hone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners" (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924), together with no parts from any of the crash sites that have been associated with those flights (which Anthony mentioned as do I in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11) (google, if it's not already here) strongly support the inference that no planes were involved on 9/11. That tends to be substantiated by FAA Registry data, which shows that the serial number 22331 for a Boeing 767 (AA #11) was not deregistered until 01/14/2002, which is several months after it purportedly hit the North Tower; serial number 24602 for a Boeing 757 (AA #77) was not deregistered until that same date after it allegedly hit the Pentagon; serial number 21873 for a Boeing 767 (United #175) was not deregistered until 09/28/2005, indicating it was still flying four years after it hit the South Tower; and serial number 28142 for a Boeing 757 (United #93) was still registered until that same date after having crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11. John Lear has observed that #11 and #77 were not even scheduled for flights that day and that there would have been hundreds of miles of wire at the crash sites, if those planes had actually crashed there. Together with indications of video fakery, the case for "no planes" appears to be very strong--actually, even stronger than the case advanced for thermite/thermate/superthermite being use at the WTC.…
takeoff, strobes on is manadorty and landing lights if foggy or night. Landing lights are turned off at transition altitude (18,000 feet) strobes remain on always during flight. On descent landing lights come on at 18,000 feet and strobes stay on until after landing. I have looked carefully at all 41+ videos many lasting more than 2 seconds and there is no indication of the strobes lights. Strobes lights are on the top, bottom , wing tips and tail. There is no possibility that the videos taken were of a real airplane in flight. There is no possibility that an Arab hijacker could have found and turned of the strobe light in the myriad of 40 switches on the forward, left, right and overhead panel of the Boeing 767. It is impossible that a hijacker who was about to kill himself would have given a damn whether or not the strobes were on...he was going to crash the airplane! Anybody who thinks the hijackers could/would have turned the strobe lights off must be giving the hijacker credit for thinking: Hey! I'd better turn off the strobe lights because I don't want anybody taking videos to be able to prove whether or not I was flying a real airplane into the tower! Let's see, where could those darn strobe light switches be? I could ask the pilots but I just killed them. Maybe I should have asked them where the switches were before I killed them! Hey, Abdul..come and help me find the strobe light switches..they gotta be here somewhere."
John Lear…
he plane's velocity should have gone to zero. We are not talking about a subtle phenomenon. The engine part at Church and Murray not only appears to have been planted--FOX News even has footage of FBI agents off-loading something heavy at that intersection before it was discovered--but it is sitting on a sidewalk, which appears to be undamaged, and under a construction scaffolding with an awning. You have been taken in by not actually studying the witness reports or the videos. I featured Scott Forbes on "The Real Deal" recently, and he reported that he was astonished when the building "swallowed the plane", when what took place should have looked a lot like a car hitting a large tree at high speed or an empty beer can colliding with a brick wall. See if you can track down Stefan Grossman's study of impact physics. One of his studies may be found at this location: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.45.html . Some of the other points you make--about parallax and nose out--might be right but do not affect the basic arguments: the impossible speed, the impossible entry, and that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, which implies that a 500,000-ton building provided no more resistance than air! We cannot possibly be viewing a real plane, where some form of fakery has to be involved, which I think was a hologram. And I am joined in that view by John Lear, Stefan Grossman, and Stephen Brown, whom I recently interviewed, who had just completed a course of holography at Cambridge. Your intuitions, Jeff, are not good enough. There was video fakery.…
lding 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.…
Added by Mehmet Inan at 6:39pm on October 31, 2010