December 20th in Uncategorized by .

My Response to David Griscom

David Griscom, PhD, is talking smack again.  From a recent email he attached this message:   I’ve answered this question multiple times, so this may be the last time.  So file it some place.  Note that I am treating the plane that hit the south tower.  What hit the north …

David Griscom, PhD, is talking smack again.  From a recent email he attached this message:

 

I’ve answered this question multiple times, so this may be the last time.  So file it some place.  Note that I am treating the plane that hit the south tower.  What hit the north tower was smaller and the exact plane type is anyone’s guess (my guess is an A-10 attack aircraft, which comes with strait wings, and I suppose that the perps just made them longer to match the lateral wing span of a 767).

 

What hit the south tower was seen by many from many different angles to have been a modified 767 (see http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html ).  And structural modifications were absolutely necessary for such a plane of this exterior type to fly at 575 mph at such a slow altitude (see Pilots for 9/11 Truth video of what would have happened to s stock 767 trying to fly that way).

 

Now as for the “No Planers”, consider this: There was no debris in the street below the impact hole in WTC2.  Why not?  Because the plane pushed all of the debris in front of it (into the building).  If there had been no plane, the entrance hole would have needed to have been faked.  And the only way that it could be faked would be by use of pre-positioned explosives where the “No Plane” was supposed to have hit.  However, those explosives used to fake the hole would have driven half of their debris into the street and have bent the steel columns outward, NONE OF WHICH WAS SEEN.  Q.E.D.

 

I believe that the No Planers fell into two categories, either (1) they didn’t understand the physics or (2) they have been bribed or blackmailed into being trolls to confuse the general public.  As far as I have deduced, Fetzer, Reynolds, and the fake Cimino all fall into the latter category.  I believe that the honest No Planers were either misled by the latter characters and/or believed that the parts of the south-tower plane that were not yet inside the building after the nose touched should have broken into pieces while still outside.  To the contrary, one group used the videos to measure the speeds of all parts of the plane after the nose had struck, finding that they didn’t slow down a single iota while the contacting parts were being “eaten.”

 

Why was that?  Well, the only thing that could have caused an exterior breakup of the aircraft upon impact would have been SHOCK WAVES.  And shock waves occur only when the impact velocity is faster than the speed of sound in the impacted material.  As mentioned above, the impact velocity of the plane was clocked at 575 mph, whereas the speeds of sound in aluminum (i.e., the main structural material of stock passenger aircraft) and that of in steel (i.e., what was very likely used strengthen the south-tower attack plane to prevent its breaking up before impact).  N.B. Both aluminum and steel have about the same speed of sound, i.e., about 13,000 mph.  Q.E.D.

 

Certainly, the honest “No Planers” can be forgiven for not knowing this corner of physics (which most physicists don’t know about but can be verified in e.g. H. J. Melosh: Impact Cratering – A Geological Process, Oxford Monographs, Geology and Geophysics # 11, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989.

 

In closing I recall an 8th grade teacher of mine who, when students complained about an assignment, always said: “A word to the wise should be sufficient.”

 

Dave

My response below:

David, your first paragraph states that you’re addressing the South Tower crash over the North Tower crash because of the difference in size between the two planes and that whatever hit the North was smaller and too difficult to identify.  I can only assume that you are relying solely on video evidence as the premise of your hypothesis, while ignoring the damage evidence visible in both towers that indicates the same means were likely used for both strikes.  Had they been of different sizes and configurations as you say the holes would have reflected it.  I may not be a PhD in Physics but I know that equal and opposite reactions are a given, therefore when examining the impact evidence it can be concluded that whatever it was that struck the far left of both towers was similar in size, shape and trajectory.

You wrote:

“(my guess is an A-10 attack aircraft, which comes with strait wings, and I suppose that the perps just made them longer to match the lateral wing span of a 767).”

Why guess?  You’re a doctor and you’re ignoring the evidence that makes it quite clear that whatever it was that struck these columns could not have been the planes we were shown on television.  Paying close attention to Newton’s Laws of Motion, I observe that the first nine columns at the far left of both impact holes were struck from the side by something(s) at a trajectory or at trajectories somewhere around 15 degrees from parallel to the face of the towers:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/trajectories-1.jpg

So right here is evidence that makes it quite likely that whatever it was that caused the damage to the North Tower…

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/9-columns.jpg

…similar means were used on the South Tower:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/9-columns-2.jpg

Now, you say a modified A-10 Warthog was used, with straight wings, however the damage caused by the left wing tips of whatever hit the towers struck at an oblique left-right trajectory, not a head-on impact from a flat wing, and it was small and more massive in some places that it was in other places.  But since you are relying on the videos as the premise for your hypothesis, you are limited to what trajectories can be used to explain the damage.   I assume this is why you avoid this evidence, because it makes it clear that the videos of the planes are faked and were used to mask whatever it was that really cut the holes, just like a “camera spoof” trick used in so many “crime caper” movies.

When you wrote that your guess was it was a modified A-10 my first response is to ask you why you’re guessing?  You can use the 14-inch wide columns as a gauge to measure how big the projectile was that struck them, and had you done so you would quickly know that whatever it was that struck at the far left, was only big enough and massive enough to lightly damage the thin aluminum, and that it was certainly much thinner and much less massive than the wingtip from a 767 (or modified A-10) striking head-on.  Remember, the videos showed the jets striking at different trajectories; Flight 11 was head-on, but flight 175 was at about 12.5 degrees from perpendicular.  Different trajectories do NOT create almost identical damage in the real world.   Furthermore, and using Purdue University’s “scientific” study of the North Tower impact to demonstrate the point, the swept-back left wing would have struck the RIGHT corner of the columns first.  As seen on the video you’re hanging your hat on, the wings struck in a wedge-motion, sawing from the inside-out, but the damage shows instead of striking on the right corner and wedging the columns to the left, the columns were struck on the LEFT corner and were sharply bent to the RIGHT, opposite of what Newton’s laws would lead me to expect.   So you’re not only guessing, you’re fabricating an explanation that is completely contradictory to the available evidence.  A quick investigation of the scene of the crime is all it takes to eliminate a few hypotheses that don’t fit, but then you would have to admit error, something I have never seen you do.

In your second paragraph you continue with your premise that the videos depicted a real event, and after painting yourself into that corner, go on to claim that flight 175 MUST  have been a modified jet to be able to fly at such speeds and (presumably) to be able to cut through the steel of the South Tower with the greatest of ease; again completely ignoring the evidence in the impact holes, the writing on the walls as it were that indicates that at least for the left sides of both impact holes, small projectiles struck from the side, and that those projectiles were both not very big and not very dense in some places, and much bigger and much more dense in other places.  This can be seen in the lightly-damaged, thin aluminum cladding at the far left, followed by progressively worse-damaged and sharply bent steel columns a few feet away, and on the ninth column from the left, inward-blasting holes.

You wrote:

“And the only way that it could be faked would be by use of pre-positioned explosives where the “No Plane” was supposed to have hit.  “

Once again, completely ignoring the evidence mentioned above that indicates the lateral impact of kinetic weapons, such as cruise missiles fitted with dense-metal, penetrating warheads.  Missiles like the JASSM which LOOK LIKE PLANES and can account for both the lightly damage cladding at the left, as well as accounting for the heavily damaged steel a few feet away.  What the damage doesn’t match is your assumption that the videos are genuine, because as is obvious to a barnyard animal, it was caused by projectiles striking from the left and bending the steel to the right.

You then pinched out this turd:

“I believe that the No Planers fell into two categories, either (1) they didn’t understand the physics or (2) they have been bribed or blackmailed into being trolls to confuse the general public.  As far as I have deduced, Fetzer, Reynolds, and the fake Cimino all fall into the latter category.  I believe that the honest No Planers were either misled by the latter characters and/or believed that the parts of the south-tower plane that were not yet inside the building after the nose touched should have broken into pieces while still outside.  To the contrary, one group used the videos to measure the speeds of all parts of the plane after the nose had struck, finding that they didn’t slow down a single iota while the contacting parts were being “eaten.”  “

 

All I can say is Jim Fetzer is the only truther I’ve met who has had the balls to talk about the evidence I mentioned above, something you certainly won’t do.  That you mention honesty in the same breath as accusing others of being trolls deployed to confuse the public is another low for your already dismal record of fake physics and outright lies.  If anyone fits the bill for a government troll it’s the ex-NASA employed, establishment-trained, establishment-published guy who wields his establishment-credentials like a bludgeon while steadfastly avoiding step-one in any criminal investigation, namely the scene of the crime.  You’re a fraud, Doc, as anyone who reads your next paragraph will know:

 

“Why was that?  Well, the only thing that could have caused an exterior breakup of the aircraft upon impact would have been SHOCK WAVES.  And shock waves occur only when the impact velocity is faster than the speed of sound in the impacted material.  As mentioned above, the impact velocity of the plane was clocked at 575 mph, whereas the speeds of sound in aluminum (i.e., the main structural material of stock passenger aircraft) and that of in steel (i.e., what was very likely used strengthen the south-tower attack plane to prevent its breaking up before impact).  N.B. Both aluminum and steel have about the same speed of sound, i.e., about 13,000 mph.  Q.E.D.  “

 

The plane was only a sum of its parts, as was the building.  What part of the jet allegedly impacted with what part of the building makes a big difference in the equal and opposite reaction of the impact doesn’t it, Doc?  A wing section that struck a window would behave differently and produce different SHOCK WAVES than a wing section that struck the protruding edge of a column, yes or no?

 

The columns were shaped like this, with the SIDES of the columns protruding past the face, creating effectively two laterally-braced steel knives that would impact the leading edge of the wing, which last I checked was as sharp as a basketball.

 

You then resort to your tried and true method of appealing to your own authority in a now transparent and frankly pathetic attempt to continue to skirt the evidence and to avoid admitting you are a fake physicist.

 

The more you avoid this evidence, David, the more you look like that which you accuse others of being.

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply





yankee451.info Hi! You can put anything here, be sure not exceed the limit.