Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
I listen you video. Mainly it’s a good job. But there are still many wrong points:
16:20 - It’s impossible to revoke a 767 hitting WTC1 on basis of this video. Wingspan is consistent with 767. So there was a 767, and nothing permits us to deny it was AA11.
You seem to be taking for granted that the cut-outs on the sides of the building were made by planes, when they seem to have been created by the clever use of explosives. One of my slides even shows how the wing tip of the right wing was extended after the fact. A real crash would not make a cartoon cut-out, but would be more like an irregular hole. The wings, the tail, and most of the seats, bodies, and luggage would have fallen to the ground (at both alleged crash sites).
So what we are viewing is a form of fakery. The time-sequenced study by Rosalee Grable, of course, does not look at all like a 767. And we have multiple indications that I cannot have been Flight 11, which, like Flight 77, was not scheduled for flight that day. I have discovered an exceptional study of the Naudet Brothers film, which you might like to read. It is at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm There appears to be an updated version which I have no read yet.
17:30 - The plane entry is natural. No deceleration is possible. Only wing tips could remain outside, and it happened in such manner. Criticizing the planes entry is wrong.
I don't know where you studied physics, but the resistance provided by the eight (8) floors, each of which represented an acre of concrete on steel trusses connected to the core columns would have been massive. The deceleration would have been virtually 100% (that is, the velocity of the plane would have dropped to zero) from the massive difference in their mass and density. Think of a car hitting an enormous tree or an empty beer can smashing against a brick wall.
30:00 - Twin towers: Do not more waste time; just explain how they were demolished. It’s so simple. And we know that today. But our division, our refusal to speak sincerely, to change our opinion when required, makes us continue to not be able to explain how the towers were demolished.
Explaining how the towers were destroyed is ANYTHING BUT simple. I would appreciate elaboration of what you have in mind. We have two 500,000-ton buildings that are being destroyed from the top down, much of which involves their conversion into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. It was essential to convert most of their mass into dust in order to make sure that the bathtub was not seriously damaged, which would have been catastrophic for lower Manhattan.
34:43 - “Core columns converted to fine dust” is wrong. They just felt down, dust on them hides their fall and the video’s precision is very bad.
Well, how can you deny that, if the buildings were being converted into very find dust, then the parts of the buildings were being converted into very fine dust? Sometimes what is true of the whole is not true of the parts, such as these buildings in their entirety were 110 floors tall, but that is clearly not true of their individual floors as parts. With regard to converting them into very fine dust, however, the buildings could not have been converted unless (most of) their parts were as well.
44:00 - You tell too many explosives or methods to demolish the towers, but the true one should be clearly visible when evidence is shown. Still have to choice between so many explosives shows the study is not strong enough.
That is because I am explaining how scientific inquiries take place as four stages: PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION, ADAPTATION, and EXPLANATION. If possible explanations are excluded as alternatives from the beginning (say, on psychological or moral or political grounds), then even when we determine which of the remaining alternatives has the highest measuer of support, it will still be false if we have mistakenly excluded the true hypothesis from consideration.
47:15 - Burn cars is meaningless in 9/11. I know, this is related to the “Space beam” theory of JW, but this theory is wrong, definitely wrong. Sincere researchers should not more speak about it.
The damage to the cars is relevant evidence that needs to be explained by an acceptable theory of how this was done. I don't know how you know that Dr. Wood's hypothesis of the use of some kind of directed energy weapon is "definitely wrong", since that is not something that I claim to know myself, so I would like to hear your argument about it. You are committing an obvious blunder in excluding some effects from consideration when they so clearly require explanation.
50:55 - The damage span on the Pentagon is 120ft wide, from column 8 to column 20, with traces of the wings; do not reduce it W10xH17ft. Show whole pictures, whole damage. The imprint of the plane is on the façade, see wings’ traces on C20, C19, C18. All these damages are consistent with a plane impacting the pentagon at 52° while coming from south east and crossing all broken light poles.
No, I think you have been taken in by other studies that make those claims. Most of them locate the "hit point" wrongly on the second floor and to the left of the actual hit point on the ground floor. There has been quite a lot of misinformation about this. Any Boeing 757 that had come in at that angle and hit lampposts would have had its wing burst into flame and broken off, throwing the plane into a spin in which the tail would have broken off, too. Did I not explain all of this?
51:45 - The picture is fake, computer made. Do not more use it.
I will have to take a look to make sure which photo you are talking about. If it is the clear, green, unblemished lawn, you are seriously mistaken. We have many other photos that also show the lawn as clear, green, and unblemished, when, if the official account were true, the low traveling trajectory would have caused the engines to plow furrows in the ground or otherwise disrupt it and, of course, as we know, such a low trajectory at such high speed is not aerodynamically possible.
52:45 - A 737 has the engines nearer to the wings, and with slats entered, it can fly at ground level with automatic control on board. The plane is not a 757, but it’s a 737.
You mean, the plane that YOU TAKE TO HAVE BEEN THE PLANE INVOLVED was not a 757 but a 737? Am I reading your right? But of course, I have already explained, as I do in my presentation, that the official trajectory is not even an aerodynamically possible trajectory for a 737 no less than a 757. So it cannot have happened that way, regardless. But I am intrigued as to why you think this was a 737 rather than a 757, even though neither kind of plane hit the Pentagon.
54:21 - Blue part is not a container, just a covered tent for clearing people. Nothing is covered in that picture. This is not evidence.
There is a military way to do everything. It is of course evidence of a box covered by blue tarps being carried by several non-commissioned officers. As a former Marine Corps officer, however, I can tell you that those tarps do not look right, if they were following standard practice for folding and storing tarps. I didn't mean for this to be taken as an especially key piece of evidence, but it is curious that this "box of tarps" is being carried off. I suspect something was being concealed.
56:16 - The turbine part could be consistent with a high pressure turbine of an airliner engine.
Well, what airliner? The proof I present already rules out any big Boeing (say, 737, 747, 757) from having flown into it. I take it that it is consistent with the JT8D used in the Skywarrior. But if you want to elaborate, then please tell us more.
56:30 - Not more use A3 sky warrior. It's not consistent with 95ft wingspan, and the orientation of the wings is not consistent with the wings imprint on the facade.
I cite the study by Dewdney and Lonspapugh, which I also discuss in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which you can access via google. I think what you are citing is incorrect. You seem to be relying upon the work of others such as Jim Hoffman, who has mislocated the hit point and made other arguments about the impression of the wings on the facade which are not well-founded. And where are the wings, the tail, the seats, the bodies, the engines?
59:19 - There is no change in the intercept procedures on June 2001. The texts are some different, but their meaning is exactly the same; there were only text move from reference into the text itself. I checked that precisely, even with my half bad English, but I am sure, I invite you to compare the meaning of both texts.
I am quite sure you are mistaken. I will have to track down a reference on this, but they were changed in June 2001 and then changed back after 9/11 to make sure that there would be an intercept only if the Secretary of Defense approved it.
And of course Secretary Rumsfeld was "missing in action" for some two hours from the time of the first hit on the North Tower until after the attack on the Pentagon, when he conspicuously participated in removing a casualty from the lawn.
1:01:10 - The flight path of the plane is consistent with the broken light poles. Cisco station witnesses are liars. The FDR is fake, it’s planted inside the plane and it stops seconds before impact.
Egad! How could you possibly know who is and who is not lying? The Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained data--allegedly from Flight 77--which was provided by the NTSB, When they analysed the data, they found that it corresponded to a different flight trajectory approaching due east which was too high to have hit any lampposts and flew over the building. No doubt, something is fake, but the CIT witnesses and the trucker buddy of a friend of mine have testified that is what happened.
1:04:00 - UA93 crash site is meaningless in 9/11. There is not enough information to know what really happened on that plane. We just know the take off time, and crash time. Even takeover time is wrong in official reports. But we can not tell there was no plane crashed there.
Well, if you watched the footage then you know that reporters at the scene said the eeriest feature was that there was no indication that any crash had taken place there. The fake photo of the smoke, the absence of any wreckage, the failure to break out the bright lights and dig 24/7 to save a life or at least recover the bodies indications there were no bodies to recover. If a plane had crashed, there would be extensive debris. There was no such debris. No plane crashed there.
Kevin Barett part on the last video.
10:53 - Neocons and Islamism share some values! Do not compare Neocons to Muslims. Mainly he spoke well; I do not agree that he speaks out about Islamic principles. If you want to speak out about Islam, you must ask Muslims represent themselves, you should not speak on their behalf. That includes that using the name "Muslims for 9/11 truth" while there is no Muslim and the web site is led by a non Muslims. Let that name be used by Muslims.
Apparently you do not know that Kevin is a Muslim and co-founded of Musliims for 9/11 Truth. I thought this point and most of the rest of what I have pointed out in response to your critique was explained during our presentations. I am afraid that I am no impressed by your criticisms, which do not appear to be well-founded. Your best case is about the blue tarps, but that was not a very important point to begin with, just a curiosity one with military experience would notice.
There is too much confusion, on 9/11 and wrong or weak evidences create more confusion. We must have a complete scenario that explains everything and is consistent with all known evidence. I am telling that since 2006, and we are still making garbage by using too many theories which are not related each to other.
I don't want to insult you and I appreciate the time and effort you spent preparing this critique, but your suggestion that I am trading in "garbage" is not really illuminating, given the quality of your critique. I suggest that you give these matters additional thought and appreciate that I am explaining the steps of scientific investigations, not setting out to prove one or another of those theories to be true because, so far as I have been able to determine, we do not yet know which is true.
As long as people continue to speak out on such unrelated theories, I do not trust them. Sorry to tell that, but I am sincere; I do not want to lie.
Jim, "That is because I am explaining how scientific inquiries take place as four stages: PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION, ADAPTATION, and EXPLANATION. If possible explanations are excluded as alternatives from the beginning (say, on psychological or moral or political grounds), then even when we determine which of the remaining alternatives has the highest measuer of support, it will still be false if we have mistakenly excluded the true hypothesis from consideration."
I really appreciate that you would be the founder of this forum, because you understand how science should really be done. For example, Steven Jones' and his ilk turn me off because they ARE NOT including non-conventional alternatives in their list of possible H1, H2, etc., hypotheses, and thus are not doing science correct. They have tunnel vision from the beginning, and I can't for anything imagine why. For example, why do they think that thermite, an incendiary, would pulverize material?? I don't get it. And was there really that much molten metal at bottom of towers? I haven't seen anyt hing to indicate that expect the molten metal pouring out of one single floor.
The only H(N) , hypothesis that should be excluded are ones that do not satisfy the adequacy conditions of (a) derivability, (b) lawlike-ness (which is defined rigorously), (c) exclusion of irrelevant factors. I learned this on one I think it was HD or something radio show you appeared on, where you go for an hour through logical fallacies, and an hour through scientific reasoning.