9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job

[James H. Fetzer]

Kyle,

Thanks for replying by offering reasons for your skepticism, which I appreciate. I am glad you like "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job", which Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong have expanded twice, where their latest version may be found at http://www.journalof911studies.com/ . So I will focus on your other objections.

Have you read "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", where I lay out (what I have taken to be) the strongest reasons for concluding that the video has to have been faked, since it displays effects that are aerodynamically or physically impossible? I shall assume that that is a sufficient condition for inferring something is wrong.

The question thus becomes whether the speed (of 560 mph), which is the cruising speed of a 767 at 35,000 feet, is impossible at 700-1,000 feet; whether its entry into the building occurs in violation of Newton's laws; and whether a plane can pass its length into the building in the same number of frames it does though air.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done several studies of the speed shown in the videos, including "Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed" http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed and its new documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", which not only confirms that the plane was flying at an impossible speed but that it would have been unmanageable in flight and actually come apart.

Your claim about the building being mostly air suggests to me that you are not familiar with the design of the Twin Towers. Each had 47 massive core columns and 240 external steel support columns. They were connected by concrete floors on steel trusses that were connected to the core columns at one end and to the support columns at the other. Each floor represented about an acre of concrete.

Flight 11, which allegedly hit the North Tower, intersected the building at an angle that impacted with seven (7) of those floors, while Flight 175 intersected with eight (8). Those represented tremendous horizontal resistance. Imagine one of those floors suspected on the horizontal in space, where it was hit by a plane traveling at 560 mph. What do you think would have been the physical effects?

We know the damage done to commercial carriers by impacts with tiny birds that only weigh a few ounces. So imagine an impact with a massive steel laden with an acre of concrete. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

Yamasaki's design for the World Trade Center, unveiled to the public on January 18, 1964, called for a square plan approximately 208 feet (63 m) in dimension on each side.[17][23] The buildings were designed with narrow office windows 18 inches (46 cm) wide, which reflected Yamasaki's fear of heights as well as his desire to make building occupants feel secure.[24]

Here's an abstract diagram that shows the support columns were one meter apart:



which means that the 18 inch wide windows were less than half the width of their separation--and of course there were no windows between the floors vertically. It is reasonable to calculate, therefore, that less than 50% of each 208' side was of glass. So at the most, less than 50% of the plane could have entered the building. But of course what we actually witness is 100% of the plane entering the building.

Moreover, you do not mention the point that the plane passes through its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air, which implies that this massive steel and concrete structure posed no more resistance to its flight trajectory than air. This is the argument that I found most convincing. I presume you will admit this is a physical impossibility.

Another article, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entr...ade_Center, discusses the design and includes diagrams of the buildings which display the off-set of the elevators, which I mentioned as the first reason why the falling jet fuel explanation really won't do. The few that ran from the bottom to the top did not experience falling jet fuel, where the explosions occurred prior to the "impacts".

Here is a copy of the Hezarkhani video of Flight 175 entering the South Tower, http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9189/...icumv3.gif Notice that there is no crumpling of the fuselage, no breaking of the wings, the tail does not snap off, and no bodies, seats, or luggage falls from the plane. Damage to the side of the building does not appear until after it is completely inside of it.

As for the use of remote controlled aircraft, of course that is a possibility, but even a remotely controlled aircraft could not have entered the building in violation of Newton's laws or passed through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air. We are left with the conclusion of fakery, where how it was done--CGIs, video compositing, or hologram--is open to debate.

I read the "Seismic Proof" paper years ago, and it seems well reasoned to me. On the other hand, I've yet to see anything even vaguely resembling a solid argument for video fakery.

the plane allegedly a Boeing 767 -- is traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed)

How are you suggesting this was confirmed?

impossible unless a 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the plane's trajectory than air!

Buildings are mostly air, as is the plane. Well there's a lot of jet fuel in the planes too, but that doesn't hold together much better than air. Furthermore, even a sold wall didn't slow down this plane done much:



Obviously a wall of mostly glass interspersed with steel beams would provide even less resistance.

The problem, however, is that hitting a target that is only 208' on a side is a very daunting task.

Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems addresses that issue well.