Seven Questions about 9/11

[Bernice Moore]

quote'' My first question, therefore, is how were those 19 Islamic terrorists able to arrange these explosions, which drained the water from sprinkler systems that would have otherwise extinguished the rather modest office fires that remained after the jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs? I have given this a lot of thought and I can't figure out how they did that.'' Dr.Jim; years ago when this subject first came on Rich's there was a report at that time, that workers, had been in and out of the basement, in the days preceeding, working in the basement, i just recalled that in reading your first question, and i wonder..if..thanks, take care..b

[Jeffrey Orling]

The sprinkler system relied on storage tanks and gravity feed. The tanks were supplied by huge pumps... the pumps may have failed and were not able to replenish water which would have leaked from the system. Domestic water also relied and water in storage tanks at each mechanical level.

[James H. Fetzer]

The separations were one meter apart, so I was mistaken about the dimensions:



However, since 18" is less than half the width of a meter and there were no windows between the floors, my point remains valid: substantially less than 50% of the plane should have passed through the windows, which is probably why Kyle did not respond with the correct figure. Even at one meter, the point remains.

Well, the 18" width of the windows came from here, but I can't recall at the moment where the three meter intervals was derived. If the sides were 63 m, then if there were 21 separations including windows, at 3 m apiece, that would yield the result.

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] Yamasaki's design included building facades sheathed in aluminum-alloy.[25] The World Trade Center was one of the most striking American implementations of the architectural ethic of Le Corbusier and it was the seminal expression of Yamasaki's gothic modernist tendencies.[26]

I don't quite understand your research methodology. If you really want to dispute the figures I have given, then cite another source with different ones. The Purdue study was a sham and I know of no serious student of 9/11 who thinks otherwise. (Clearly, you are not a serious student of 9/11.) If any more proof were required, you have taken a diagram of the official approach to the Pentagon to refute my observation of the approach approximately perpendicular to the building, but I was based in that on the sizing photo study, where you can even see the shadow cast is perpendicular. So was talking about a frame released by the Pentagon, while you were talking about a diagram. The photo may be faked, but we know the diagram cannot possibly be right. And your reliance upon animations speaks volumes about your research capabilities.

As an example, I took a look at the windows on the Twin Towers, which were 18" across in frames that were three meters wide.

Where are you getting these flagrantly wrong figures from?

Imagine what would happen if a plane were to collide with just one of those (seven or eight) floors suspended in space!

There's no need to imagine, Purdue did a simulation demonstrating when a plane hits multiple floors suspended by a steel columned facade and core:



Granted, the fuged to angle of the plane down to cause more damage to the building in support of the notion that the impact damage and resulting fires caused the buildings to come down, but in general their approximation of the physics of such a plane impacting such a building is reasonably accurate, while yours is apparently derived from watching too much Loony Toons.

As for the angle, the plume of white smoke exiting from the plane appears to be perpendicular to the building

The angle I refer to is the one on which the light posts were downed, and it isn't even close to perpendicular, as depicted here:



As for the smoke, it dissipates with time, hence the portion of smoke trail further from the engine and further from the camera has expanded more than that which is near to the engine and the camera, leaving them appearing comparable in size due to the perspective.

I love it when you cites some other source instead of offering your own arguments, which suggests you don't know what you are talking about. That seems to me to fit you to a "t". Your arguments are not serious. I am not impressed.

Says the guy who cited a source poking fun at the argument he was making. Have you still not come to terms with the fact that you did that?

[James H. Fetzer]

That makes sense. They had to prep the subbasements for those explosions.

quote'' My first question, therefore, is how were those 19 Islamic terrorists able to arrange these explosions, which drained the water from sprinkler systems that would have otherwise extinguished the rather modest office fires that remained after the jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs? I have given this a lot of thought and I can't figure out how they did that.'' Dr.Jim; years ago when this subject first came on Rich's there was a report at that time, that workers, had been in and out of the basement, in the days preceeding, working in the basement, i just recalled that in reading your first question, and i wonder..if..thanks, take care..b

[Kyle Burnett]

Well, the 18" width of the windows came from here, but I can't recall at the moment where the three meter intervals was derived. If the sides were 63 m, then if there were 21 separations including windows, at 3 m apiece, that would yield the result.

If the separations were 3 m apart, that would yield separations at 3 meters apart? Nice circular logic there, glad to see you managed to correct yourself on that in your more recent post.

If you really want to dispute the figures I have given, then cite another source with different ones.

I figured he picture of the office space I posted shows the windows well enough to refute your flagrantly wrong and completely unsourced 3 meters claim.

The Purdue study was a sham and I know of no serious student of 9/11 who thinks otherwise.

I've yet to see anyone with notable credentials in physics take issue with the plane impacts, can you name any?

(Clearly, you are not a serious student of 9/11.)

Coming from the guy who claimed the windows were 3 meters apart and who cited a blog entry poking fun at the argument he was making, I take that a complement.

If any more proof were required, you have taken a diagram of the official approach to the Pentagon to refute my observation of the approach approximately perpendicular to the building, but I was based in that on the sizing photo study, where you can even see the shadow cast is perpendicular.

No, I referenced the official approach to to refute your sizing problem claim, and you're referencing a shadow that's obviously not from the plane as it's there in the frames before and after it to support your perpendicular flight path crackpottry.

The photo may be faked, but we know the diagram cannot possibly be right.

Who's this we here, you got a mouse in your pocket?

And your reliance upon animations speaks volumes about your research capabilities.

I'm not relying on them, just referencing them. That said, what does the fact that the bulk of ST9/11 left to form STJ9/11 say about your research capabilities?

By the way, I overlooked your post when I read this thread days ago because I scrolled past what you said in it and mistook you're quoting of my post as my last post in the thread and read from there. There's a rule this forum that in place to prevent such issues:

Further, when responding to a lengthy post, you will not re-post the original in its entirety. This practice results in the waste of valuable and finite bandwidth. Quote only those passages to which you are directly responding.

Is there any chance you could bring yourself to start respecting that rule?

[James H. Fetzer]

Since I already corrected the 3 m recollection, which was wrong, but where, since those steel support columns were 1 m apart, my point was still correct, I don't see what there is to respond to here. I discussed the white plume with pilots and aeronautical engineers who assured me that it could not be the exhaust from an engine. Jack White sized it for me, where his abilities at these things greatly exceed mine. The figure just above the gate mechanism is clearly too small to be a Boeing 757, as the comparison displays. In addition, however, Pilots have confirmed that the black box data they were provided for Flight 77 from the NTSB corresponds to a completely different trajectory and altitude. And CIT has confirmed that the plane witnesses observed passed NORTH of the Citgo station, which contradicts the official account, which would have required that it pass SOUTH of the Citgo station. See "Pandora's Black Box" and "National Security Alert". But why bother? Nothing about your posts suggest you are serious about any of this. Ask yourself, what would have happened had a Boeing 757 actually hit one or more of those lampposts, considering, among other points, that they carry their fuel load in their wings? When you have something serious to say, give us a call. But you really need to do some homework.

[Jeffrey Orling]

The problem with Mr. Fetzer is he is clearly a copy and paste kinda guy and then throws in some flawed "it-looks-like-a-duck" thinking which he passes off as "scientific analysis".

This "it-looks-like-a-duck" thinking is what is crippling real scientific inquiry as truthers are convinced that even a four year old can understand what they see... it's so obvious!.

Unfortunately this along with the way Hollywood has dumbed down most people to how the world actually works is a major barrier to scientific inquiry into 9/11. What you get is pseudo science by "high school" teachers who want to use 911 as a lesson in Newton's laws... but fail to bother to look at all the physics which refined and carried his work further... and resulted in engineering practice which in many cases is based on empirical testing.

Garbage in = garbage out

[Greg Burnham]

The problem with Mr. Fetzer is he is clearly a copy and paste kinda guy and then throws in some flawed "it-looks-like-a-duck" thinking which he passes off as "scientific analysis".

First of all, nothing could be farther from the truth, Mr. Orling. Jim has authored 29 books -- and I assure you they are not full of "copy and paste" material.

This "it-looks-like-a-duck" thinking is what is crippling real scientific inquiry as truthers are convinced that even a four year old can understand what they see... it's so obvious!.

A bit of a straw man argument there.

Unfortunately this along with the way Hollywood has dumbed down most people to how the world actually works is a major barrier to scientific inquiry into 9/11.

Non-sequitor.

What you get is pseudo science by "high school" teachers who want to use 911 as a lesson in Newton's laws... but fail to bother to look at all the physics which refined and carried his work further... and resulted in engineering practice which in many cases is based on empirical testing.

To which "high school" teachers are you referring in the above statement? I am unaware that the majority of scientists with a dissenting opinion about this subject are high school teachers...and even if they were, that would not serve as a valid argument to refute their position. Newton's laws prevail until a "body" approaches the speed of light. The planes (if that's what they were) did not approach 186,000 miles per second.

Garbage in = garbage out

You got that part right.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I haven't read Mr. Fetzer's books and I am referring to his 9/11 work. As far as I can tell he is a cut and paste kinda guy and parrots works of others.

Don't believe everything you read either.

What original work can he claim without attribution or citation?

[Greg Burnham]

I haven't read Mr. Fetzer's books and I am referring to his 9/11 work. As far as I can tell he is a cut and paste kinda guy and parrots works of others.

Don't believe everything you read either.

What original work can he claim without attribution or citation?

Huh?

Well, gee--let's see...where to start. I'm simply a bit too tied up to find all of them and type them in here. So, I freely admit that I am "copying and pasting" an incomplete list below. You can sort out which ones are solely authored by him, co-authored, edited, or co-edited.

Publications:

Philosophy of Science
Principles of Philosophical Reasoning. Rowman & Littlefield. June 1984. p. 292 p.. ISBN 0-8476-7341-3.

edited by James H. Fetzer. (August 1985). Sociobiology and Epistemology. Springer. p. 296 p.. ISBN 90-277-2005-3.

Definitions and Definability: Philosophical Perspectives. 1991. ASIN B000IBICGK.

James H. Fetzer (October 1992). Philosophy of Science (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 197 p.. ISBN 1-55778-481-7.

ed. by James H. Fetzer (January 1993). Foundations of Philosophy of Science: Recent Developments (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 512 p.. ISBN 1-55778-480-9.

Charles E. M. Dunlop; James H. Fetzer. (March 1993). Glossary of Cognitive Science (A Paragon House Glossary for Research, Reading, and Writing). Paragon. p. 288 p.. ISBN 1-55778-567-8.

James H. Fetzer. (January 1997). Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 191 p.. ISBN 1-55778-739-5.

Minds and Machines: Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science, Vol. 7, No. 4. Kluwer. November 1997. ASIN B000KEV460.

edited by James H. Fetzer. (December 2000). Science, Explanation, and Rationality: The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. Oxford. p. 384 p.. ISBN 0-19-512137-6.

James H. Fetzer. (January 2001). Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits. Springer. p. 364 p.. ISBN 0-7923-0548-5.

Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are Not Machines. Springer. January 8, 2002. p. 352 p.. ISBN 1-4020-0243-2.

ed. by James H. Fetzer (May 2002). Consciousness Evolving (Advances in Consciousness Research). John Benjamins. p. 251 p.. ISBN 1-58811-108-3.

James H. Fetzer (2005). The Evolution of Intelligence: Are Humans the Only Animals With Minds?. Open Court. p. 272 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9459-7.

James H. Fetzer. (August 9, 2006). Scientific Knowledge: Causation, Explanation, and Corroboration. Springer. p. 348 p.. ISBN 90-277-1335-9.

James H. Fetzer (December 28, 2006). Render Unto Darwin: Philosophical Aspects of the Christian Right's Crusade Against Science. Open Court. p. 288 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9605-0.

Conspiracy Research:
edited by James H. Fetzer. (October 1997). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK. Open Court. p. 480 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9366-3.

ed. by James H. Fetzer. (August 2000). Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then. Open Court. p. 496 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9422-8.

ed. by James H. Fetzer (September 2003). The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK. Catfeet Press. p. 480 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9547-X.

Four Arrows (aka Don Trent Jacobs) & James H. Fetzer. (November 2004). American Assassination: The Strange Death Of Senator Paul Wellstone. Vox Pop. p. 188 p.. ISBN 0-9752763-0-1.

ed. by James H. Fetzer. (March 28, 2007). The 9/11 Conspiracy. Open Court. p. 450 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9612-3.