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: 2975

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Playing into the hands of Israelis? Somehow, I don't feel very concerned about that. Any more than discussing no-planes or exotic weapons plays into the hands of those who wish to debunk 9/11 Truth.

Living in the United States I'm accustomed to a racist mainstream media that reports on wars of aggression as if they were ordinary wars rather than war crimes. You can't get much more fascist than that, which is why I don't have a TV, and don't connect with mainstream media.

Knowing the history of COINTELPRO, I don't have much of a problem with people who caricature war criminals. My problem is with the war criminals, and I respect those who fight back with art, words, and humor instead of the weapons that are used against them.

So I don't have a problem with the guy who posted cartoons of Officer Bubbles, my problem is with law enforcement officers who abuse their authority.

While the mainstream media is commercial and plays to the lowest common denominator, using appeals to authority and other psychological warfare techniques to isolate and delegitimize critics, the alternative media doesn't have the billions of dollars in corporate backing and has to use imaginative and unusual ways to provoke thought and discussions.

While it is true that the fascists will dismiss anything that criticizes them, that doesn't mean that the criticisms aren't valid.

I've often come up against online trolls who, finding themselves unable to refute my arguments, attack my tone, my writing style, or my character.

I'm tired of the genocides and holocausts. To caricature Netanyahu or Obama is, in my opinion, no worse than caricaturing Pol Pot, Hitler, Pinochet, Kagame, or any other mass murderer, terrorist, or war criminal.

Israel wants to be recognized as a "Jewish and democratic" state. But Jews are people who follow Torah and the essence of Torah is not to do to your neighbors that which would be hateful if done to you. The Palestinians are Israel's neighbors, Israel doesn't treat them the same way it wishes to be treated, so I don't see how they can pretend to be a Jewish state. I was raised Jewish and taught to hate fascism, not to emulate it. Walled ghettos are abhorrent to me--to look at Gaza is to see the Warsaw Ghetto. That's fascism.

If Israel wants to be respected, it should learn to respect others.
Mark E. Smith said: “There is another possibility, Mehmet. There is the possibility that the theories you believe are false, are actually true.”

I debunked all those theories and their defenders are silent. If they are unable to defend their theories, they should remove their theories. It’s so simple.

By the same, if you are able to debunk any of my theories, feel free to do it. I am here to defend my work.

Mark E. Smith said: “But you can't accept that because you believe that they're false. That means that you are a religious person who believes in miracles.”

Keep such comments for yourself, and try to bring material evidence.

Mark E. Smith said: “You believe that the soft aluminum nose cone of a plane, which can be damaged by something as soft as a little bird, can enter a concrete and steel building and come out undamaged on the other side.”

In a plane, there are other materials than the nose! Whatever it could be, there are several tons supported by some steel/aluminum parts, and those have some weight too. And at the speed of a plane those parts will break thin outer columns of the towers.

Mark E. Smith said: “You believe that planes which cannot exceed their speed and maneuverability limits, somehow did so on 9/11.”

How can you calculate the planes exceeded their speed limit? You just decided it, and that’s all. Do you really think that manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing will produce planes that will disintegrate if they fall to lower altitudes while their slats are entered?

No, just somebody told you that the planes are unable to fly at that speed, and you believed, they are just pilots, so they know what they are telling! You are a good believer and follower. I am neither a believer nor a follower, never will I be. I need logical scientific material evidence and explanations, and after I check them all, I can support only if the work is true.

Mark E. Smith said: “You believe that the laws of physics were suspended for a day.”

I showed that your self defined laws of physics are just wrong, and I showed why they are wrong.

Mark E. Smith said: “The professional pilots on pilotsfor911truth.org have flown those same planes for many years and they know what those planes are capable of doing and are not capable of doing.”

I believe since long time that pilots for 9/11 truth are one of the best disinfo. By the label of “pilots” they are deceiving people. They know that the FDR stops seconds before the impact at the Pentagon, so it’s false, it has only the label of “official”, but they continue to produce theories it! Why? To deceive people. Are there any reason, or any possibility to make the light poles broken with any other thing than the plane that actually impacted the Pentagon? Not at all. To make that, somebody had to break them before the impact, or after the impact. Both are impossible. So the light poles are broken by the plane that hit the Pentagon, and that’s consistent with all available evidence, outside and inside damages to the Pentagon.

So, WHY pilots for 911 truth are trying to bring another theory against all strong evidence? They are just disinfo. And it’s forbidden to tell that. Why?


Mark E. Smith said: “To believe that those planes did what those planes cannot possibly do, is like believing that horses can run 600 miles an hour. They can't. It simply isn't possible. But to those who believe it true, anything is possible because of the miracles of divine intervention. Divine intervention had nothing to do with 9/11.

Divine intervention is a Jew belief, like you still have some from childhood. The Torah is written in that manner, with divine interventions. Yes, also divine horses in the Torah run at 600 miles per hour!

For your knowledge, the biggest miracle of God in the Quran is the Nature and its Natural laws.

Mark E. Smith said: “Your beliefs will not allow you to look at the facts. But accusing others of spreading disinformation or being unprofessional because they don't share your unscientific beliefs just makes you look silly.”

Keep such comments for yourself. My work is totally open for critics and debunkers, and I am always present to explain and defend my work by using scientific logical thinking. Disinfo agents always escaped the discussion because they are unable to defend their work. Disinfo could never be defended face to the science.

Mark E. Smith said: “If President Ahmadinejad's commission investigates 9/11, they will find no evidence of planes, because there is no evidence of planes.”

If he really makes such huge mistake, then he is really a nut. But I don’t think he will really go into such mistake.

Mark E. Smith said: “When an airplane hits a building, even a small wooden building, the plane falls down, the building does not.”

Totally wrong claims made by divine believer, and Jew originated service disinfo agent, self presented as Mark E. Smith.

Mark E. Smith said: “And since normal methods of controlled demolition would leave a lot more intact debris than there was on 9/11, something other than normal controlled demolition took place, or something in addition to controlled demolition, and it wasn't a miracle.”

The technical explanation of the demolitions of the twin towers are in my power point point slides 49, 50. See http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/

Mark E. Smith said: “The strange damage to the cars in the area wasn't caused by conventional explosives, and that damage isn't just a coincidence, unimportant, or another miracle.”

The cars were just a fraud to insurance. Not related to 9/11.

Mark E. Smith said: “Dismissing the facts that get in the way of your beliefs is very unprofessional, and insisting that things that couldn't happen, happened, is just a way to support the government's cover-up of 9/11.

Jim mentioned his London talk several times and we've given you the link to the videos: http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/

Apparently you won't watch it because you don't want the facts to get in the way of your beliefs. That's sad and very unprofessional.”
I watched it, and argued why some claims were wrong; look for in the past, recent past, and you’ll find it. Jim asked time for study, but he never returned back with arguments. I am still waiting his arguments and study conclusions.

Jim, are you there, did you studied my arguments, do you have any answer? Do not consider that like a meaningless subject, I am extremely sincere and I am really waiting some answers from you. You have two choices: Defend your claims or revoke your claims. Continue to support your claims while you refuse to defend them is not leader’s work manner. I know you since nearly 5 years, end of 2005, remember that was the beginning of ST911; you must imagine that I am tired and not more ready to hear wrong theories.
Mahmet, your arguments are tired and old. Straw-man physics. "

"How can you calculate the planes exceeded their speed limit? You just decided it, and that’s all. Do you really think that manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing will produce planes that will disintegrate if they fall to lower altitudes while their slats are entered?"
WTF?
Ask NIST or NTSB where these speeds came from. We certainly didn't just decide these speed nor did we calculate them from manufactured videos. They are stated in the reports you cite. Do some research on Egypt Air 990. Certainly, Boeing and Airbus do not rate their planes for crash-resistance. The buildings, however were rated to resist large jet impacts. These are simple facts. I don't really think you are after the truth, or are a scholar, but if you want to understand fight envelopes for safe -eg. non-destructive- flight, this may help: http://www.apstraining.com/v-g-diagram-discussion-with-aps-training/
Actually, you do have one point that is news to me, that the cars were an insurance fraud. That's rich!
Do you have any other brilliant observations to clutter up this forum?
Shallel Octavia said: Mahmet, your arguments are tired and old. Straw-man physics. "

"How can you calculate the planes exceeded their speed limit? You just decided it, and that’s all. Do you really think that manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing will produce planes that will disintegrate if they fall to lower altitudes while their slats are entered?"
WTF?
Ask NIST or NTSB where these speeds came from. We certainly didn't just decide these speed nor did we calculate them from manufactured videos. They are stated in the reports you cite.”
The subject contains two aspects:
1- What was the speed of the planes: You just based your theory on the speeds released in the official reports. That’ meaningless, because they may increase or decrease the speed on their will. In that case 600mph is too high; this is the cruise speed at 30000ft altitude or more. So this statement looks too high. May be they did not measure the speed, they just gave the cruise speed of the plane, not based on measurement, and not based on the reality. SO this is meaningless.

2- Could the planes fly at low altitude at such speed, if not why they can’t:
In steady horizontal fly, the planes can not reach that speed at 400m altitude. The power of the engines is not enough to face the resistance made by the air. But in lowering fly they can reach that speed.

In any case, the actual speed could be about 300-400 mph. That’s still enough to make the plane enter naturally into the towers; bolted thin outer columns will be broken, at least some of them near the nose where the massive parts between the engines also entered. The columns at the extremity of the wings may remain intact with some surface damage only. That’s what we have. So everything is true, natural, normal, … There is no reason to doubt on the presence of the planes; except for making disinformation. You have to decide, disinfo or the truth.

Shallel Octavia said: “Do some research on Egypt Air 990. Certainly, Boeing and Airbus do not rate their planes for crash-resistance. The buildings, however were rated to resist large jet impacts. These are simple facts. I don't really think you are after the truth, or are a scholar,”

Do never make such crazy ad-hominem attacks against me! If you doubt I am scholar or truth seeker, just learn to use logical arguments to debunk my arguments and my work. That an honest manner of discussion. I hope to never read such craziness.

Shallel Octavia said: “but if you want to understand fight envelopes for safe -eg. non-destructive- flight, this may help: http://www.apstraining.com/v-g-diagram-discussion-with-aps-training/

These explanations are about aerobatic planes having fixed wings (no slats) and flying at low altitudes. That’s why the speed is limited to 195kts (360km/h). The planes that hit the towers were not such planes, even if UA175 made a quick turn at the last moment, nothing proves that this is impossible. This last rotation is a natural behavior of such plane controlled by on board automatic control system.

Shallel Octavia said: “Actually, you do have one point that is news to me, that the cars were an insurance fraud. That's rich! Do you have any other brilliant observations to clutter up this forum?”
As I told many times, my investigation about the strikes is done and finished. My web site contains the summary of the explanation how the strikes could be made according to all known strong evidence. I am ready to defend my work before all kind of experts and justice courts. I can not be more precise: The work is done.

Everybody who is unable to defend his work should revoke his own work as soon as possible in public area. Every supporter of theories made by others should stop his support if the authors of the theories are unable to defend them.

I gave strong arguments against the theories like Directed Energy Weapon, No Plane Theory, … If the authors are unable to defend their theory or they remain silent, they should stop their theories. If they still have any argument, they are well come here. But I do not accept such authors remain silent and some other people, like Jim Fetzer, continue to support them.
Mehmet -

Sorry to doubt your sincerity and scholarliness. Your case is just untenable according to known facts.

"1- What was the speed of the planes: You just based your theory on the speeds released in the official reports. That’ meaningless, because they may increase or decrease the speed on their will. In that case 600mph is too high; this is the cruise speed at 30000ft altitude or more. So this statement looks too high. May be they did not measure the speed, they just gave the cruise speed of the plane, not based on measurement, and not based on the reality. SO this is meaningless."2- Could the planes fly at low altitude at such speed, if not why they can’t:
In steady horizontal fly, the planes can not reach that speed at 400m altitude. The power of the engines is not enough to face the resistance made by the air. But in lowering fly they can reach that speed."

There were no planes. The speed of UA175 was taken from radar data, which was likely an inject or simulation. The speed given by NTSB was 510 knots shortly before the "crash". This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.

"2- Could the planes fly at low altitude at such speed, if not why they can’t: In steady horizontal fly, the planes can not reach that speed at 400m altitude. The power of the engines is not enough to face the resistance made by the air. But in lowering fly they can reach that speed."

The problem is buffeting and parasitic drag. The airframe would be destroyed. Please research Egypt Air 990 if you want a real example of what happens when max airspeed is exceeded.

"In any case, the actual speed could be about 300-400 mph. That’s still enough to make the plane enter naturally into the towers; bolted thin outer columns will be broken, at least some of them near the nose where the massive parts between the engines also entered. The columns at the extremity of the wings may remain intact with some surface damage only. That’s what we have. So everything is true, natural, normal, … There is no reason to doubt on the presence of the planes; except for making disinformation. You have to decide, disinfo or the truth."

There was nothing natural about the entry of the "plane". The "plane" would have intersected 45 of those "thin outer columns", along with at least 6 spandrel belts and at least 6 floors consisting of trusses bolted and welded to the core columns, steel floor pans, and 4" of concrete. The whole rigid structure of the building is resisting the plane, not just the columns. The plane would lose this battle if it had really happened. Planes are made of lightweight aluminum and just enough steel to hold together during the normal stresses of flight, or else they would not fly. Planes are not crash rated. The buildings were rated to resist the impact of a large jet.

"Shallel Octavia said: “but if you want to understand fight envelopes for safe -eg. non-destructive- flight, this may help: http://www.apstraining.com/v-g-diagram-discussion-with-aps-training/

These explanations are about aerobatic planes having fixed wings (no slats) and flying at low altitudes. That’s why the speed is limited to 195kts (360km/h). The planes that hit the towers were not such planes, even if UA175 made a quick turn at the last moment, nothing proves that this is impossible. This last rotation is a natural behavior of such plane controlled by on board automatic control system."

All planes have a safe flight speed envelope. Exceed at your own risk.
For the B767 VMO is 360 Knots; the same rules apply.
An automatic control system cannot give the plane any more structural integrity, or change it's performance envelope. There is nothing natural about that. It is proven impossible by extensive testing and real world data and available from Boeing. In the area beyond the airplane normal design envelope where the data is not valid, all the flight control behavior is uncertain, control surfaces are subject to flutter.
Again EA990 came apart at 20,000 feet, and fell in at least two pieces leaving two separate debris fields. The FDR lost power and stopped recording at 20,000 ft breakup.

"My web site contains the summary of the explanation how the strikes could be made according to all known strong evidence."

Could you provide the link? I must have missed it.
Shallel Octavia said: “There were no planes. The speed of UA175 was taken from radar data, which was likely an inject or simulation. The speed given by NTSB was 510 knots shortly before the "crash". This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.”

I took the Fairbanks video, measured the time required for the plane to cross its full size (48.5m for a 767-200), this time is 0.25+/-0.02second. 48.5/0.25=194m/s ==> 194*3600=698km/h=377kts. That speed is too much smaller than claimed 510kts.

Ok, I used simple software like quick time, … If you have better measurements feel free to make your own measurement and do not believe any other people.

As conclusion, the planes were real ones, and the NPT is disinfo. Will you still support that theory?

Shallel Octavia said: “Could you provide the link? I must have missed it.”

http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/

Download the power point file, the summary of the investigation is there. All comments are welcome.
Mehmet writes:

"I took the Fairbanks video, measured the time required for the plane to cross its full size (48.5m for a 767-200), this time is 0.25+/-0.02second. 48.5/0.25=194m/s ==> 194*3600=698km/h=377kts. That speed is too much smaller than claimed 510kts."

Well then, by that "scientific method," Superman is real too because there are movies about him. You can see the proof in the movies that Superman can fly, and can calculate his speed.

Therefore, anyone who thinks that there is no Superman, must be a disinformation agent. Will you admit that Superman exists and stop saying there is no Superman?
You are basing your speed on a fake video. You have measured the time over it's own length to determine the velocity in air. I challenge you to measure the time over the plane length, however start when the plane first impacts the building. You will find that it is the same amount of time. You would get a more accurate measurement if you counted the frames and added the time of each frame. It would be either 30 or 60 frames per second depending on if it is interlaced video. So if the plane does not decelerate, according to Newtons Second Law F=ma=m(0)=0. There is no force to act on the plane or the building in this video.

See my post of Ace Baker's slow motion version of Fairbanks where you can count the frames yourself.

http://911scholars.ning.com/video/lawsontheforger-1

In conclusion, the video you cite is a fake video of an impossible event. The does not disprove NPT. In fact it proves a violation of a basic Law of Motion, and proves the video is false. Thanks for the Link.

I would like to know how many here think the Fairbanks video is a real representation of a real event.

Nice analogy, Mark!
So if the plane does not decelerate, according to Newtons Second Law F=ma=m(0)=0. There is no force to act on the plane or the building in this video.

"See my post of Ace Baker's slow motion version of Fairbanks where you can count the frames yourself.

http://911scholars.ning.com/video/lawsontheforger-1

In conclusion, the video you cite is a fake video of an impossible event. The does not disprove NPT. In fact it proves a violation of a basic Law of Motion, and proves the video is false. Thanks for the Link.

I would like to know how many here think the Fairbanks video is a real representation of a real event."

You are absolutely correct. It does not show a real plane hitting the building. This ball game is over, and I just don't understand why people can't see this. Newton's Laws cannot be violated.


Mark E. Smith said:


Well then, by that "scientific method," Superman is real too because there are movies about him. You can see the proof in the movies that Superman can fly, and can calculate his speed.

Therefore, anyone who thinks that there is no Superman, must be a disinformation agent. Will you admit that Superman exists and stop saying there is no Superman?

Mark, You are a good Jew, using very well the sarcasm and well deviating the subject in all directions. Unfortunately you are unable to see the difference between a man and a Boeing 767.

Also, it should be better to fix on scientific arguments. Isn't it?


Thoth II said:
So if the plane does not decelerate, according to Newtons Second Law F=ma=m(0)=0. There is no force to act on the plane or the building in this video.

There is another explanation: F=ma implies :
1- There is nothing enough strong in the plane to create a reaction force enough strong to make itself decelerate enough.
2- To make any speed reduction, the force should remain some time, because the speed is the integration of the acceleration, we saw no speed reduction because the small force made by the plane"s nose and fuselage existed during so short time that the speed reduction is invisible.

These both arguments are true, and they prove the plane was a true one, a real B767-200.

As you made some research, you give us 11 pictures to cross the length of the plane itself, what's the number of pictures per second in that Fairbanks video?
First you make an ad hominem attack, then you want others to have scientific arguments?

Poor Jim--he probably still thinks you're capable of logic.

Hundreds of planes have crashed, Mehmet, many much smaller and weaker that crashed into smaller, weaker structures like wooden buildings. You know nothing about airplanes and nothing about physics.

The deceleration wasn't invisible, the video was faked. All the videos were faked, but in different ways, and many of them contradict each other. None show a real plane crashing into a real building the way that a real plane would crash into a real building. The building was real, but the plane was not.

The weight and mass of the plane alone would be sufficient to cause a reaction force strong enough to make itself decelerate enough, if there had been a real plane. There wasn't. But even if the nose cone hadn't crumpled, which it would have, by the time the solid engines hit there would have been visible deceleration. Or do you think that the engines were also made of weak materials?

.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service