Open Discussion

[James H. Fetzer]

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

[James H. Fetzer]

Mahmet, I can only make a brief response to your first rebuttal, but you do understand that the alleged plane was intersecting eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with two-inches of concrete, which created enormous horizontal resistance. I have a diagram that shows it. And that is true of the hit on the North as well as on the South Tower, with the exception that it might have only intersected with seven (7) floors on the North Tower hit. Are you factoring this in? I will add more later, but I would like to think we can at least agree on this simple point. The velocity of the planes should have gone to zero, the wings and tail broken off, and bodies, seats, and luggage fallen to the ground. Please go back and watch the first fifteen slides of my Buenos Aries Powerpoint, which is archived at http://911scholars.org. The diagram and Rosalee's time-sequence study are all there.

[Thoth II]

Mehmet,

"But you must also understand that during 7 years of strong investigation, I met too many crazy theories, and I am tired to continue to consider such wrong theories. In 9/11 truth movement, people created a huge amount of unrelated theories which did not lead to the truth! People, who try to learn what really happened, face a huge amount of unrelated weak theories. That avoid the truth be known. That’s why since long time I am asking you and other 9/11 truth members to clean up our theories, to remove all weak or false theories. Finally the events were made in ONE manner implying several actions. We just need to explain that manner, the only true one."

I believe you are misunderstanding my points about scientific research. We have to have a technique, a scientific method, to establish "truth". I would claim the the one and only way to "truth" is the tried and true scientific technique like inference to best explanation that I talked about. Because, if we don't have a rigorous method to establish "truth", then can we be sure we , indeed, have really established if something is "true"?? A philosophical question for you to ponder.

[Mark E. Smith]

Jim and Thoth, there are, in addition to physical and scientific dimensions of 9/11, some very important political aspects.

I'm sure you're aware that just as not all Americans support U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East, not all people of Islamic beliefs support Palestine or Iran.

Those elements of the U.S. government who found 9/11 useful in justifying various political policies, and others who also support those political policies, will always be closed to any arguments that implicate the U.S. government in 9/11.

It isn't a matter of science, it is a matter of beliefs, and you can't argue against beliefs by providing scientific refutations. To this very day, many religious fundamentalists believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago and nothing will ever convince them otherwise.

I've just emerged battered, bruised, and licking my wounds, from a debate with believers, not about 9/11 but about U.S. politics.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8083

After 1980, the Democratic Party began moving to the political right, hoping to get back Reagan voters. The party was so successful that by 2008 it had moved well to the right of the Republican Party. Wall Street recognized this and donated more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans, and this paid off well. Wall Street got more favoritism and trillions more dollars from the Democrats than they had gotten from the Republicans. But most Democratic voters are incapable of understanding this. They believe that the Democratic Party is, even if only by the narrowest of margins, to the political left of the Republican Party, and nothing will ever convince them otherwise. It isn't a matter of truth or facts, it is a matter of beliefs.

The WTC buildings were deliberately designed so as to be able to withstand plane crashes. Architects and engineers have explained this many times. Buildings even less well designed have withstood plane crashes and fires. But nowhere in the Bible or the Koran does it say that believers should utilize the scientific method. The Northwoods Plan was drawn up with the knowledge that many people will not question authority and will accept whatever official explanation they are given.

The human mind tries to rationalize things. There was a famous experiment where people were hypnotized, made to do silly and ridiculous things in front of an audience, told to forget that they had been hypnotized, and then woken and shown videotapes of what they'd done. They invariably came up with the most ingenious rationalizations for their behavior because no matter what they had done, they needed to believe that they had done it of their own free will. So a person who had been told to pull down their pants and moon the audience, then crow like a rooster, and then suck their thumb, might say something like, 'I mooned the audience because someone in the audience had given me a dirty look, then I imitated a rooster to try to wake up a member of the audience who was sleeping, and then I realized I had a toothache, so I put my thumb in my mouth to try to ease the pain.'

A debate between a rational thinker and someone with a need to rationalize, is like a debate between a person and their cat. The person may be right, but the cat almost always wins. ;)

[James H. Fetzer]

Mahmet, Where is your presentation archived? Please send me the link. Let me offer a thought experiment relative to the non-impact of Flight 175 with the South Tower. We all know that hitting a small bird in flight can cause damage to a commercial carrier. Imagine that one of the trusses from one of the floors covered with 4" of concrete were suspended in space. (This can't happen, of course, but imagine it were suspended in space--apart from any building to support it.) If a commercial carrier can be damaged by hitting a small bird in flight, what do you think would happen if such a plane hit an acre of concrete suspended in space on the horizontal? It would completely destroy it, with no doubt. Think about it.

I am extremely puzzled by your insistence that a 737 hit the Pentagon. I am unaware of the impression of a 737 (or any other commercial carrier) impressed upon the facade of the building. Notice, by the way, that, according to the official account, the 767s in New York cut through the steel support columns and created cookie-cutter cut outs that imitated the shape of its wings. (This is impossible, in my opinion, but I know you believe it.) Why would not a plane at the Pentagon, hitting the far more porous and much softer limestone facade, not have made an even more profound impression? I am looking forward to seeing your presentation, because I am baffled by some of your counter-arguments, such as these two.

James H. Fetzer said:

Mahmet, I can only make a brief response to your first rebuttal, but you do understand that the alleged plane was intersecting eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with four-inches of concrete, which created enormous horizontal resistance. I have a diagram that shows it. And that is true of the hit on the North as well as on the South Tower, with the exception that it might have only intersected with seven (7) floors on the North Tower hit. Are you factoring this in? I will add more later, but I would like to think we can at least agree on this simple point. The velocity of the planes should have gone to zero, the wings and tail broken off, and bodies, seats, and luggage fallen to the ground. Please go back and watch the first fifteen slides of my Buenos Aries Powerpoint, which is archived at http://911scholars.org. The diagram and Rosalee's time-sequence study are all there.

[Mehmet Inan]

Thoth, Before going more indetailed discussion, please have a look to my power point http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/ , study it, and try to debunk it using your rigorous method. Then I am ready to answer your arguments.

Thoth II said: I would claim the the one and only way to "truth" is the tried and true scientific technique like inference to best explanation that I talked about. Because, if we don't have a rigorous method to establish "truth", then can we be sure we , indeed, have really established if something is "true"?? A philosophical question for you to ponder.

[Mehmet Inan]

JF, “Where is your presentation archived? Please send me the link.”

On my web site, http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/ , then click on “Download English version (6MB)”

JF, “We all know that hitting a small bird in flight can cause damage to a commercial carrier. Imagine that one of the trusses from one of the floors covered with 4" of concrete were suspended in space. (This can't happen, of course, but imagine it were suspended in space--apart from any building to support it.) If a commercial carrier can be damaged by hitting a small bird in flight, what do you think would happen if such a plane hit an acre of concrete suspended in space on the horizontal? It would completely destroy it, with no doubt.”

The example of the bird hitting a plane is good. But you must think that the bird is the plane, and the tower is the plane. Like the bird damages the plane, the plane damages the tower.

I know, my English is not enough good, and you are not understanding some of my sentences.

For the façade, remove the perimeter columns, consider them inexistent, and hit the plane into 8 floor slabs with 4” thickness spaced by 140”. The floor slabs will act like a cutter, they will be damages a few, but they will cut the plane in parts, and all parts of the plane that reach between the slabs will enter the building. That’s true for the heavy central parts of the plane; their inertia will not be stopped immediately; they will not decelerate too.

But the tips of the wings will decelerate some. Their weight is small and they are decelerated by the energy required to cut the wings during their impact. These parts are the only parts which will be stopped by the façade. And they were stopped; the damage made the tips is only cutting aluminum cover plates. If you can measure the deceleration of the wing tips, you can find some deceleration, a small one.

JF, “I am extremely puzzled by your insistence that a 737 hit the Pentagon. I am unaware of the impression of a 737 (or any other commercial carrier) impressed upon the facade of the building. Notice, by the way, that, according to the official account, the 767s in New York cut through the steel support columns and created cookie-cutter cut outs that imitated the shape of its wings. (This is impossible, in my opinion, but I know you believe it.) Why would not a plane at the Pentagon, hitting the far more porous and much softer limestone facade, not have made an even more profound impression?”

On the WTC towers, there was no “cutter cookie-cutter cut outs”, some columns were broken, bended, others were only damaged at their surfaces. The intensity of the damage is consistent with the position of the plane, its fuselage, its wings, … The damages are FULLY CONSISTENT with the entry of planes.

In the case of the Pentagon, do not expect to find the exact imprint of the plane; the façade was made by stones, when a stone is touched, whole stone will fall. On the towers, you can find the precise trace of the wing tips, but on the Pentagon whole floor façade will fall. So you need to check the damage intensity and identify the place where the wing impacted. See also this picture I uploaded http://api.ning.com/files/V1RxqEQqGhU6G-ObBDhY549Ub84T7R8p2l-mF1Aj4...*vTaIYa/AC_170.jpg?

In slide 22 of my power point you can find the right wing impacts on the façade. The first impact of the wing tip on column 20, then bigger damage on C19, then smaller damage on C18; you can trace the wing impact.

On slide 21.1, you can find the damage made by the left wing. Totally destroyed columns from C13 to C10, hardly damaged but still existent C9, and finally less damaged C8 where the wing tip impacted.

You need to analyze the damage, to imagine how the plane flipped during impact; why, why the intensity of the damages is different from one side to other. If you are unable to explain the intensity of the damages that means your study is not good enough yet.

JF, “Please go back and watch the first fifteen slides of my Buenos Aries Powerpoint, which is archived at http://911scholars.org.

I will have a look. I had a look, but did not find. Please a more precise link.

[Thoth II]

Mehmet, you have a good detailed hypothesis about the details of the flights, and of the demolition sequence in the towers.

on details of the flights, I have never studied that, so I won't pretend to comment on that. However, I do notice you've included the hits on the twin towers, so you obviously do not believe in no-planes. On that , we disagree, and the reasons for this are (a) no plane parts with serial numbers identified in the wreckage, if there were planes, we would expect them there, (b) the videos of north and south towers are clearly faked , for reasons many people like Webfairy have shown.

On the collapse sequence, that is where we could use IBE technique, you've added a detailed hypothesis, we will add it to the list: These are the remaining hypotheses, the list might grow, but for now, L = percentage chance of that hypothesis explaining all the relevant evidence:

H1: pancake collapse L = 0% probability
H2: thermite, L = 1% probability (because thermite doesn't pulverize and their were not pools of molten metal)
H3: DEW , L = high percentage
H4: mini nukes, L = high percentage
H5: Mehmet's hypothesis: a controlled demolition sequence on his powerpoint using explosives RDX or C4.

Since I am not a demolitions expert, you need an expert to evaluate the percentage score (likelihood) that your detailed mechanism could produce all the evidence: two towers turned to fine dust in 10 seconds, etc.

What I meant by us following an established scientific method, is illustrated above, this is how science is done. Right now, your hypothesis is number 5 on the list of possible hypotheses. Those 5 H (hypotheses) will continue to be evaluated by experts in the years ahead, and their percentage scores will get more and more refined. If your hypothesis "finishes the race" with the highest score, yours would be the "true" one. But we are not at that point yet, much more analyses of H3-H5 need to be done. ( H1 and H2, of course, are jokes).

Mehmet Inan said:

Thoth, Before going more indetailed discussion, please have a look to my power point http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/ , study it, and try to debunk it using your rigorous method. Then I am ready to answer your arguments.
Thoth II said: I would claim the the one and only way to "truth" is the tried and true scientific technique like inference to best explanation that I talked about. Because, if we don't have a rigorous method to establish "truth", then can we be sure we , indeed, have really established if something is "true"?? A philosophical question for you to ponder.

[sandy rose]

got this from clg. do we have $2000?

Pentagon destroyed 10,000 copies of army officer's book
The Pentagon has admitted buying up and destroying 10,000 copies of an insider's account of life in Afghanistan by an army intelligence officer.

By Alex Spillius, Washington
Published: 10:25PM BST 26 Sep 2010

3 Comments


The few copies of the book that managed to evade the Pentagon's dragnet are now being exchanged for up to $2,000 on the internet Photo: AP It said that the book, Operation Dark Heart by Lt Col Anthony Shaffer, threatened to divulge state secrets.

Lt Col Shaffer, a bronze star recipient, said he had no intention of jeopardising American lives or damaging national security.


Related Articles
Gen Sir Richard Dannatt: 'We need more resources in Afghanistan'
Gen Sir Richard Dannatt: 'We need 24 hour surveillance in Afghanistan'
Armed Forces chiefs call for more troops and helicopters in Afghanistan
Hacker Gary McKinnon will receive no pity, insists US
Government slaps down minister over shortage of helicopters
Army chief admits Afghanistan bodycount made him question war"The whole premise smacks of retaliation," he told CNN. "Someone buying 10,000 books to suppress a story in this digital age is ludicrous."

The book was cleared for publication by his superiors at the US army reserve command despite being critical of strategy in Afghanistan.

But shortly before it was due to leave the warehouse, the Pentagon's intelligence unit raised concerns.

The author has said he has fallen victim to an increased sensitivity about inside information following the release by the Wikileaks website of thousands of military documents detailing the conduct of the war, and the resignation of Gen Stanley McChrystal as US commander in Afghanistan because of disparaging comments about the Barack Obama administration made by his aides to a magazine.

Lt Col Shaffer also said that the "Pentagon wanted to shut this off until after the election", because it was "more bad news". Major congressional elections are being held on Nov 2.

In a statement, the Pentagon said it "decided to purchase copies of the first printing because they contained information which could cause damage to national security". The books were destroyed on Sep 20.

The few copies of the book that managed to evade the Pentagon's dragnet are now being exchanged for up to $2,000 on the internet.

Lt Col Shaffer has since agreed to a redacted version of the book, which is released this week. He has said that though the Defence Department promised "surgical" censorship the book has been substantially redacted throughout its 300 pages with black marks replacing words or passages deemed unacceptable.

"When you look at what they took out, it's lunacy," he said.

An early line in the book reads: "Here I was in Afghanistan (redaction). My job: to run the Defence Intelligence Agency's operations out of (redaction) the hub for U.S. operations in country."

It comes as the Watergate journalist, Bob Woodward, publishes his book Obama's Wars, which shines a light on the in-fighting between top officials that threatened to tear the White House apart.

[Mehmet Inan]

Sandy Rose, “wow, Mehmet, i just read your answers to Jim's questions. very interesting. a couple of things i would like to hear more from you about, the Israeli involvement,... we hear of it here and there in discussions, and know that they play the way the u.s. does, too, but we have a tendency to focus mostly on our own criminals. ”

I began the investigation on 9/11 in 2003. End of 2006, I accidentally met a Moroccan Jew who first migrated to France, then he migrated to Israel. Then I thought that many Jews left Arab countries. So even if they made mistake by aggressing and expelling Palestinians, it is better to forgive them and it should be made a space for them.

In the beginning of 2007, some months later, I came to study Bazant’s theory: This is completely false theory. Then I searched when it was written, it was in 9/13/2010; two days after the strikes. Then I searched who is that people, is he a common people or a specialist? He is one of the biggest (if not the BIGGEST) specialists in material resistance! Then something was strange. It’s impossible for person who is not related to the strikes, who is so specialized to write a false report in two days. Then I searched for a reason. The only reason I found is "Bazant is Jew" and so he acted like a “sleeper cell” to support the zionists made large terror plot to:
- Stop the peace process which was ongoing by the support of Bill Clinton before 2001.
- Label Palestinians as terrorists and free all Israeli actions against them.
- Kill Arafat.
- Invade Afghanistan.
- Invade Iraq and remove the last potential danger against Israel.
- Get the oil pits in Iraq …

More than lying, how could anybody publish a report on so short time? The only answer to that is : Bazant is the technical expert who studied and designed the demolition of the towers. By the same he prepared the report to be published immediately after the strikes. And so everybody got an explanation and we all believed it.

Tim Donald Timmerman, the pilot who identified the impossible B757 on the Pentagon is also a Jew.

Then I searched for many people who were related to 9/11 or to 9/11 truth movement, many of them were related to Israel; Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, ... Many authors of the official reports are Zionist Jews, …

Later I learned about the “Israeli Spy Ring” (I prefer to tell Israeli Criminal Ring): About 200 spies were kept in USA in 2001, 140 before 9/11 and 60 after. They worked in explosives and telecommunications; two technologies needed to make 9/11 and cover it up. Then I remembered the “5 dancing Israelis”.

The only people who are able to perpetrate such actions are Israelis. And this is not the first false terror action they made, one of the first visible action is “Operation Susannah” in 1950s. Since that time, they never stopped their actions. They just became better in the cover up.

Sandy Rose, “about the planes, i am one who agree with those who think none of the
airliners in the offishal story did what the story told us they did.”

Sorry, claiming that everything is false is not true. They will not create an action where everything is false. They need some true events. And the planes were true, at least they existed. There were a fifth plane; the 737 that hit the Pentagon. See my power point at http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/

Sandy, for me 9/11 is solved. My work as a technical investigator is almost finished. Now, justice must takeover the subject and punish the perpetrators, masterminds. Without that justice, the humanity is in danger.

[Mark E. Smith]

That explains it.

Obviously the reason that pilotsfor911truth.org dispute the planes story is because so many of them are NOT Jewish.

With a little research I could have uncovered that myself--where was my head?

And of course you can't put out a cover story that is ALL lies. There has to be SOME truth in it. Because if there wasn't some truth in it, then, uh, there wouldn't be any truth in it. So we just have to keep searching until we find something that is true, or that might be true, because there has to be some truth there. If we don't start out with the knowledge that something in the cover story must be true, then we're not equipped to scientifically investigate 9/11 because we haven't closed off any avenues of investigation.

But if investigating one thing that a Jew or several Jews claim, results in learning that what they said was false, how do you know which one of the many things that they said must therefore have to be true?

Some of the most brilliant minds in the history of humanity have been Iranians, Iraqis, Palestinians, and yes, even Afghans. You don't successfully fend off invaders for thousands of years by being stupid. There have even been a few smart Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Quakers, and members of other religions. But no group in the history of humanity has ever been dunce-proof. It's like one of those axioms or laws of nature or physics: in order for a group to be smart it has to include at least one idiot.

Would you allow me to volunteer for that indispensable position here, Jim?

[James H. Fetzer]

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.

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.

[James H. Fetzer]

I don't know what to say to that, Mark. You seem to be pretty smart to me. I find your comments very interesting.



Mark E. Smith said:

That explains it.

Obviously the reason that pilotsfor911truth.org dispute the planes story is because so many of them are NOT Jewish.

With a little research I could have uncovered that myself--where was my head?

And of course you can't put out a cover story that is ALL lies. There has to be SOME truth in it. Because if there wasn't some truth in it, then, uh, there wouldn't be any truth in it. So we just have to keep searching until we find something that is true, or that might be true, because there has to be some truth there. If we don't start out with the knowledge that something in the cover story must be true, then we're not equipped to scientifically investigate 9/11 because we haven't closed off any avenues of investigation.

But if investigating one thing that a Jew or several Jews claim, results in learning that what they said was false, how do you know which one of the many things that they said must therefore have to be true?

Some of the most brilliant minds in the history of humanity have been Iranians, Iraqis, Palestinians, and yes, even Afghans. You don't successfully fend off invaders for thousands of years by being stupid. There have even been a few smart Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Quakers, and members of other religions. But no group in the history of humanity has ever been dunce-proof. It's like one of those axioms or laws of nature or physics: in order for a group to be smart it has to include at least one idiot.

Would you allow me to volunteer for that indispensable position here, Jim?