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

[Mehmet Inan]

Jim,

I listen you video. Mainly it’s a good job. But there are still many wrong points:

16:20 - It’s impossible to revoke a 767 hitting WTC1 on basis of this video. Wingspan is consistent with 767. So there was a 767, and nothing permits us to deny it was AA11.

17:30 - The plane entry is natural. No deceleration is possible. Only wing tips could remain outside, and it happened in such manner. Criticizing the planes entry is wrong.

30:00 - Twin towers: Do not more waste time; just explain how they were demolished. It’s so simple. And we know that today. But our division, our refusal to speak sincerely, to change our opinion when required, makes us continue to not be able to explain how the towers were demolished.

34:43 - “Core columns converted to fine dust” is wrong. They just felt down, dust on them hides their fall and the video’s precision is very bad.

44:00 - You tell too many explosives or methods to demolish the towers, but the true one should be clearly visible when evidence is shown. Still have to choice between so many explosives shows the study is not strong enough.

47:15 - Burn cars is meaningless in 9/11. I know, this is related to the “Space beam” theory of JW, but this theory is wrong, definitely wrong. Sincere researchers should not more speak about it.

50:55 - The damage span on the Pentagon is 120ft wide, from column 8 to column 20, with traces of the wings; do not reduce it W10xH17ft. Show whole pictures, whole damage. The imprint of the plane is on the façade, see wings’ traces on C20, C19, C18. All these damages are consistent with a plane impacting the pentagon at 52° while coming from south east and crossing all broken light poles.

51:45 - The picture is fake, computer made. Do not more use it.

52:45 - A 737 has the engines nearer to the wings, and with slats entered, it can fly at ground level with automatic control on board. The plane is not a 757, but it’s a 737.

54:21 - Blue part is not a container, just a covered tent for clearing people. Nothing is covered in that picture. This is not evidence.

56:16 - The turbine part could be consistent with a high pressure turbine of an airliner engine.

56:30 - Not more use A3 sky warrior. It's not consistent with 95ft wingspan, and the orientation of the wings is not consistent with the wings imprint on the facade.

59:19 - There is no change in the intercept procedures on June 2001. The texts are some different, but their meaning is exactly the same; there were only text move from reference into the text itself. I checked that precisely, even with my half bad English, but I am sure, I invite you to compare the meaning of both texts.

1:01:10 - The flight path of the plane is consistent with the broken light poles. Cisco station witnesses are liars. The FDR is fake, it’s planted inside the plane and it stops seconds before impact.

1:04:00 - UA93 crash site is meaningless in 9/11. There is not enough information to know what really happened on that plane. We just know the take off time, and crash time. Even takeover time is wrong in official reports. But we can not tell there was no plane crashed there.

Kevin Barett part on the last video.
10:53 - Neocons and Islamism share some values! Do not compare Neocons to Muslims. Mainly he spoke well; I do not agree that he speaks out about Islamic principles. If you want to speak out about Islam, you must ask Muslims represent themselves, you should not speak on their behalf. That includes that using the name "Muslims for 9/11 truth" while there is no Muslim and the web site is led by a non Muslims. Let that name be used by Muslims.

There is too much confusion, on 9/11 and wrong or weak evidences create more confusion. We must have a complete scenario that explains everything and is consistent with all known evidence. I am telling that since 2006, and we are still making garbage by using too many theories which are not related each to other.

As long as people continue to speak out on such unrelated theories, I do not trust them. Sorry to tell that, but I am sincere; I do not want to lie.

[Mehmet Inan]

After 9 years, all hypotheses should be compared and only the true one should have wone. As we are unable to consider other hypotheses, the confusion and garbage continue.

Thoth II said:where knowledge is never perfect like you are suggesting, but several competing hypotheses try to explain the evidence and the one with highest likliehood will win out, but only TENTATIVELY, because more evidence might come along.

[Thoth II]

Mehmet

well to quantify this, I could make some tentative conclusions on certain topics already. We could certainly add to this list of specific topics longer than we have but :

CODE: H N = nth hypothesis , E = evidence , L = probability of hypothesis explaining evidence:

(1) topic: "collapse" of twin towers : E = two gigantic towers turned to fine talcum powder in 10 seconds

H1: pancake collapse ; L = 0%
H2: thermite alone : L = under a few percent
H3: DEW: L = high percent
H4: mini nuke : L = high or even higher percent
H5: Mehmet you add your preferred hypotheses and your likelihood (percentage score)

(2) topic: take one of the famous videos of the hits of south tower, I've seen a few but they are essentially same:

H1: Boeing planes are really being depicted in those videos hitting tower ; L = 0%
comment: 0% because these videos show violations of laws of physics and aerodynamics, never happens
H2: Hologram plane : L = moderate to high percentage
H3: CGI or video compositing: L = high percentage
H4: mehmet you add your hypothesis and percentage score.

Now if you take all the evidence into account your score should seem reasonable.

that is a small taste of how science should be done

[sandy rose]

hi Jim, i see a bit has been going on here. neato! i been away from
the keyboard for a while trying madly to make rent.
it'll take me a bit to catch up on what's happened since then, but
i still definitely dig the idea of trying to get members more involved.
i mentioned my kid's online group before, and this would never
work here, because we'd be left with maybe 8 members or so, but
on their group they are required to participate. i kinda like that.
and yes, i can help keep track of answers to questions, as soon
as i get back on track. i might have missed some important stuff here.
how bout even like have one question per week. people could be
asked to respond, and i really like the idea of sending mails directly
to each person, since they will also get that in their personal e mails,
so as not to miss em. the topics could be usually 9/11 or other
government conspiracy related, but we could also throw in other
stuff to keep folks interested. the questions could come from you or
people could send you questions that they want to ask the whole
group, but i dunno how much action you'll get off of that. i've seen
you give out your personal e mail address here before, i think and
maybe more people would play if they didn't have to do it in front of
the whole group. but i think when (if) people respond to the questions
they should do it on the group in hopes of getting more talk going.
a couple of questions i might ask, if i had the opportunity, would be,
who do you think were responsible for 9/11? what could the 9/11
truth movement do as a whole to work toward justice for the criminals
who did this? what is your greatest fear about all of this, etc.

now, if you ask questions like this, a lot of people, especially the ones
who hide behind fake names/pictures will probly not answer because
of the fear factor. and i do agree there is that. but that's a nuther
reason to throw in some more comfortable questions, like, um...
when you escape the horrors of 9/11 truth for a while, what things
do you like to have in your happy place? ..what was the first thing
that made you question the offishal story? who is your most admired
truther, famous or regular person? etc etc. i

..
it won't save the world or stop the madness, i guess, but it might
get the group more involved and less just watching what other people
do.
another thought is that when someone has something they want
the whole group to see, like Dean Hartwell's articles on planes and
passengers, good work, there Dean, they could send them through
you to be forwarded to every member of the group. it is fun to get
e mails in the personal e mail saying somebody has left you a
message at this group, or responded to your
whatever, so that in itself, regardless of the content, i think would
be a good thing. and i'll be back later, thanks, Jim!

[sandy rose]

and i saw part of a response from one person, sorry i forget the name, who
forgot they were even on this group, and that might happen a bit, since it's
the type that ya hafta come to to participate, it doesn't come ta ya. unless
we send out messages individually to every member on group. i like it.
i think a bunch of people will actually like being asked their opinions. carry on.

[sandy rose]

oh lookie, (at clg news), the preddidint wants the authority to shut down
the internet! wee haw! we must be scaring em silly.

hey, is anyone else curious about the book, the Dark Heart i think it's
called, that the dod or whomever bought up all the copies of and burnt them
so as to hide some seeeecrets? wow, and now it's gonna be a best seller!
that'll show em! i for one am pretty curious what was/is in that book. hhmmm.
it was concerning the horrid war in Afghanistan, and we all know what spurred that on.

[James H. Fetzer]

Mehmet,

Many thanks for your critique. I appreciate the time and effort that went into this. I will make comments on yours.

Mehmet Inan said:

Jim,

I listen you video. Mainly it’s a good job. But there are still many wrong points:

16:20 - It’s impossible to revoke a 767 hitting WTC1 on basis of this video. Wingspan is consistent with 767. So there was a 767, and nothing permits us to deny it was AA11.

You seem to be taking for granted that the cut-outs on the sides of the building were made by planes, when they seem to have been created by the clever use of explosives. One of my slides even shows how the wing tip of the right wing was extended after the fact. A real crash would not make a cartoon cut-out, but would be more like an irregular hole. The wings, the tail, and most of the seats, bodies, and luggage would have fallen to the ground (at both alleged crash sites).

So what we are viewing is a form of fakery. The time-sequenced study by Rosalee Grable, of course, does not look at all like a 767. And we have multiple indications that I cannot have been Flight 11, which, like Flight 77, was not scheduled for flight that day. I have discovered an exceptional study of the Naudet Brothers film, which you might like to read. It is at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm There appears to be an updated version which I have no read yet.

17:30 - The plane entry is natural. No deceleration is possible. Only wing tips could remain outside, and it happened in such manner. Criticizing the planes entry is wrong.

I don't know where you studied physics, but the resistance provided by the eight (8) floors, each of which represented an acre of concrete on steel trusses connected to the core columns would have been massive. The deceleration would have been virtually 100% (that is, the velocity of the plane would have dropped to zero) from the massive difference in their mass and density. Think of a car hitting an enormous tree or an empty beer can smashing against a brick wall.

30:00 - Twin towers: Do not more waste time; just explain how they were demolished. It’s so simple. And we know that today. But our division, our refusal to speak sincerely, to change our opinion when required, makes us continue to not be able to explain how the towers were demolished.

Explaining how the towers were destroyed is ANYTHING BUT simple. I would appreciate elaboration of what you have in mind. We have two 500,000-ton buildings that are being destroyed from the top down, much of which involves their conversion into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. It was essential to convert most of their mass into dust in order to make sure that the bathtub was not seriously damaged, which would have been catastrophic for lower Manhattan.

34:43 - “Core columns converted to fine dust” is wrong. They just felt down, dust on them hides their fall and the video’s precision is very bad.

Well, how can you deny that, if the buildings were being converted into very find dust, then the parts of the buildings were being converted into very fine dust? Sometimes what is true of the whole is not true of the parts, such as these buildings in their entirety were 110 floors tall, but that is clearly not true of their individual floors as parts. With regard to converting them into very fine dust, however, the buildings could not have been converted unless (most of) their parts were as well.

44:00 - You tell too many explosives or methods to demolish the towers, but the true one should be clearly visible when evidence is shown. Still have to choice between so many explosives shows the study is not strong enough.

That is because I am explaining how scientific inquiries take place as four stages: PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION, ADAPTATION, and EXPLANATION. If possible explanations are excluded as alternatives from the beginning (say, on psychological or moral or political grounds), then even when we determine which of the remaining alternatives has the highest measuer of support, it will still be false if we have mistakenly excluded the true hypothesis from consideration.

47:15 - Burn cars is meaningless in 9/11. I know, this is related to the “Space beam” theory of JW, but this theory is wrong, definitely wrong. Sincere researchers should not more speak about it.

The damage to the cars is relevant evidence that needs to be explained by an acceptable theory of how this was done. I don't know how you know that Dr. Wood's hypothesis of the use of some kind of directed energy weapon is "definitely wrong", since that is not something that I claim to know myself, so I would like to hear your argument about it. You are committing an obvious blunder in excluding some effects from consideration when they so clearly require explanation.

50:55 - The damage span on the Pentagon is 120ft wide, from column 8 to column 20, with traces of the wings; do not reduce it W10xH17ft. Show whole pictures, whole damage. The imprint of the plane is on the façade, see wings’ traces on C20, C19, C18. All these damages are consistent with a plane impacting the pentagon at 52° while coming from south east and crossing all broken light poles.

No, I think you have been taken in by other studies that make those claims. Most of them locate the "hit point" wrongly on the second floor and to the left of the actual hit point on the ground floor. There has been quite a lot of misinformation about this. Any Boeing 757 that had come in at that angle and hit lampposts would have had its wing burst into flame and broken off, throwing the plane into a spin in which the tail would have broken off, too. Did I not explain all of this?

51:45 - The picture is fake, computer made. Do not more use it.

I will have to take a look to make sure which photo you are talking about. If it is the clear, green, unblemished lawn, you are seriously mistaken. We have many other photos that also show the lawn as clear, green, and unblemished, when, if the official account were true, the low traveling trajectory would have caused the engines to plow furrows in the ground or otherwise disrupt it and, of course, as we know, such a low trajectory at such high speed is not aerodynamically possible.

52:45 - A 737 has the engines nearer to the wings, and with slats entered, it can fly at ground level with automatic control on board. The plane is not a 757, but it’s a 737.

You mean, the plane that YOU TAKE TO HAVE BEEN THE PLANE INVOLVED was not a 757 but a 737? Am I reading your right? But of course, I have already explained, as I do in my presentation, that the official trajectory is not even an aerodynamically possible trajectory for a 737 no less than a 757. So it cannot have happened that way, regardless. But I am intrigued as to why you think this was a 737 rather than a 757, even though neither kind of plane hit the Pentagon.

54:21 - Blue part is not a container, just a covered tent for clearing people. Nothing is covered in that picture. This is not evidence.

There is a military way to do everything. It is of course evidence of a box covered by blue tarps being carried by several non-commissioned officers. As a former Marine Corps officer, however, I can tell you that those tarps do not look right, if they were following standard practice for folding and storing tarps. I didn't mean for this to be taken as an especially key piece of evidence, but it is curious that this "box of tarps" is being carried off. I suspect something was being concealed.

56:16 - The turbine part could be consistent with a high pressure turbine of an airliner engine.

Well, what airliner? The proof I present already rules out any big Boeing (say, 737, 747, 757) from having flown into it. I take it that it is consistent with the JT8D used in the Skywarrior. But if you want to elaborate, then please tell us more.

56:30 - Not more use A3 sky warrior. It's not consistent with 95ft wingspan, and the orientation of the wings is not consistent with the wings imprint on the facade.

I cite the study by Dewdney and Lonspapugh, which I also discuss in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which you can access via google. I think what you are citing is incorrect. You seem to be relying upon the work of others such as Jim Hoffman, who has mislocated the hit point and made other arguments about the impression of the wings on the facade which are not well-founded. And where are the wings, the tail, the seats, the bodies, the engines?

59:19 - There is no change in the intercept procedures on June 2001. The texts are some different, but their meaning is exactly the same; there were only text move from reference into the text itself. I checked that precisely, even with my half bad English, but I am sure, I invite you to compare the meaning of both texts.

I am quite sure you are mistaken. I will have to track down a reference on this, but they were changed in June 2001 and then changed back after 9/11 to make sure that there would be an intercept only if the Secretary of Defense approved it.
And of course Secretary Rumsfeld was "missing in action" for some two hours from the time of the first hit on the North Tower until after the attack on the Pentagon, when he conspicuously participated in removing a casualty from the lawn.

1:01:10 - The flight path of the plane is consistent with the broken light poles. Cisco station witnesses are liars. The FDR is fake, it’s planted inside the plane and it stops seconds before impact.

Egad! How could you possibly know who is and who is not lying? The Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained data--allegedly from Flight 77--which was provided by the NTSB, When they analysed the data, they found that it corresponded to a different flight trajectory approaching due east which was too high to have hit any lampposts and flew over the building. No doubt, something is fake, but the CIT witnesses and the trucker buddy of a friend of mine have testified that is what happened.


1:04:00 - UA93 crash site is meaningless in 9/11. There is not enough information to know what really happened on that plane. We just know the take off time, and crash time. Even takeover time is wrong in official reports. But we can not tell there was no plane crashed there.

Well, if you watched the footage then you know that reporters at the scene said the eeriest feature was that there was no indication that any crash had taken place there. The fake photo of the smoke, the absence of any wreckage, the failure to break out the bright lights and dig 24/7 to save a life or at least recover the bodies indications there were no bodies to recover. If a plane had crashed, there would be extensive debris. There was no such debris. No plane crashed there.

Kevin Barett part on the last video.
10:53 - Neocons and Islamism share some values! Do not compare Neocons to Muslims. Mainly he spoke well; I do not agree that he speaks out about Islamic principles. If you want to speak out about Islam, you must ask Muslims represent themselves, you should not speak on their behalf. That includes that using the name "Muslims for 9/11 truth" while there is no Muslim and the web site is led by a non Muslims. Let that name be used by Muslims.

Apparently you do not know that Kevin is a Muslim and co-founded of Musliims for 9/11 Truth. I thought this point and most of the rest of what I have pointed out in response to your critique was explained during our presentations. I am afraid that I am no impressed by your criticisms, which do not appear to be well-founded. Your best case is about the blue tarps, but that was not a very important point to begin with, just a curiosity one with military experience would notice.

There is too much confusion, on 9/11 and wrong or weak evidences create more confusion. We must have a complete scenario that explains everything and is consistent with all known evidence. I am telling that since 2006, and we are still making garbage by using too many theories which are not related each to other.

I don't want to insult you and I appreciate the time and effort you spent preparing this critique, but your suggestion that I am trading in "garbage" is not really illuminating, given the quality of your critique. I suggest that you give these matters additional thought and appreciate that I am explaining the steps of scientific investigations, not setting out to prove one or another of those theories to be true because, so far as I have been able to determine, we do not yet know which is true.

As long as people continue to speak out on such unrelated theories, I do not trust them. Sorry to tell that, but I am sincere; I do not want to lie.

Neither do I. I appreciate your candor. I am glad you are here. Thank you for your critique. You have my est wishes, Jim

[sandy rose]

in response to Jim's questions,

1: 9/11 was a:( a terrorist act), and b:(an inside job), and they MIHOP
(made it happen on purpose) i consider the criminals who did 9/11 to
be terrorists, so for me a and b are both correct.

2: the videos i think are some fake and some real. my opinion is the
first hit on wtc naudet film was real, tho distorted and that all videos of
the second hit on wtc are faked. thanks to video experts who have shown
us the way on that. please search web fairy 9/11 section if you haven't already..

3: the collapses,
i believe all 3 buildings were brought down intentionally, tho i'm not
educated enough in this area to know if they were normal controlled
demolition, or advanced weaponry, etc.

4: building 7 same as above. and one of our best samples of inside job.

5: the pentagone,
well, i think scramjets were involved, maybe at the pentagone also,
or missile, either of which would have been launced by a fly by plane..

6: shanksville p.a.
answer b.

7: passengers on all planes, i don't know. but unfortunately, if any of
them were not willing participants, i would fear that they were killed.

where the movement should go from here? wherever the clues
take us, and we should never ever ever give up. and people should put
in their opinions and input. that is what we are here for. 9/11 inside job.

thanks for asking, Jim, and for people not familiar with the process but
want to answer, go to 'forums' and click on 'open discussion', and it helps
to write your answers down ahead of time. want to hear what yawl have ta say!!

[Thoth II]

Jim,

"That is because I am explaining how scientific inquiries take place as four stages: PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION, ADAPTATION, and EXPLANATION. If possible explanations are excluded as alternatives from the beginning (say, on psychological or moral or political grounds), then even when we determine which of the remaining alternatives has the highest measuer of support, it will still be false if we have mistakenly excluded the true hypothesis from consideration."

I really appreciate that you would be the founder of this forum, because you understand how science should really be done. For example, Steven Jones' and his ilk turn me off because they ARE NOT including non-conventional alternatives in their list of possible H1, H2, etc., hypotheses, and thus are not doing science correct. They have tunnel vision from the beginning, and I can't for anything imagine why. For example, why do they think that thermite, an incendiary, would pulverize material?? I don't get it. And was there really that much molten metal at bottom of towers? I haven't seen anyt hing to indicate that expect the molten metal pouring out of one single floor.

The only H(N) , hypothesis that should be excluded are ones that do not satisfy the adequacy conditions of (a) derivability, (b) lawlike-ness (which is defined rigorously), (c) exclusion of irrelevant factors. I learned this on one I think it was HD or something radio show you appeared on, where you go for an hour through logical fallacies, and an hour through scientific reasoning.

[James H. Fetzer]

Thoth II: You are absolutely spot-on! I discuss the inadequacy of Steve's conception of scientific method in a two-hour program, which is archived on 911scholars.org under "The Science of 9/11" with the title, "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community". Perhaps you read it there. Did I say enough about Mehmet's critique of my London presentation? Thanks.

Thoth II said:

Jim, "That is because I am explaining how scientific inquiries take place as four stages: PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION, ADAPTATION, and EXPLANATION. If possible explanations are excluded as alternatives from the beginning (say, on psychological or moral or political grounds), then even when we determine which of the remaining alternatives has the highest measuer of support, it will still be false if we have mistakenly excluded the true hypothesis from consideration."

I really appreciate that you would be the founder of this forum, because you understand how science should really be done. For example, Steven Jones' and his ilk turn me off because they ARE NOT including non-conventional alternatives in their list of possible H1, H2, etc., hypotheses, and thus are not doing science correct. They have tunnel vision from the beginning, and I can't for anything imagine why. For example, why do they think that thermite, an incendiary, would pulverize material?? I don't get it. And was there really that much molten metal at bottom of towers? I haven't seen anyt hing to indicate that expect the molten metal pouring out of one single floor.

The only H(N) , hypothesis that should be excluded are ones that do not satisfy the adequacy conditions of (a) derivability, (b) lawlike-ness (which is defined rigorously), (c) exclusion of irrelevant factors. I learned this on one I think it was HD or something radio show you appeared on, where you go for an hour through logical fallacies, and an hour through scientific reasoning.

[Thoth II]

Jim,

yes, you critiqued Mehmet excellently, you are a true logician!!!

[Mehmet Inan]

16:20 - It’s impossible to revoke a 767 hitting WTC1 on basis of this video. Wingspan is consistent with 767. So there was a 767, and nothing permits us to deny it was AA11.

JF, “The wings, the tail, and most of the seats, bodies, and luggage would have fallen to the ground (at both alleged crash sites).”

That’s the basis of your claim. But, sorry, I do not share that. The exterior columns of the buildings at these higher floors were made with very thin plates, because higher columns bore less weight, and the perimeter columns supported only vertical weight, and their number remained 240columns and their exterior dimensions were always 13x14inches. So they were easy to damage, and the conservation of movement energy (Mass x Speed), during whole impact duration, makes these columns were easily broken. That’s why the central part of the impact holes was completely open, only the wing tips did not break the columns (due to their small weight).

To consider your claim, the building should be a huge concrete block. And it was not.

Conclusion 1: the entry of the planes was natural, and normal.

JF, “So what we are viewing is a form of fakery.”

Sorry, the study was not enough strong. That does not led to any fakery.

JF, “The time-sequenced study by Rosalee Grable, of course, does not look at all like a 767.”

I do not know what you are speaking about. A link please. If you are speaking about the absence of deceleration during the impact, this absence of visible deceleration is natural. The plane parts were not able to bore ant deceleration within so short time.

JF, “And we have multiple indications that I cannot have been Flight 11, which, like Flight 77, was not scheduled for flight that day.”

I can not be sure that these planes were not scheduled. It’s impossible to check that. And there is no reason for such regular flights not be scheduled.

JF, “I have discovered an exceptional study of the Naudet Brothers film, which you might like to read. It is at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm There appears to be an updated version which I have no read yet.”

What ever it is, we have not enough strong evidence to refute the presence of AA11 and UA175 on the towers.

17:30 - The plane entry is natural. No deceleration is possible. Only wing tips could remain outside, and it happened in such manner. Criticizing the planes entry is wrong.

JF, “I don't know where you studied physics”

I do never attack people’s study. I focus evidence and mathematics, physics, … Let’s focus science. Do not come with such accusation against me. I do respect you, you are one of the last people of 9/11 truth movement I still respect.

JF, “but the resistance provided by the eight (8) floors, each of which represented an acre of concrete on steel trusses connected to the core columns would have been massive. The deceleration would have been virtually 100% (that is, the velocity of the plane would have dropped to zero) from the massive difference in their mass and density. Think of a car hitting an enormous tree or an empty beer can smashing against a brick wall.”

The tree was not enormous resistance. You can find more resistance on floor levels, made by 4 inches thick concrete, but the remaining empty space was 140 inches wide. You can understand that 4 inches was cutting edge for the plane. If we consider the fuselage only, we have about 3 floors only.

30:00 - Twin towers: Do not more waste time; just explain how they were demolished. It’s so simple. And we know that today. But our division, our refusal to speak sincerely, to change our opinion when required, makes us continue to not be able to explain how the towers were demolished.

JF, “Explaining how the towers were destroyed is ANYTHING BUT simple. I would appreciate elaboration of what you have in mind. We have two 500,000-ton buildings that are being destroyed from the top down, much of which involves their conversion into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. It was essential to convert most of their mass into dust in order to make sure that the bathtub was not seriously damaged, which would have been catastrophic for lower Manhattan.”

Here is a copy of slide 49 in my power point (users.swing.be/mehmeti/). It was updated last year, and now it’s definite. This is a summary, not a complete explanation.
“According to all available evidence, picture and videos, the demolition has to be done in three steps:
1- Above floor 77/WTC2 and 89/WTC1, explode the core columns at their welded junctions starting from impact floor in order to make the upper part fall as it happened.
2- Explode the floor trusses seats at their junctions to the core columns + detach some horizontal and diagonal connections of the core columns.
3- Explode some key core columns near the ground to make the erected core columns collapse.”

By such demolition, there will be huge amount of dust; the ejections will go upward before fall out of the building, exactly as it happened.

34:43 - “Core columns converted to fine dust” is wrong. They just felt down, dust on them hides their fall and the video’s precision is very bad.

JF, “Well, how can you deny that, if the buildings were being converted into very find dust, then the parts of the buildings were being converted into very fine dust?”

The explosions, the broken concrete and broken asbestos created huge amount of dust. That dust modified the visibility of steel parts. That does not mean the steel was transformed in to dust.

44:00 - You tell too many explosives or methods to demolish the towers, but the true one should be clearly visible when evidence is shown. Still have to choice between so many explosives shows the study is not strong enough.

JF, “That is because I am explaining how scientific inquiries take place as four stages: PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION, ADAPTATION, and EXPLANATION. If possible explanations are excluded as alternatives from the beginning (say, on psychological or moral or political grounds), then even when we determine which of the remaining alternatives has the highest measuer of support, it will still be false if we have mistakenly excluded the true hypothesis from consideration.”

I excluded nothing, and I had to change my opinion too many times, I had to make it again on this precise subject still last year. See slide 49 of my power point.

47:15 - Burn cars is meaningless in 9/11. I know, this is related to the “Space beam” theory of JW, but this theory is wrong, definitely wrong. Sincere researchers should not more speak about it.

JF, “The damage to the cars is relevant evidence that needs to be explained by an acceptable theory of how this was done. I don't know how you know that Dr. Wood's hypothesis of the use of some kind of directed energy weapon is "definitely wrong", since that is not something that I claim to know myself, so I would like to hear your argument about it. You are committing an obvious blunder in excluding some effects from consideration when they so clearly require explanation.”

On the time of separation of ST911, end of 2006, I have explained that to you and some other people, but it seems that nobody read it? The energy needed from a space beam to be used on such action is too far beyond 1.000.000watts (1 mega watt). The available energy in the space is about 100 to 1000 watts! Only that is enough to tell that space beam theory is definitely wrong. Also do you imagine how dangerous would be to get a little imprecise orientation of the beam?

50:55 - The damage span on the Pentagon is 120ft wide, from column 8 to column 20, with traces of the wings; do not reduce it W10xH17ft. Show whole pictures, whole damage. The imprint of the plane is on the façade, see wings’ traces on C20, C19, C18. All these damages are consistent with a plane impacting the pentagon at 52° while coming from south east and crossing all broken light poles.

JF, “No, I think you have been taken in by other studies that make those claims.”

I do never support anything that I did not study. My work on the Pentagon is in slides 21 to 32 of my power point. First study it precisely, be very critical, but remain sincere. Then I am at your service to discuss every detail.

The plane was NOT a 757, it’s impossible. But it was a 737, and that fits to all evidence.

JF, “Most of them locate the "hit point" wrongly on the second floor and to the left of the actual hit point on the ground floor. There has been quite a lot of misinformation about this. Any Boeing 757 that had come in at that angle and hit lampposts would have had its wing burst into flame and broken off, throwing the plane into a spin in which the tail would have broken off, too. Did I not explain all of this?”

Only the light poles were touched at their upper parts, and that can not spin the plane so much.

51:45 - The picture is fake, computer made. Do not more use it.

JF, “I will have to take a look to make sure which photo you are talking about. If it is the clear, green, unblemished lawn, you are seriously mistaken. We have many other photos that also show the lawn as clear, green, and unblemished, when, if the official account were true, the low traveling trajectory would have caused the engines to plow furrows in the ground or otherwise disrupt it and, of course, as we know, such a low trajectory at such high speed is not aerodynamically possible.”

That’s the right picture, but I do not deny the lawn. The lawn was intact, and it remained later. The plane’s engines will not damage the lawn as long as it does not touch the lawn.

The fakery comes from the bright fire long time after the smoke rose up. The fire was added to the picture. That picture proves nothing.

52:45 - A 737 has the engines nearer to the wings, and with slats entered, it can fly at ground level with automatic control on board. The plane is not a 757, but it’s a 737.

JF, “You mean, the plane that YOU TAKE TO HAVE BEEN THE PLANE INVOLVED was not a 757 but a 737? Am I reading your right?”

Yes, you are reading right.

JF, “But of course, I have already explained, as I do in my presentation, that the official trajectory is not even an aerodynamically possible trajectory for a 737 no less than a 757.”

The direction coming from the light poles is an aerodynamically possible trajectory if the plane has an on board automatic control and the slats were not opened. The closed slats make low resistance to air. The on board automatic control reacts very quickly and adjusts the wings to keep the flight straight.

JF, “So it cannot have happened that way, regardless. But I am intrigued as to why you think this was a 737 rather than a 757, even though neither kind of plane hit the Pentagon.”

The imprint of the plane’s impact is on the façade of the Pentagon. Using the size of the imprint and its approach direction, the calculated wingspan is about 95ft, and that’s consistent with a 737. See slides 21 to 32 of my power point. I watched your three videos during hours. You can study these 12 slides.

56:16 - The turbine part could be consistent with a high pressure turbine of an airliner engine.

JF, “Well, what airliner? The proof I present already rules out any big Boeing (say, 737, 747, 757) from having flown into it. I take it that it is consistent with the JT8D used in the Skywarrior. But if you want to elaborate, then please tell us more.”

In all civil aircraft engines, you have the low pressure turbine and high pressure turbine. Low pressure turbine is too much bigger than high pressure one. In a military aircraft, the low pressure turbine is similar sized to high pressure one or little bit bigger. In this picture, we see the high pressure turbine only, and in almost all planes this part is similarly sized; i.e. smaller than the visible fan of civil aircrafts. This turbine can be from a civil aircraft, such as 737.

56:30 - Not more use A3 sky warrior. It's not consistent with 95ft wingspan, and the orientation of the wings is not consistent with the wings imprint on the facade.

JF, “I cite the study by Dewdney and Lonspapugh, which I also discuss in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which you can access via google. I think what you are citing is incorrect. You seem to be relying upon the work of others such as Jim Hoffman, who has mislocated the hit point and made other arguments about the impression of the wings on the facade which are not well-founded. And where are the wings, the tail, the seats, the bodies, the engines?”

I am not speaking about Jim Hoffman’s web site, for me he is a disinfo agent, same for Victoria Ashley. I do not more trust them. I do not know what they are doing now, I am not interested on their work. Do not associate me to anybody, I am independent and free.

The wings should be situated under the fuselage like a civil aircraft and upward directed. In an A3 sky warrior the wings are on top of the fuselage and are downward directed. Also the wingspan should be 95ft. So an A3 is impossible.

59:19 - There is no change in the intercept procedures on June 2001. The texts are some different, but their meaning is exactly the same; there were only text move from reference into the text itself. I checked that precisely, even with my half bad English, but I am sure, I invite you to compare the meaning of both texts.

JF, “I am quite sure you are mistaken. I will have to track down a reference on this, but they were changed in June 2001 and then changed back after 9/11 to make sure that there would be an intercept only if the Secretary of Defense approved it.
And of course Secretary Rumsfeld was "missing in action" for some two hours from the time of the first hit on the North Tower until after the attack on the Pentagon, when he conspicuously participated in removing a casualty from the lawn.”

The theory is good. I believe Rumsfeld was complicit and he did not answer when required. But the update of the rules was not true. I checked it, I wasted about one day only for that. Before June 2001, it was also necessary to get the approbation of defense secretary, and in the same amount, same condition, and same manner.

1:01:10 - The flight path of the plane is consistent with the broken light poles. Cisco station witnesses are liars. The FDR is fake, it’s planted inside the plane and it stops seconds before impact.

JF, “Egad! How could you possibly know who is and who is not lying? The Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained data--allegedly from Flight 77--which was provided by the NTSB, When they analysed the data, they found that it corresponded to a different flight trajectory approaching due east which was too high to have hit any lampposts and flew over the building. No doubt, something is fake, but the CIT witnesses and the trucker buddy of a friend of mine have testified that is what happened.”

When I compare “straight broken light poles, the damages direction inside the building, all available damages pictures”, and in the other side to “some people speaking on the video on basis of recorded FDR that it’s impossible to be sure on its origin”, the decision is simple: The material evidence is TOO MUCH MORE reliable than some unverifiable people. So these people are lying, or they made mistake when localized the plane.

Officials and disinformation agents want to create confusion between the members of the 9/11 truth group to make them unable to find the truth. For that purpose, they are producing fake evidence, crazy theories, all kind of wrong claims, … If we continue to stick on all their fake evidence, we are still speaking about crazy theories hundreds years later. I have no 100 years for crazy theories based on fake evidence. I believe you also do not have such long time!

1:04:00 - UA93 crash site is meaningless in 9/11. There is not enough information to know what really happened on that plane. We just know the take off time, and crash time. Even takeover time is wrong in official reports. But we can not tell there was no plane crashed there.

JF, “Well, if you watched the footage then you know that reporters at the scene said the eeriest feature was that there was no indication that any crash had taken place there. The fake photo of the smoke, the absence of any wreckage, the failure to break out the bright lights and dig 24/7 to save a life or at least recover the bodies indications there were no bodies to recover. If a plane had crashed, there would be extensive debris. There was no such debris. No plane crashed there.”

What about if the plane fallen vertically, straight descent to the ground? All debris localized in a small area, with deep holes and many small parts. Why not? Yes perfectly possible.

According to the available evidence, can we refute the presence of a plane at that area? Not at all.

Kevin Barett part on the last video.
10:53 - Neocons and Islamism share some values! Do not compare Neocons to Muslims. Mainly he spoke well; I do not agree that he speaks out about Islamic principles. If you want to speak out about Islam, you must ask Muslims represent themselves, you should not speak on their behalf. That includes that using the name "Muslims for 9/11 truth" while there is no Muslim and the web site is led by a non Muslims. Let that name be used by Muslims.

JF, “Apparently you do not know that Kevin is a Muslim and co-founded of Musliims for 9/11 Truth.”

Yes, I was not aware of that. Today I searched about him, he looks like a real truth researcher. I see now, why his speech was true in many points. Even how much I can be critics about people, I accepted that “Mainly he spoke well”.

JF, “I don't want to insult you and I appreciate the time and effort you spent preparing this critique, but your suggestion that I am trading in "garbage" is not really illuminating, given the quality of your critique. I suggest that you give these matters additional thought and appreciate that I am explaining the steps of scientific investigations, not setting out to prove one or another of those theories to be true because, so far as I have been able to determine, we do not yet know which is true.”

My work for the truth in 9/11 started in early 2003. I always worked like the construction of a puzzle. After my participation in st911 that you founded, I made very big progress. By creating st911, you made big contribution to my work. That’s why I remain polite and I respect you.

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.

In my work of the puzzle, by the time I got too many puzzle packets tied together. Now whole puzzle is almost fully completed, it remains some individual puzzle parts still empty, due to some leak of information. But these can not change the complete puzzle image.

I other words, I am ready to propose my work as the “Truth” and defend it everywhere, even in a justice court.

That’s a strong challenge for me, but also for you. If you accept that challenge, we can be able to tell “which theory is true, and which is wrong”. If we can do that, and there is no more refutation, it can become possible to erase all wrong theories, and go public with ONE STRONG AND TRUE theory.

If you refuse that, we will continue to make some noise (not garbage, the word was wrong, I looked at the dictionary for its precise meaning, sorry for the mistake), some confusion, and the truth movement will die. Now, we must SOLVE 9/11. Are you ready to solve 9/11?