9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Sandy has suggested that we have a space for open discussion of topics that may be off-topic. That's fine with me. Let's see if the "Discussion" option will serve that purpose. Please give it a shot. Jim

Views: 3001

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

JF, “Mehmet, If you watch the first 20 minutes of "9/11 Ripple Effect", which is archived here and shows many videos of the hit on the South Tower, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3969310749489496889# you will see what I am talking about with regard to the manner in which the plane enters the building in violation of Newton's laws. The discussion in the film is about the "pod" and the electrical discharge as the plane reaches the building, but far more interesting is the way in which the plane effortlessly enters the building. As Scott Forbes observed from his vantage point, it was as though the South Tower simply "swallowed the plane". I would like to have your opinion on the physics of the interaction between them.”

8:13 : The pod under UA175 is just and optic effect. I checked it in 2006 in the beginning of ST911. You can go to check the archive in ezboard forum. The claimed pod is just the connection part of the right wing. Now, 4 years later you ask me to check it again?

11:00 : The flash on UA175 could be the explosion and destruction of the automated control system installed in the nose of the plane, according to my conclusion on the possible control system of the planes. But considered alone, this is meaningless evidence.

Do not consider a missile under the plane that goes to create the flash at the nose. That’s totally impossible, the “pod” was under the wings, not in the nose, and we saw no fire going from the pod into the nose.

I watched whole video. We agree that the twin towers were demolished, but you, all ST911 members and AE911 members do not explain how the towers were demolished! Why? Are they unable to study the demolitions? Or are they not motivated enough to do it? I did that explanation and there is no more doubt about the demolition for me. I now where the charges were placed, how they were placed, when they were placed, why it was made in that manner, … and everything is consistent with that explanation.

JF, “My latest presentation, by the way, if I have not mentioned it already, is at the London Symposium, "Debunking the "War on Terror'", which is archived at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ , where I discuss all of the issues that seem to divide us.”

I gave you answers for issues that divide us. Why you do not study my comments and try to refute or admit them?

Here is my answer essay for that question; do not take that as a personal critics: You are a professor of university, you thought for logical thinking, philosophy, … What ever it could be, you remained in theoretical aspects, not reached the application, the realization of systems, the required reliability of systems, … So, you are obliged to follow some technical people like AE911, Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Pilots for 9/11… And you are obliged to follow all their lies. Because there are too many fake evidences produced to misguide people. Especially the st9/11 members like you.

For example, the ground effect that appear when a plane fly near the ground! It seams that you believe it’s impossible. Lat’s compare that to anothersimple case: Imagine you are driving a car with high wind variable in direction and speed. And you should keep the constant speed of 100mph. Yes, you are unable. But if you use a cruise control, there will be no problem, the speed will remain stable at 100mph +/- 2mph (something similar). Same for the plane, if an on board automatic control system is installed, it will fly the plane at 2m above ground without any problem, especially when that takes only some 10s time.

It’s the same for the intact lawn on the Pentagon. If the plane was taking off, the engines can damage the lawn; they are at maximum throttle, 100%. But when the plane is lowering to land, the engines are at minimum throttle, about 10% or less. In this case they won’t damage the lawn, even if the throttle increased to 15%.

What about me? In my life, I studied and realized many systems, and by the time I was used to know what’s possible and what’s not, finally all what I make runs. That requires being able to study the smallest detail to solve every problem by the right solution. That’s me. I know, I have other defaults, like everybody. But for studying the detail, I am the needed man. And here, in 9/11 investigation we need to be able to study details.

As conclusion, I do not need to follow any body in technical aspects; I am able to evaluate what’s true and what’s false. You can go back to ezboard forum and you’ll see that I studied all proposed evidence and I rejected many of them with proofs and arguments.

Unfortunately all the evidences I rejected remained within the arguments of the st9/11 and other 9/11 truth movements. Why? Did you never understand what I told at that time? May be; my English is not good enough. But is that the only answer? I don’t think. Was ST911 members preferred to keep false evidences and false arguments? For many of them, I think so: Yes they preferred to keep false arguments. For you, I am still divided; I still want to believe you do not want to keep false arguments. That’s why I still speak with you.

Jim, if you want to remain credible, you must remove all weak or false arguments and evidences from your claims. That’s the main thing you should do. By the time, your claims should be more and more related each to other; so that no individual unexplained evidence should remain. If you keep two independent theories that you are unable to link them together, they can both be wrong. But by eliminating the wrong and weak theories, the number of unrelated theories will be null. You’ll get only strong theories that complete each other coming near and finally converging to the truth. Only with that you can reach the truth about 9/11.
"We agree that the twin towers were demolished, but you, all ST911 members and AE911 members do not explain how the towers were demolished! Why? Are they unable to study the demolitions? Or are they not motivated enough to do it? I did that explanation and there is no more doubt about the demolition for me. I now where the charges were placed, how they were placed, when they were placed, why it was made in that manner, … and everything is consistent with that explanation."

I believe that people are working on H's from DEW to mini nukes to others. Science is always "in progress" . They are working on it, and should have better and better results as time goes on.
"Here is my answer essay for that question; do not take that as a personal critics: You are a professor of university, you thought for logical thinking, philosophy, … What ever it could be, you remained in theoretical aspects, not reached the application, the realization of systems, the required reliability of systems, … So, you are obliged to follow some technical people like AE911, Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Pilots for 9/11… And you are obliged to follow all their lies. Because there are too many fake evidences produced to misguide people. Especially the st9/11 members like you."

I believe Jim is doing exactly what he should be: applying a scientific technique like IBE to 911 research. I cannot see anything he has done wrong. He has edited many books on JFK and 911 where he has experts contributing papers. On the other hand, you mention Steve Jones. Here is what is wrong with his approach, he only studies one H (hypothesis) and excludes all the others. That is not science, it is something like "special pleading". Jim isn't following "lies", he is evaluating the liklihood of various H's that have been advanced to explain the extent evidence. I hate to say this, but after going back and forth with you for a week, Mehmet, , that it is you that does not understand the scientific method.

if your controlled demolition sequence is to gain supporters as a very likely H to explain destruction of twin towers, I recommend you have a much more detailed powerpoint on that one aspect without all the other stuff. And in that new powerpoint, show us exactly how the demolitions explain all the observed evidence. What I saw on the other powerpoint looked like a promising starting point for research, but I think you need to do much more with it.
Thoth II said: Jim isn't following "lies", he is evaluating the liklihood of various H's that have been advanced to explain the extent evidence. I hate to say this, but after going back and forth with you for a week, Mehmet, , that it is you that does not understand the scientific method.

Hypothesis are true if they are verified and consistent to all available known strong evidence. As long as you check any hypothesis on basis of individual subjects, you can still check them for long years. Instead, if you check for all available evidence the wrongness of each will arise quickly.

Thoth II said: if your controlled demolition sequence is to gain supporters as a very likely H to explain destruction of twin towers, I recommend you have a much more detailed powerpoint on that one aspect without all the other stuff. And in that new powerpoint, show us exactly how the demolitions explain all the observed evidence. What I saw on the other powerpoint looked like a promising starting point for research, but I think you need to do much more with it.

On the internet, I’ll not write more about that subject. More detail about the demolition and whole strikes is included in my book. Unfortunately it does not exist in English. It needs to be translated from French or Turkish.

That does not mean, I’ll not answer your questions
"Instead, if you check for all available evidence the wrongness of each will arise quickly."

Well, maybe, but not in the case of the DEW and mini nuke yet. I do not believe enough evidence is available yet to (a) tell which of these is the more likely, (b) and the available evidence certainly does not prove the "wrongness" of each.

I can certainly understand your impatience. I believe too that the proponents of DEW and mini nuke have basically been "doing battle" with each other for almost a decade, and the debate seems to be stagnant. But be patient. In JFK research, it took 30 long years before a Dave Mantik came along and finally "solved" the medical case. I too hope it doesn't take that long, but I'm confident evidence will surface when we can finally eliminate one of these main H's.

So DEW and mini nuke are still alive and kicking today. Let the researchers keep on getting the evidence and then maybe we'll be able to start eliminating like you're suggesting.
This being the official off-topic topic, I have an off-topic comment.

In his article, "Another feeble-headed nuke drops dead," Harvey Wasserman says, "...not one of 104 US reactors has a containment dome designed to withstand a serious jet crash."

And of course I thought immediately of the World Trade Center towers, which WERE designed to withstand a serious jet crash, and are no longer with us.

Messianic Technologism is a very dangerous belief system, as its adherents often lose track of reality.
Thoth II, “So DEW and mini nuke are still alive and kicking today. Let the researchers keep on getting the evidence and then maybe we'll be able to start eliminating like you're suggesting.”

I answered yet to these claims, and I am becoming tired, so I’ll be direct:

- Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW) is definitely impossible. J. Wood only put the hypothesis on line. That’s all. Oh, sorry, she showed tens of burnt cars. Is that evidence for DEW? No. Isn’t there any other method to create such burnt cars? For example one people who want to get insurance pay his unsold cars. It was the best time to burn these cars. Imagine other criminals who got problem with the owner of the cars, and they burnt his cars. …

What ever it could be, the maximum available power from DEW coming from space is about 1kW. Coming from an airborne plane it’s about 1MW = 1000kW. The required power to make the towers collapse is about 1GW. That means it’s definitely impossible.

Such system has NEVER been used to demolish any tower! And you think that perpetrators will use such system in an event which must be 100% successful, and where there is no place for error! That’s impossible.

You also speak about mini nuclear bomb! It’s clearly visible in the videos that there were hundreds of explosions which followed each other. One mini nuke will create ONE explosion collapsing whole tower and ejecting debris from everywhere in the same time. That will also create a HUGE sound wave clearly audible from everywhere. We saw NO SINGLE explosion, NO ONE eyewitness spoke about single huge sound. So it’s definitely NOT ONE SINGLE explosion. So the mini nuke is definitely OUT.

Here we have the succession of ejections of debris getting each after other. The explosions happened under the connection of the floor trusses to the core columns. That made the floor trusses begin to collapse at their inner end. The floors became oblique from lower inner end to upper external end. And the explosions continued to happen creating high pressure in the towers. The pressure and dust get outward in the oblique direction of the floor. That’s why they were upward at the exit, before they fall down later. This is explained in this picture http://api.ning.com/files/RCys80y56jvxqgkb0uO3IX-jPpxf0VKOJ2kxe0v-s...
"You also speak about mini nuclear bomb! It’s clearly visible in the videos that there were hundreds of explosions which followed each other. One mini nuke will create ONE explosion collapsing whole tower and ejecting debris from everywhere in the same time. That will also create a HUGE sound wave clearly audible from everywhere. We saw NO SINGLE explosion, NO ONE eyewitness spoke about single huge sound. So it’s definitely NOT ONE SINGLE explosion. So the mini nuke is definitely OUT.

Here we have the succession of ejections of debris getting each after other. The explosions happened under the connection of the floor trusses to the core columns. That made the floor trusses begin to collapse at their inner end. The floors became oblique from lower inner end to upper external end. And the explosions continued to happen creating high pressure in the towers. The pressure and dust get outward in the oblique direction of the floor. That’s why they were upward at the exit, before they fall down later. This is explained in this picture"

here is where we are starting to agree. I myself never thought DEW explained the evidence as well as nuke and you made excellent points about DEW. I myself agree that that was a Judy Wood fantasy and had no credence to it. So we agree on that.

I am not a demolition expert and I would agree at this point it was either mini nuke or explosives like you are proposing. I am not saying you are wrong. But to me, the tritium (heavy hydrogen) evidence must be taken into account, and that is consistent with mini nuke. I am not convinced you would hear a heavy blast from nuke. If it was pulverizing steel and concrete, that would absorb all the energy with no energy left for either heat or sound waves. Think of the phase change of water from ice at 0 celsius to water at 0 celsius. There, energy (heat) is added to break the molecular bonds (latent heat of fusion) , but no heat leftover for any increase in temperature. That is analogous to the mini nuke situation. We do not know how many of them or how small. Plus I heard a Dr. talk about radiation sickness in people like at Hiroshima. And gamma rays or a cloud of radioactive material could explain (a) melted cars, (b) why the authorities for years kept bring in dirt to cover the debris like they did at Chernobyl.
Thoth II said: “I am not a demolition expert and I would agree at this point it was either mini nuke or explosives like you are proposing. I am not saying you are wrong. But to me, the tritium (heavy hydrogen) evidence must be taken into account, and that is consistent with mini nuke. I am not convinced you would hear a heavy blast from nuke. If it was pulverizing steel and concrete, that would absorb all the energy with no energy left for either heat or sound waves.”

To make the tower collapse, the produced energy must be too much bigger than the amount absorbable by the columns or slabs. If the energy could be absorbed, there is no demolition. In such demolition, you’ll get huge explosion and sound.

Also, if you imagine pulverized hydrogen (or any other scientific name to make publicity :) ) the explosion will start at one point and progress within less than one second into whole tower. We didn’t saw such unique explosion. With such explosion one can not produce top-down progressive collapse.

Telling numerous hypotheses is always possible and easy. But telling a strong theory that fits to all evidence is not easy.

There was a succession of explosions during more than 10sec. Radio controlled conventional explosives were placed at the required places.

Forget big scientific ideas. Only proved technologies were used in these demolitions. The question is not new technology problem; the current technology is able to make that since decades. There is no reason to use new technology and it’s very dangerous to use such new technology.
Where are you Jim? No news from you. Did you study my power point, my answers?
Mehmet , again , I am not a demolitions expert, so you could be correct but answer two questions, if you can:

(1) why was tritium experienced at the tower? If that is so, how do conventional explosives account for that?

(2) how much conventional explosives do you estimate were needed for each tower? Would it have been practical for, say , the Ace Elevator (phony company of intelligence assetts) , to get all those planted in there?
Thoth II said: “(1) why was tritium experienced at the tower?”

This is the first time I hear about tritium at the towers! H³ atoms! My first reaction is: Let me laugh. :))))))) Again some crazy disinfo agents are trying to make people focus some hypothetic molecular traces to avoid them get an open wide vision on the subject. What’s the relation between H³ and the collapse of the towers? The answer is simple: We found traces of H³! That’s all. We have traces!! And so? Are you sure the samples were original? ?? Who found these traces? …

My feeling tells me: This is another fake subject to linger more the turning around of the truthers. I do not have more time to analyze that now. I wasted enough time with sulfur (that exists everywhere), with aluminum oxide, with micro spheres, with oxidation, with pod, with DEW, garage door hypothesis, with fake videos, …

Thoth II said: “If that is so, how do conventional explosives account for that (2) how much conventional explosives do you estimate were needed for each tower? Would it have been practical for, say , the Ace Elevator (phony company of intelligence assetts) , to get all those planted in there?”

That’s a more realistic question. And yes I have an answer for that:
For the upper part where only the core columns were exploded, we need to install explosives on 32 core columns accessible from the lift shafts. Make it on about 30 floors, and every 3 floors only, that makes 10 level and 32 explosives per level, that makes 320 explosives.

For the remaining lower part, we need explosives on columns 501-508, 1001-1008, 601, 608, 901, 908 = 20 explosives of the floor seats, and 5 other for core column connections, that makes 25 explosives per floor. That must be made on 80 floors. The total required amount is 2000 explosives.

For each tower we need 320+2000=2320 explosives. All must be placed from the lifts. They can be sorted in packs with well identified parts. Put all explosives of each lift in one box and introduce the box into the lift. We need 2 people above the lift and one people inside. At each 80+10=90 floor levels they stop the lift and place the explosives. There are 2x8 lifts, to be made each day, 8 lifts in the morning, and 8 lifts in the afternoon. So with 3x8=24 people it’s possible to rig the explosives in both towers during the week end of September 8-9. The preparation should be well done, and the work should be industrially made.

Do not forget, the explosives are radio controlled and easy mounted by lock system or simple magnet.

Who planted them? The 200 members of the “Israeli Spy (Criminal) Ring” and the five “Dancing Israelis” are the best guests. Search for “Israeli Spy Ring” and “Dancing Israelis”.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service