Just a comment on the meaning of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". When an hypothesis or theory h can provide a better explanation of the evidence e than any available alternative h', then it is the preferable hypothesis. When the evidence has "settled down", then the preferable hypothesis is also acceptable, in the tentative and fallible fashion characteristic of science. This is analogous to having a strongest suspect in a criminal investigation, given the available evidence, but not having enough for an arrest, trial and conviction. That is the difference, roughly speaking, between preferable and acceptable. Unlike the situation in science, once a conviction has been obtained, it is difficult, if not impossible, to change. But in science, old hypotheses can always be rejected on the basis of new evidence. When an hypothesis is acceptable and no alternative explanation is reasonable, then it has been established "beyond a reasonable doubt".

How does your comment particularly apply to the conversation?

Jim, thank you for your comment! i missed your imput, sir.
no matter that it takes me a while to get what you meant,
it's just great to hear from you again. !!!

Dean, i don't know what it proves, except that a bunch
of Muslims in Afghanistan did not likely do this, but notice
the nice neat lengths of steel ('m guessing) that were still
there in the pile of rubble..... i guess i have seen before in
conversation that they made the lengths of steel or whatever
cut to just the right length to cart them off to what was it,
China? (that may be incorrect, and i have no claim to any
thing scientific, i leave that to the big boys, and girls...........)
and, i would feel distraught if i left out the not nice
fact that Architects and Engineers bend over backwards
to avoid no planer lines of thought...................for they
have dissed no planers on their otherwise neato petition....
i mention that only because i recommended their video...

i don't disagree with Jim Fetzer often/ever, tho sometimes
i need the dick and jane version of events.....
(Jim's way smarter than me...._)
Jim, do you mean that we have proven via video that
what the offishal story said was not true, but it's not enough
to bag the bad boys on?
so what needs to be done to establish a reasonable doubt,
or have no planers done that one already?
don't 'we' have enough already to vouch that the 'offishal'
story about 9/11 could not have happened the way 'they' said?
and what if anything else do 'we' need to carry that further?

http://howitwasdone911.blogspot.com/2010/04/to-understand-911-you-m...

Outline:
1. Introduction - Why we need to know some stuff first before we can understand 9/11.
2. Nature of matter - How the World Trade Center (WTC) was destroyed.
3. Physical movement - How we know that no hijackings occurred on 9/11.
4. Chemical reactions - How we know that thermite did not destroy the WTC.
5. Nikola Tesla - The person discovered the technology used to destroy the WTC.
6. Human psychology - Why it is so difficult to explain 9/11 to people.
7. Conclusion - Why this is the most important subject on the planet.


1. Introduction

9/11 was a complicated crime. Nothing is going to change that. Most of us saw some things on TV that day that we had never seen before, so we didn't know what to think about it. Those who lived in the area of Ground Zero then witnessed long weeks and months of the aftermath. 9/11 didn't end on September 11, 2001, because Ground Zero kept fuming heavily for many weeks and months.

As an experienced laboratory scientist, I recognized when I had seen something unusual. So unusual, in fact, that I didn't know what it was. No scientist knows everything, but every scientist knows how to go about finding out answers to scientific questions, and I couldn't figure out what it was. What kind of weapon, exactly, can turn a building into dust and then continue to fume for months?

Right away I knew some things. I knew I was in a particular position to investigate 9/11, because not only did I live in lower Manhattan, but because I'm that type of person. I already knew that FOX News lies. I already knew about the deep corruption in our Corporatocracy we have in the US. I was already outside the mainstream.

These three things situated me in a unique position to discover the weapon used to destroy the WTC. First, I am a trained scientist. Second, I am outside the mainstream. Third, I was living in the vicinity of Ground Zero during the aftermath and became an unwilling witness and ultimately a victim of the attacks. Part of the World Trade Center is in my body right now, because I breathed all those fumes. I deserve to know what caused them, and nobody can convince me that airplanes and jet fuel was what I was smelling.

9/11 wasn't about me. I was and am a relatively unknown person. In fact, I knew that in all likelihood I was not going to be the one who discovered the weapon. But here's the deal: I know what a correct answer looks like, and I knew I could recognize the correct answer if it were ever told to me. The correct answer would account for the damage seen on 9/11 and the near-constant fuming from Ground Zero for months after. I am proud to say that in 2005, I found the person who discovered the weapon. Her name is Judy Wood. You can go check out her website at http://drjudywood.com

2. The Nature of Matter

I'm going to keep this section simple. Matter is made up of molecules and molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of a very tiny nucleus (protons and neutrons) surrounded by an electron cloud. Molecules of a solid are very tightly packed in a relatively rigid formation. Molecules of a liquid are closely packed, but free to move around. Molecules of a gas are widely dispersed and bounce all around.

Explosives work in one way: a chemical reaction changes a solid into a gas, releasing energy in the form of heat and a physical blast wave that comes from the rapidly expanding gas. The hot gas continues to expand outwards in all directions until the pressure and temperature are in equilibrium with the environment.

The WTC was not brought down by explosives. We know this for two main reasons. First, the expanding dust cloud did not behave as if it were a gas. Instead, it behaved as if it were a colloidal suspension, and the dust bits fell to the ground. An explosive reaction (solid into gas) results in an approximately spherical-shaped expansion, which was not evident on 9/11. Instead, the dust poofed outwards and then fell to the ground like if you popped a balloon full of powder. POOF!

The second reason we know the WTC was not brought down by explosives is the fact that the dust cloud rolled over people and they survived. We know the temperature of the expanding dust cloud was not hot enough to kill or injure the folks on the street, therefore we know the dust cloud was not a result of an explosive.

Okay, so if not explosives, then what? Here's the answer: The molecules that made up the WTC were vibrated apart by electrical energy. That's it. Why did the buildings continue to fume for months after? Because the process is not self quenching. They had to remove the remains of the buildings before the fuming stopped at Ground Zero. The fuming that came from Ground Zero for months was the continuing molecular dissociation of the building materials. When they took away the last bits of the building, the fuming stopped, or almost stopped.


3. Physical movement

Part of the attacks of 9/11 was the cover story, so we need to understand a bit about the cover story. That whole thing about Osama bin Laden and the hijackers? Never happened. That whole thing about planes crashing into the World Trade Center? Never happened.

Momentum is conserved during every collision. That means that videos of a plane crashing into a building will show at least some pieces of the plane bouncing backwards in exactly the opposite direction. What we saw instead was the entire plane gliding smoothly into the building with no apparent damage, followed by explosions and stuff shooting out the other sides of the building. There wasn't any part of the plane that bounced off the south face of WTC 2, the supposed site of impact, which means there wasn't an impact.

For several years, people have claimed that all the videos were faked, that news editors and cameramen from all these different places altered their videos in exactly the same way. This is neither likely nor logical. What happened was that a 3-dimensional image of the plane was projected into the sky, and video cameras caught footage of this mysterious object passing into the WTC without damage. I'm not proving that no planes were hijacked on 9/11, I'm just telling you that none were. You can prove it to yourself by looking at the slow motion replay of the "plane crash". You won't find any bits of plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.

4. Chemical reactions

Getting quickly to the point, Steven Jones has been misleading us with his thermite theory. Thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive, which means it generates heat but not expansion of gas. People didn't die from the expanding dust cloud, therefore no type of incendiary could have been the cause of the destruction of the WTC. The only two people I'm willing to debate on this are Steven Jones himself or Niels Harrit, the primary author on that travesty of a paper, "Active Thermitic Material Found in World Trade Center Dust." Too many people have fallen in love with the thermite theory, despite its deep inadequacy as an explanation for 9/11.

5. Nikola Tesla

Nikola Tesla discovered a way to transmit electrical energy through the atmosphere, and even likely gave a demonstration of this technology, which resulted in the Tugunska disaster. Previously, he had caused a huge explosion with his experiments and had to relocate from Colorado to Long Island. He died penniless in Manhattan. There is so much about Tesla available for your own research, that I will say only one more thing. John Hutchison has been using electrical equipment to replicate Tesla's work since the late 1970's. You should check out his research, too.

6. Human psychology

Everyone remembers where they were on 9/11. We all have emotional "flash bulb memories" from that day, and the perpetrators of this crime took advantage of this by providing a cover story during that time. The hijacking story was the cover story, and this was cemented into our brains during a time of trauma.

Imagine if we had seen the buildings go POOF without the planes? We would have known right away that something very suspicious was afoot and start to search for enemies. The perpetrators provided us with the enemies almost immediately, so that instinct was squelched. We were bamboozled into thinking that a plane crash could take down a steel building, and we were bamboozled into believing that Osama bin Laden and 19 young Arabs committed the crime.

Secret technology was used. What were we supposed to "Never Forget"? Something almost none of us knew about at the time, and most of us still don't know about? Doesn't make sense to "Never Forget" something you never knew. And if you were like me, you didn't know what really happened on 9/11.

But that doesn't mean I'm wrong now. This isn't 2001. This is 2010. Almost nine long years have elapsed since the attacks of September 11, and we know more now than we did then.

7. Conclusion

Tesla was working on technology that could improve the lives of everyone on the planet. He knew that it could be used to destroy, and it was used to destroy the WTC. This was a terrible event, but we can turn it around. We can together continue to investigate this new technology, maybe even find out who used it against us and bring them to justice, but even more. We can use this energy to make our lives better, as Tesla originally intended. We can use a little bit of electrical energy to generate a large amount of physical energy, and we can transmit this energy to any location on the Earth. Pretty powerful and exciting, isn't it?

If no one objects, why not use this essay "To Understand 9/11..." as a hypothesis?

Starting point: h = the WTC came down by the use of electrical energy.

questions: is the essay's contention that the building turned into dust bits that fell to the ground correct?
is the essay's contention that explosives would have caused dust clouds that would have injured people correct?

My take:The first question appears to affirmative by observation. The second calls for a scientific opinion, which has been given in essay.

Relevance of questions: dust bits fits in with the hypothesis of electrical energy; an affirmative answer to second question would appear to rule out a competiting theory, that of the use of explosives.

What does everyone else think?

Is there any evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that electrical energy brought down the towers?

Much of the hearsay evidence contradicts the electrical weapon theory. There are news stories about hijackers and internet stories about LIHOP, MIHOP, pods and thermite. All of these stories contradict the electrical weapon theory.

Does any of the forensic evidence contradict the electrical weapon theory? I'd say the recorded cell phone conversations and the pictures of plane parts.

How reliable is the forensic evidence?
The recorded cell conversations for example. There seems to be evidence the calls were faked. The technology is present. The planes were too high according to a leading report by a k dewdney.
Plane parts at the pentagon may not have been present at scene right away.
What do you think?

Agreed on both points.

What is the best evidence that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon?

The evidence that isn't there: a plane. They didn't rebuild the plane and show us how it happened. They expected us to believe that planes "vaporize" after crashing, which they don't. The dog that didn't bark. There was literally no plane found at the Pentagon, and reporters said so.

agreed. where are any shots of real planes doing the hit?
whatever shots they dribbled out to us, they weren't of an
airliner. 's all we need to prove that one. all footage. done.
in fact it's really all we need to prove no planes anywhere. on
9/11. footage from all faked sites. done. where's the footage?

Dean, you seem to be a fiesty guy who likes to get stuff done.
you know Scholars has a petition to release all footage. there
sure would be a heck of a lot to gain by that. what else can we
do to make that happen? i think that's about all we would need.

and what is their lame excuse for not disclosing all footage? GUILT.
the footage, if it even still exists, would answer all of our questions.
well, okay, at least a big chunk of em.
and it would absolutely show that offishal story was crock of bs.
should 9/11 truthers band together and take it to court? could we?

Hi Sandy,

Thanks! We would benefit greatly if we persuade the authorities to show the footage (public pressure could work). Where can I find the petition?

Dean

oh! thanks for asking, i believe Mr. Fetzer and the Others
still have it goin on over at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Jim, if yer
listening please pipe up if that has changed, haint checked lately...

hey, you know, just very recently i was MOST pleasantly
surprised when the good old ACLU got in on releasing some info
that made me think they KNEW! oh crud, i can't even remember
what it was...........blocking it out maybe.....but i wrote back and
said to them how PSYCHED i was that they KNOW. (about 9/11)
anyway,
someone like that would help us out greatly, maybe, if they could
be convinced that the entire fate of the Earth might depend on it.
i'm sure we could tie civil liberties in with it in more ways than 3000.


so anyway, what possible on Earth reason could our least
favorite war criminals have for NOT disclosing all footage from 9/11??
i mean, what lamo turdball excuse do they even USE for not wanting
to show that. proof of guilt ya ax me. (they probably cry about
nashnul skurity, or some bull, just their code word for "you don't wanna know.")
we would go many many miles with all footage disclosed, no
questions asked. hand it over, you lousy criminal psychopaths,...

and man, it sure would be nice to answer everyone's questions!
everyone would have to bow down to no planers for the next ten years.
guaranfreakin-t it. it's all we need. so simple, and yet.....so far.
specially when they have the whole gummint compromised on it.
and they probably only kept a few discreet copies to show their buds.




but ANYWAY, can we imagine if someone like THAT could help
us get those footages handed over? course, even as i say that, i
imagine they "lost" all of that stuff an age ago. but what would
their excuse be for that? whooops?

i guaran-freakin-t it, if 'we' could get any surviving footage videos
from any so called targets on 9/11 we could move forward and start
to climb out of this stankin swamp.

Mr. Jim, i like to keep the old Great Dean in mind about things...

course it wouldn't help a thing if they just handed over some
more fake stufff, but our video experts will see right thru that...:)

Dean, Here is the original Scholar's petition. Just reading it reminds you of the lengths to which our own government has gone to conceal evidence from the American people. I would welcome a revival of this effort building on this one: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399 Thanks.

Sandy Rose... All true. The other question is what of the passenger's?? produce some of those people and WHAM-O non-believer's will have no choice but to revolt and demand the truth. I have posted before on that very topic. In other words, as we know there were no planes sooooo, that leaves 269 people (total number of passengers) unaccounted for. Folks that "saw" the supposed plane that their friend, husband, wife, ect.. were on "crash" into the buildings, at that moment wrote it off as just that. However, since their were no planes where are those folks? I believe those passengers did get on a plane .. it was landed and they were taken off, and killed. All those not protected by the government anyway ( Barbra Olsen for example.. I think I have that name right). That evidence, and concentration on the Pentagon, digging into that for answers.
Jim.. How can I help revive that? Now is the time with the new BS of so called bombs and the like IE.. times square, coolers ect.. Once again a set up by our government.. to advert the eyes for truth.

Thanks, Jim and Sandy. I read and signed the petition. I like the petition but want to shorten it to focus first on one issue that we have the best chance of getting a response about.

What if we turned this into a question for the public like this one: Can anyone show us proof that any of the 270 passengers said to have gone on one of the 9/11 flights actually did so?

What about combining the absence of evidence of planes having crashed--the indications of video fakery in New York, the reporters on the scene reports of no evidence of planes having crashed at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, the failure of the government to produce even one uniquely identifiable component part out of millions from any of the planes that allegedly crashed, the discovery that the alleged phone calls from the planes--all of them--turn out to be fake, FAA records showing two of the planes were not deregistered until 2002 and the other two not until 2005, and the failure of the government to prove that the 19 alleged hijackers were aboard any of the planes--with concern about what in the world could have happened to the passengers, if those flights were actually phantom rather than real? And why has Judge Hellerstein reversed standard judicial procedure to deliberate on damages prior to taking testimony about liability for the few families who have not accepted money from the survivors' fund, which appears to have been calculated to keep the airlines from having to testify in court, where they might expose the entire charade? If there were no planes, then what has become of the passengers? or were they fabricated, too?

Here is my draft petition:
(or use this link: http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2010/05/help-wanted-find-proo...)

HELP WANTED (Draft)
WE ARE LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE OF 9/11 HIJACKINGS

The FBI changed its list of 19 hijackers and has never acknowledged that at least seven of those named are still alive, even when factors like birth dates, home towns and residences were checked!

What do hijackers need?
Planes!

Were there planes on 9/11?

There was more evidence of plane fakery than actual planes in New York
There have been no positive identifications of any uniquely identifiable component parts of planes alleged to have been hijacked that day.
Two of the planes allegedly used were not de-registered until 2002 and the others not until 2005.

What about the passengers?
None of the phone calls allegedly made from any of the four planes that day have been authenticated as having been made from the planes as we were told originally.

What about the airlines?
The airlines have still not been allowed to testify in court.

WAS 9/11 A “HIJACKING” WITHOUT HIJACKERS, PASSENGERS OR PLANES?

We demand to know the truth from the courts and our Congress. Please help us by signing this petition and by spreading this message around the Internet!

What if they released all the footage, and it showed exactly what it already shows, only in higher resolution. Then what? Is it time to dump TV Fakery after that?

We need someone representing the government to testify under oath about the footage released and to answer questions from the public. Without meaningful public input there won't be any resolution to any of these issues.

oh yeh and Dean, if "someone" represented the gummint under
oaf, yeah, we should have a say in who that someone was. cause
yeah, if it was like donny rumsmell or the like, fire it up, Shallel!
perhaps it could also be a whole lot of someones NOT representing
the same swine that we think (know) did the very unthinkable. just saying.

hi what happened, if the pigs released footage that showed
the same dum stuff we already have, then it would just
reinforce fakey wakey.video experts would need to be consulted,
but we have multiples in our midst. it would be same old same old.
fake same old.
and may i say that i have an inkling that some, maybe many
might be interested in what one of the ONLY no planer sporting groups
known to man or woman kind (let us know if there are others, please)
have to say. thus maybe the umpteen unknown fake looking entities...


translation: i think they're checking out this group since we're one
of real not many!

Does this group think any changes need to be made to my draft flyer? Here it is again: http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2010/05/help-wanted-find-proo...

My point with the flyer is to get attention and not get bogged down with too much detail just yet. If you have specific changes, let me know. Otherwise I will forward it to other groups.

Following up on my last message, here is my new article which explains how we can best get information from our government on 9/11:

http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2010/05/public-liaison-would-...

The errors in Simon Shack's work are serious. TV Fakery doesn't make sense, and (with much effort) I have not been able to convince myself that TV Fakery was a part of the 9:03AM "second hit" videos. I don't think it happened, Sandy.

Could this be projected from a satellite?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S69yA7si0hg

we have the technology

Excellent find, Sharon!

ok What Happened, every one is shirley entitled to their own own
opinions.
i haint no expert yet i feel sure by this time that no pics of 2nd hit
planes were real, butt fake, ......wait.....i think that first hit on
wtc was real tho blurred. oh gosh, it's all so frreakin complicated..


i am not gonna bitch out anyone who has their own speckalation.
without that, i think we would be at square one, or at the most, two.
we hafta specalate.
Dean, the more we can maybe find out about any such possible
flights would shed only good light on our quest. unless it was bogus.
i say no thing that the swine said about 9/11 was true. l

sorry Sandy, I thought this was the same as fakery. TV fakery must not be the same. we really need a real investigation of 9/11.
I know that nothing I saw that day happened the way they told us. 9 years researching and still searching for the truth. Where was the noise of the plane engines sliding across the concrete floor. should have been heard like nails on a chaukboard. no planes.

I have written a new article in which I articulate the logic of considering the "no plane" concept. Comments are welcome as this group is a work in progress shared by all of us!
http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2010/05/to-solve-the-crime-of...

Lovely essay, especially the "hot" and "cold" part of the parent's gift.

hi Dean, oh yeah, i did see your flyer and like it. also like
the idea of a someone answering our questions, cause like
you said, basically all we get is the blah blah blah.
it would be interesting at least, and put them on the spot
also, where they need to be. they'd probably do whatever it
takes to avoid the question scenario. they flunk out at that one.
i have lost every shred of any hope of any confidence in
this so called government. what are they governing? they're
screwing the world up with alarming speed, they're trampling
our rights and messing with us thru the corrupt media, they
shrug it off when anyone mentions 9/11, act like WE're the
crazy ones, which we all know we're not..
not to mention, they're mass murderers, obomba included
i am sad to say.. and heartless bastards probably fits, too.
i kinda think we hafta go over their guilty heads to get
anywhere.... tho i'm not even sure anyone has the nuts to
take them on. i was greatly inspired when the ICC came
into the scene, in the midst of the bash horrors, but they're
piddling around and being no doubt threatened by the yoo
ess, etc. and so far haven't done a dang thing far's i can see.


i like your ideas and think they are worthy, and if you
can get any of these turdballs to give the actual people any
air time and feedback, power to ya.. thanks!

yes on the article, Dean, and thanks for calling them liars!

thanks Sharon, tee vee fakery the same as what? it
gets confusing, as of course they intended. their whole
story was bogus. i haven't noticed any part that was true.
the first hit on wtc could have been real on the video, but
their story is fake, about hijackers, etc. some parts are
real, some are fake, i'm convinced, on the videos, but the
whole story of hijackers, etc. fake, made up crap, in my book.
good to hear from you, say more about what you think
if you wanna. it's confusing on purpose, it's not our fault! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBpTWYUgvcM

I am interested in hearing what everyone thinks about this video on youtube and the series of videos it belongs to.

oh yeah, this one is a goodie! thanks for posting this, Dean,
and again, lots of brownie points for being willing to check this
stuff out. i second your being interested in hearing what
everyone thinks. i think BUSTED! and a little sloppy on the job!

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

Here is the opposing view to the link I put on this wall yesterday. Which point of view is more believable and why?

I can't move on with any petition unless we can understand why the official theory re: the planes could be wrong. On the "whatzit" article, the author criticizes the late Holmgren and others for not identifying compression that takes place in "translating" content from one form of media to another. The authors shows the planes coming out clearly when the compression is reduced. Any ideas on this?

Here is a link that proves that the media used fictitious names on the passenger lists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze5Fg9Nw9YA&NR=1

These are two exceptional studies of the passenger lists, which bear all the signs of fabrication. This is an important contribution to 9/11 studies.

Thanks, Jim! There appears to be no reason why the media could not have done as it ordinarily does in a plane disaster: go right to the federal agencies (FBI, FAA) which are the best sources.
Here is where I am at: the videos of WTC, the passenger lists, the proof of two planes listed as in operation long after 9/11, etc. make me want to form a hypothesis about what happened to the passengers and planes. I think it would help to have a story to present to skeptics, who always ask, "OK, so what happened to the passengers?" I will present the hypothesis soon.

Dear Members of Dead Men Talking:

Here is my hypothesis on a no-plane theory. See if I have adequately tested it:
http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2010/06/hypothesis-there-were...

Dean, I like it. It's simple. I question #2, though. You presume that either the videos were faked (hard to do) or that something else hit the towers. Also, Fetzer's comment presumes a plane (that it flew impossibly fast). What I'm saying is that nothing hit the building. The reason why the plane flew "impossibly fast" and the fact that there was no plane debris at the south face of WTC 2 is because it was a projected image of a plane. It really explains everything and wipes out a wide conspiracy. Keep it up, Dean!

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/hypothesis-there-were-no-1

People need to hear what happened in the form of a story. My draft of the no planes hypothesis continues with this story.

This article focuses on the planes and passengers of 9/11:

http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2010/06/hypothesis-this-is-wh...

wow, still impressed, Dean. as for any passengers
that might have been on actual planes that went other
than where the offishal story said they went, it might be
rather likely that all of those people were killed.

i don't know that, it just goes along with what a bunch
of mass murderers would do with in the way people.

if Webby is listening, or someone else who remembers
this stuff, some people somewhere (Thomas Potter possibly)
have info on 'passengers' never listed as dead, too.

Dean, you're a real asset in all of this. awesome work!

i keep wondering what it was that made you change
your thinking about planes or no planes, and why can't a
lot of others go there.
you certainly have done your homework. A+!