Let's see if you are man enough to own up to your mistakes.
(3) We've been through this business about the plane many,
many times. John may have some unusual beliefs about the
Moon, but that has nothing to do with the strength of his
knowledge and arguments about aircraft. Indeed, it is one
more indication of sloppy reasoning on your part that you
continue with a seemingly endless succession of ad hominem
arguments, in which you attack the man rather than what he
is contending. I know you want to make a "razzle-dazzle"
move to a special plane with special engines that can do
what other planes cannot. But that is such a stretch that
I can't imagine anyone taking your seriously. On the other,
hand, it appears highly plausible that those who were per-
petrating this scam simply used the cruising speed of 767s
for the speed of this image, not realizing that "cruising
speed" is for altitudes around 35,000 feet and not 700 to
1,000 feet, where the air is much more dense. So kindly
cease acting like a fool and a blowhard. You don't know
what you are talking about regarding logic or evidence.
Jim
Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :
Dr. Fetzer,
You can have no idea whether the FBI operatives were unloading something, or
loading it, so your statement that they were unloading something that looked
quite heavy has to be a lie, and would never stand up in a court of law, or
even in polite conversation. If you have no way of knowing that the item
was being unloaded, then you cannot say, in truth, that it was.
As far as my preference for Field McConnell's opinion over that of John
Lear's goes, Field does not think that there are settlements on the Moon and
he has not flown any clandestine missions for the CIA, helping to manipulate
the outcome of a presidential election. As far as I am concerned, the
character of the singer is often more important than the actual words of the
song being sung.
You can re-print John's opinion as many times as you like, but that will not
convince me that it is accurate, *with regard to that particular
aircraft,*and the fact that he insists on sticking with the figures
for an off-the-shelf Boeing 767 leads me think that he is covering
all of his bases.
All we know is that the plane looked like a Boeing 767 passenger plane, we
do not know that it was one, and we do not know what had been done to the
plane or its engines, before its final flight.
You and others might also like to consider the following: Had the plane's
image been computer generated, wouldn't the perpetrators have chosen an
indisputable speed for their deception?
Anthony
2009/6/21
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
raise 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.
Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :
Dr Fetzer,
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.
Jack White, "legendary photo-analyst", has not even hazarded a guess as to
what time of day any these photographs were taken, which is a Page One
requirement for any kind of photo-analysis, when there are
clearly-discernable shadows, and the orientation of the photographs can be
ascertained and when time-of-day is highly relevant to why the photos are
being analysed in the first place. That oversight, to me, puts Jack White
in a status far below that of legendary.
Even the title of the *murraypickupdelivery.jpg* smacks of uncertainty, yet
you have the effrontery to imply that *you* know it was not a pick up, but
a delivery, while in the *churchmurraystudy.jpg* there is a totally
unverifiable statement:
"...as a man reacts to the sound of the first WTC "plane explosion"
BEFORE any event had occurred."
Please explain how the legendary Jack White, with no evidence of the
time that the photograph was taken, was able to ascertain this. The guy in the
picture could have been looking up at *anything *and you and Jack White
must have known this.
And why are there no corresponding letters in the photographs which would
allow us to identify the bracketed ones in the text and on the map? A Fox
videographer (F)... A Naudet photographer (N)...?
And what has the fact that there were two wastebasket in this area got to
do with anything? Then there is the question, asked in the copy:
Why were police yellow tapes already deployed before any incident had
occurred(?) Why so many FBI.
Well there is what looks like a part of an aircraft engine in one of the
shots, along with police tape, which seems to indicate that an "incident"
had occurred, and it just could have been the incident to which the FBI were
reacting; the plane engine crashing down. As mentioned, above, Jack White
has not even bothered to determine what time any of the photos were taken,
so the one he's questioning just might have been *after * both planes had
struck, rather than before. Which would explain just about everything.
I repeat: These photo-montages prove absolutely nothing, yet what you
wrote was:
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!
Clearly, you are lying. There is no other word for it. You have implied
that the engine was off-loaded at Church & Murray, and implied that the
debris was fabricated, without possessing one iota of proof that this was
the case. It isn't that you are mistaken, which can always be excused. It
is that you are knowingly passing on something, as being a fact, when you
know that it cannot possibly be verified as such.
Try wriggling your way out of that.
And please stop acting as though John Lear is the only pilot in the world.
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.
My final question to you is: Do you ever bother to even look at the
"evidence" you are passing on as having any merit, or do you just hope
that others get it right for you?
Anthony
2009/6/20
You know, Anthony, sometimes I get the impression that we don't like each
other very much. I wonder why. I am attaching two studies in relation to
the "engine" found at Church & Murray by Jack White, who has done
remarkable work on JFK and has more recently created a series of studies
about 9/11 at http://www.911studies.com/ or enter "Jack White's photo
studies" on google.
John Lear has produced proof after proof that it would have been impossible
for a 767 to have traveled at such high speed at such low altitude. An you
know better because they have been presented on thread where you were
among the participants. I will track on of the most important down and post it
here as an illustration. Meanwhile, give thought to these two attachments.
Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :
Dr. Fetzer,
You wrote:
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.
Why do you select only those who say that the speed was impossible?
*Field McConnell,* an ex F4 Phantom pilot and 20-year-plus heavy-jet commercial
pilot thinks it was possible. So does *Rob Balsamo of Pilots* for 9/11 Truth.
* Joe Keith,* as you know, was debunked on your own radio programmes as
stating things which were "close to snake oil", about the plane's speed
and engine capabilities; a point of Field's with which even John Lear
agreed.
* John Lear *"knows" that there are settlements on the Moon, and he used
to fly for the CIA, yet you take his word over that of other experienced
pilots. This is known as being selective.
You have never, to my knowledge, quoted the learned opinion of a physicist,
above his or her signature and qualifications, who agrees with your absurd
assumption that a large part of the plane should have come, from a velocity
of about 800 feet per second, to a sudden stop when it met the steel and
lateral concrete lattice of the wall/floor construction of the South Tower,
and should have fallen to the ground. Not one of the Architects and
Engineers for Truth within that so-named group has ever suggested that
the impact of the plane, as depicted in so many of the videos, defied any
physical laws.
Your protestation that you...
...have explained all of this many, many times...
is meaningless, in the absence of scientific backup. Repeating
falsehoods, over and over, does not somehow correct them.
*And this is a bare-faced, implied lie:*
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!
The lie being that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the
FBI planted an engine section (of the wrong type, at that!) in Murray
Street.
I
have previously challenged you to confirm what Fox videoed, and you have
supplied nothing in support of this claim. This is another of your
repeat,...repeat and repeat exercises, and: Lo and Behold it becomes
true. This is, I repeat, an implied bare-faced lie.
* If it is not, show us all your evidence.
* And you go on and on to repeat,* ad **nauseam*, the falsehoods and
misleading material that I have already debunked in the attachment,
re-instating *Joseph Keith* as an "expert" and failing to mention that
*Morgan Reynolds *was an economist, not a physicist and that *Ace Baker*,
and *Killtown *are presently disagreeing on all kinds of issues with regard to
video fakery and compositing.
You also wrote:
...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.
You won't do it, Dr. Fetzer, so I challenge any of *your* "buddies" to
find fault with any of the debunking included in the attachment. They can
start with your spurious assertions that the FBI planted the wrong type of
engine in Murray Street.
Come on Runyon, if you truly believe that Dr. Fetzer is right to disseminate
these kinds of things, without any proof, do some proper research to
back him up and find the proof, yourself. If you can't find it, then tell
Dr. Fetzer that it is wrong to tell lies.
Anthony
-
-
This is a highly valuable comment, Curtis, which I greatly appreciate. I faulted Golden for using an analogy (of a bullet passing through a space vehicle), since I took him to be implying that the plane (like the bullet) should have passed through the building (like the bullet passed through the space vehicle). But bullets are dense and made of lead, while planes are fragile and made of aluminum. Space vehicles are fragile, while the Twin Towers were extremely robust. The resistance of the building to the plane should have been enormous and left about half of the plane in shreds external to the building while bringing their velocity down to zero at the same time. Bodies, seats, luggage should have spilled out; the wings should have broken off and the tail fallen to the ground. So his comparison was a faulty analogy (as I understood it), but he was "spot on" in relation to the relativity of motion point I was attempting to make. I am going to invite him to join us here and hope he will.
-
Comment by Curtis Sherwood on June 20, 2009 at 12:35am
-
I'm glad Jim threw this in for us to follow, and put our two cents in on. Toni has mentioned how the laws of physics were violated in what we've been presented with from that day, and I never quite knew what that meant.
Instead of using a space vehicle and a bullet, why not visualize a household fly and a plastic flyswatter?
The flyswatter is usually travelling at the higher speed than the fly is when it hits the fly, so would the same result be produced by the fly flying into a stationary flyswatter at the same speed? Would the fly simply pass through the flyswatter as a warm knife cuts through butter, the way the planes did at the WTC towers?
On a side note, scholars are doing a good job of keeping the discussion alive, but there are times when we're led to believe the discussions over minutae are redundant. It's only when we are given the opportunity to understand, if only partially, what these guys are talking about that we can get a hold of the reason Jim homes in on such tiny details.
We all agree, well, most people do, it was an inside job and the buildings were demolished by means other than fire or planes or the structural damage resulting from such. What I believe Jim is looking for is the needle in the haystack that would scientifically prove this whole story was written, filmed and produced in the USA.
I don't see this as disinfo at all. The question of Netwon's laws, do they fit or not, is a basic one. If it doesn't fit, something is indeed wrong.
My apologies for weighing in on this as an absolute layman, non-scholar, basically someone off the street. I think that sometimes, common sense and simple grunt knowledge can get us further than a stack of diplomas ever will.
-
-
Here are two posts from William Golden:
First:
I’ve got no dog in this fight, and don’t know what Fetzer’s been saying, but regarding moving objects and momentum, think space vehicle, orbiting at 17,000 mph, hitting a “stationary” bullet. The “stationary” bullet will go through the space vehicle just as far as if the space vehicle were “stationary” and the bullet were moving at the 17,000 mph. All objects have inertia/momentum whether “stationary” or “moving”. They are only stationary or moving relative to other objects, including the observer, because everything in the universe is moving at incredible speeds in infinitely complex spirals (big bang momentum, universe regions, galactic clusters, galaxies, star neighborhoods, solar systems, planets’ revolutions and rotations – all at staggering relative speeds). So I think it’s true that the building and plane will have the same interaction colliding at 560 mph, given the same relative presenting angles and trajectories, no matter which is moving more relative to other neighboring objects. It’s easier to visualize without atmosphere. That’s why thinking of a space vehicle is easier than a building. But all else being equal, they’re the same.
Second:
Hi Ken
Yes, but those formulas are relative to a “fixed” position, e.g., on earth. Again, let’s visualize this in space for clarity. In space there is no “fixed” position from which to calculate. All is moving relative to other stars and objects, including the observer. There is no absolute still place to be a fixed position from which to calculate the formulas. Therefore the moving objects’ inertia/momentum must be calculated from each other. So what is measureable in space is their rate of impact, say 17,000 mph or 560 mph, and (most important to understanding:) it makes no difference how the observer or any other object is moving relative to the two colliding objects.
William
From: KenJenkins@aol.com [mailto:KenJenkins@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:36 PM
To: wmgolden@verizon.net
Subject: Re: FW: FROM ZAN: On the structure of the South Tower . . .
In a message dated 6/19/09 12:23:01 PM, wmgolden@verizon.net writes:
The “stationary” bullet will go through the space vehicle just as far as if the space vehicle were “stationary” and the bullet were moving at the 17,000 mph.
With this example, the results will look somewhat similar, because of the extremely high velocity, but it would not be identical, due to the difference in relative mass. So this example is not the best to illustrate the point. And BTW, atmosphere (or lack thereof) has no real relevance to the forces and principles being discussed.
All objects have inertia/momentum whether “stationary” or “moving”.
Yes, the same inertia, but no, not the same momentum (or kinetic energy). Momentum is M x V, so the velocity of each object matters. Kinetic energy is M x V squared, so again the velocity of each object matters. And the relative masses also matter.
Ken
-
-
Bill, I feel this latest complaint is only incidental and that you just don't like being here. Is that right? Why?
-
-
The group I was dealing with did not understand that, depending upon your choice of a frame of reference (due to Einstein), you can consider the train as stationary and the world in motion or the world as stationary and the train in motion and describe what happens either way. If you are aboard the train, for example, and toss a ball up in the air, it appears to be simply moving up and down with no horizontal component. From the world, however, it not only has an upward motion but a forward motion as well, where its trajectory takes the path of a parabola, as I recall. This, of course, is related to Newton's third law, since the effect of the plane in motion hitting the building at 560 mph would have the same effect as the building in motion hitting the plane at 560 mph. They are equivalent in force and effects. These guys didn't understand it. That's all. Nothing more.
-
Comment by Donald Edward Stahl on June 19, 2009 at 9:58pm
-
Thoughts on physics by a (very much) non-physicist: For a solid in motion, each of its massive particles is traveling at the same speed and in the same direction as all of the other massive particles. This means that each such particle maintains its position relative to those other particles. For a solid at rest, maintaining its shape depends upon the binding force of the solid in question; the electromagnetic relations of its molecules. For a solid in motion, the inertia of each of the massive particles also contributes to the maintenance of their positions relative to each other, making their configuration harder (requiring more energy) to deform.
Please note that this subject and these observations have nothing to do with James Fetzer, whom I regard as a friend and valuable Truth Movement co-worker.
- ‹ 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