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]

Mark E. Smith said: First you make an ad hominem attack, then you want others to have scientific arguments?

I just defended myself against your ad-hominem attack. When you make such sarcasm and ad-hominem attack you must expect to get an answer. And my answer was polite, measured, at the same level as yours.


Mark E. Smith said: Poor Jim--he probably still thinks you're capable of logic.

And this is another ad-hominem attack with lies.

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

And this again an ad-hominem attack with lies.

Mark E. Smith said: The deceleration wasn't invisible, the video was faked. All the videos were faked, but in different ways, and many of them contradict each other.

The deceleration was invisible because any deceleration needs some time to happen, and the time was not there. You argument is against physics laws.

If the videos were fake, they could also been made to create such deceleration if required.

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

The engines and the wings parts between them are the heaviest parts of the planes. These parts entered into the building and made the biggest damage to the façade. So the planes were real ones, B767-200 type with dead passengers inside.

If you continue your crazy claims, I’ll begin to consider you as disinfo.

[Mark E. Smith]

Please consider me as disinfo, Mehmet.

Nothing would please me more than to have somebody who supports the government's ridiculous plane story consider me to be disinfo.

[Shallel Octavia]

Mehmet, you call what I said about you an ad hominem attack and "such craziness", which it actually wasn't. I was questioning your intent and scholarliness, which is very relevant to discussing scientific topics, and has nothing to do with you personally. I still apologized. I think you owe Mark an apology for your remarks here. You alone have the right to obvious ad hominem attacks? What Mark said is called analogy. It is used to help someone who is having difficulty understanding a concept by comparing a similar more well know situation. I have never seen such hypocrisy. It seems you fail to understand basic high school physics, (and that is not an attack on you personally either). As we are discussing issues of physics, you are not qualified to be a part of this discussion.


Mehmet Inan said:

Mark E. Smith said:

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

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

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

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

[Mehmet Inan]

Mark, notice it clearly in your mind: I am NOT supporting the government story. Bu I am not accusing the government by using weak or false argument too.

YOU, you are accusing the government with false arguments, making the official story stronger and removing the credibility of any critics against the government. That's being disinformation agent.



Mark E. Smith said:

Please consider me as disinfo, Mehmet.

Nothing would please me more than to have somebody who supports the government's ridiculous plane story consider me to be disinfo.

[Mehmet Inan]

Shallel said: Mehmet, you call what I said about you an ad hominem attack and "such craziness", which it actually wasn't. I was questioning your intent and scholarliness, which is very relevant to discussing scientific topics, and has nothing to do with you personally. I still apologized. … It seems you fail to understand basic high school physics, (and that is not an attack on you personally either). As we are discussing issues of physics, you are not qualified to be a part of this discussion.

YOU decided by YOUR OWN WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT that I am not qualified to be part of this discussion! By the same you claim that I am unable to understand basic high school physics! WHILE all my arguments are science based focused onto the physics! On basis of my Muslim origin you are deciding that I am an ignorant, up to exclude me from a scientific discussion! And in that discussion you are unable to give any scientific argument! You are just able to claim that there was no planes, against all scientific arguments I gave.

Notice it clearly and definitely: I have nothing less than anybody here may be just my English is not so good, I never lived in an English country, I speak 4 languages and have some basics on two others. I got my university level certificate at 21 years old, without any double session, several times I was first of the class, some times first of the school. … I do not need to justify my science basis, but here you just forced me to tell the truth about me. I am tired to hear such crazy insults on me and coming from people who makes huge mistakes in science.

Shallel said: I think you owe Mark an apology for your remarks here. You alone have the right to obvious ad hominem attacks? What Mark said is called analogy. It is used to help someone who is having difficulty understanding a concept by comparing a similar more well know situation. I have never seen such hypocrisy.

No Shallel, Mark got what he deserves, that’s all. I just measured the speed of the planes, instead of searching if my measurement is right, he is modifying the subject by making a totally wrong analogy. So he did not made any argument against my work, but tried to make it laughable by wrong analogy. He just became laughable himself.

Everybody here, including Jim Fetzer, if you dare to break my work, my arguments, you need to be excellent scientists, not by label, but in the facts. You need to debunk the following repeated arguments:

F=ma implies :
1- There is nothing enough strong in the plane to create a reaction force enough strong to make itself decelerate enough. The 4 inches thick concrete floor slabs, separated by 144 inches empty area, are some kind of cutters which will cut the parts of the planes like a knife in the butter without creating any significant reactive force able to reduce the speed of the plane within 0.25seconds.
2- To make any speed reduction, the force should remain some time, because the speed is the integration of the acceleration, we saw no speed reduction because the small force made by the plane’s nose and fuselage existed during so short time that the speed reduction is invisible.
3- Using equations, that means F=ma --> a=F/m --> dv= F*dt/m, with m very big, F meaningless, dt=0.25s, so dv is almost null. And that’s what we saw in the videos.

These arguments are true, and they prove that your arguments of absence of deceleration are meaningless, not scientific and should be definitely stopped.

4- The speed of the plane was about 380kts, perfectly possible by such plane at such altitude with closed slats especially with some descending flight.

[Mark E. Smith]

Mehmet writes, "I just measured the speed of the planes...."

Nio, Mehmet, you measured the speed of what appeared to be a plane in a film. You weren't anywhere near the plane that you claim to have measured.

Mehmet continued, "....instead of searching if my measurement is right, he is modifying the subject by making a totally wrong analogy. So he did not made any argument against my work, but tried to make it laughable by wrong analogy. He just became laughable himself."

What is laughable is somebody basing their calculations on a faked video. Maybe you've never watched television or been to a movie, but in Superman movies, Superman appears to fly. If you assume there is no video fakery involved and that Superman really exists and can fly, you can measure his speed in flight from the movie. Nothing wrong with a child doing that. It is when a grown person tries to pretend that calculations based on movie special effects are "scientific" that they become a laughing stock. The calculations may be perfect, but there is no Superman who can fly or leap tall buildings in a single bound, no matter how many hundreds of movies may be made showing him doing just that.

Mehmet wrote, "I am NOT supporting the government story. Bu I am not accusing the government by using weak or false argument too."

You are supporting the government story, Mehmet. The government story is that planes hit the WTC buildings and caused the damage that brought them down. That's the government's story, and no matter how many times every single aspect of it has been disproven, you're sticking to it.

If you happen to have some investment money, Mehmet, would you be interested in buying a bridge? For merely a small non-refundable down payment, to prove that you're a serious investor, I can send you a film to prove that the bridge really exists, is in good condition, is still in Brooklyn, and that I have the rights to sell it. ;)

[Thoth II]

Mark: "The calculations may be perfect, but there is no Superman who can fly or leap tall buildings in a single bound, no matter how many hundreds of movies may be made showing him doing just that."

good metaphor. To believe that the Fairbanks video represents a real plane hitting that building, you'd have to believe superman could leap tall buildings. Same violations of laws of physics. How could a "flimsy" plane feeling "no force" also penetrate the building effortlessly. Makes no sense. That video is simply a fake.

There is a precedence for this: the Zapruder film was also faked to fool people into believing a false depiction of what really happened to JFK. Very clever, seeing is believing, I guess to some people.

[Mehmet Inan]

Mark E. Smith said: Mehmet writes, "I just measured the speed of the planes...."
Nio, Mehmet, you measured the speed of what appeared to be a plane in a film. You weren't anywhere near the plane that you claim to have measured.

The question is simple: You are starting from the conclusion that there was no plane. But all your arguments are wrong, and you refuse to consider the eyewitnesses, several live video cameras, damages seen after the impact, … That’s disinfo making to give an image of “paranoids” to the independent researchers on 9/11.

There is NO SINGLE strong evidence which can proves NPT. Especially these arguments destroy the NPT:

F=ma implies :
1- There is nothing enough strong in the plane to create a reaction force enough strong to make itself decelerate enough. The 4 inches thick concrete floor slabs, separated by 144 inches empty area, are some kind of cutters which will cut the parts of the planes like a knife in the butter without creating any significant reactive force able to reduce the speed of the plane within 0.25seconds.
2- To make any speed reduction, the force should remain some time, because the speed is the integration of the acceleration, we saw no speed reduction because the small force made by the plane’s nose and fuselage existed during so short time that the speed reduction is invisible.
3- Using equations, that means F=ma --> a=F/m --> dv= F*dt/m, with m very big, F meaningless, dt=0.25s, so dv is almost null. And that’s what we saw in the videos.

These arguments are true, and they prove that your arguments of absence of deceleration are meaningless, not scientific and should be definitely stopped.

4- The speed of the plane was about 380kts, perfectly possible by such plane at such altitude with closed slats especially with some descending flight.

[Mehmet Inan]

What's yoru origin Thoth? Are you also Jew like Mark?



Thoth II said:

Mark: "The calculations may be perfect, but there is no Superman who can fly or leap tall buildings in a single bound, no matter how many hundreds of movies may be made showing him doing just that."

good metaphor. To believe that the Fairbanks video represents a real plane hitting that building, you'd have to believe superman could leap tall buildings. Same violations of laws of physics. How could a "flimsy" plane feeling "no force" also penetrate the building effortlessly. Makes no sense. That video is simply a fake.

There is a precedence for this: the Zapruder film was also faked to fool people into believing a false depiction of what really happened to JFK. Very clever, seeing is believing, I guess to some people.

[Thoth II]

Mehmet,

I'm Egyptian , ha ha, like my grandfather Thoth the first, philosopher under King Tut.

Since you brought it up, thought it opens the door to reply.

But seriously, I am just really trying to follow two fields of academics and apply them to 911 (a) philosophy including critical thinking and scientific reasoning, which Jim is an expert in , (b) physics , like Chuck Boldwyn is an expert in,

and trying to apply those to all issues from JFK to 911 , etc., that is all I'm trying to do here.

[Mark E. Smith]

According to Mehmet, if you don't believe the government's plane story, or Mehmet's work in support of the government's plane story, you're either Jewish or a disinformation agent.

That means that every honest person in the 9/11 Truth movement is either Jewish or a disinfo agent. Mehmet is not alone. There was a recent post on pilotsfor911truth about 911bloggers having the same attitude as Mehmet.

The war on truth is well funded and employs many astroturfers. Without the planes, there are no Arabs with boxcutters and therefore no justification for the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan--which weren't justified even with the planes.

If you follow the news about Palestine, you know that Mossad agents often disguise themselves as Arabs to carry out false flag operations. And that there are many Arabs who are on the Mossad and/or CIA payroll.

What kind of person supports the government's lies and calls anyone who doesn't a Jew or a disinfo agent?

There are many people in the Islamic world who support Israel and the United States--those who care only about money.

In the documentary film "Operation Small Axe" there's a video of a black provocateur attempting to infiltrate and disrupt a Black Riders Liberation Party gathering. But these new generation Black Panthers know the history of how COINTELPRO used black traitors to infiltrate and destroy the original Black Panthers, so they judge people by their actions, not by their skin color. Obama is a good example of a black person who represents capitalist imperialist interests. The next President of the US will probably be female, as they have no other cards left to play. Whether it is Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, it will still be an agent of the Rockefeller interests.

Only fools judge by appearances and labels. Mehmet keeps saying that there were real planes, but that he doesn't support the government's story, which is that there were real planes. Confused, a little? There is no evidence of planes. A movie isn't evidence, particularly not a doctored movie showing an impossible event.

[Mark E. Smith]

I came across an interesting story today:

Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science; thousands of clinical trials invalidated

http://www.naturalnews.com/030209_placebo_medical_fraud.html

Of course since sugar can be harmful to diabetics, if the "placebo" given to a control group of diabetics in the test of a new drug for diabetes happens to contain sugar, it will harm the diabetics in the control group, so if the new drug is harmless (but doesn't actually help diabetics), it will appear to be helpful. But thousands of doctors and scientists never gave a thought to what was in the placebo.

There's another relevant story. Dr. Alton Ochsner was one of the most credentialed, qualified, experienced, and respected doctors in the U.S., and President of the American Cancer Society. When a new polio vaccine was produced, he was called upon to reassure the public that it was safe. He did so by having his grandchildren vaccinated publicly. His granddaughter recovered, but his grandson died of the vaccine. The vaccine was recalled and a safer version was produced. But how did such an eminent authority feel so certain that the vaccine was safe that he was willing to risk his grandchildren's lives? He hadn't actually tested the vaccine, or he'd have learned that it wasn't safe. But he believed in western medicine and the inventor of the vaccine was another highly credentialed, qualified, experienced, and respected physician like himself. So he just knew that it had to be safe, and of course he was absolutely wrong.

Mehmet knows that his math is correct. But he had no data on which to base it except for his belief that the video of a plane was real. Of course he's wrong, but only a Jew or a disinformation agent would imply that you can't believe everything you see in the movies.

A little knowledge can indeed be a dangerous thing, particularly if it happens not only to be wrong, but to endow its owner with a feeling of smug superiority bordering on hubris. Dr. Ochsner killed his grandson by stating as fact something that he didn't know and had no way of knowing. If people had taken him on his word alone, he might have killed millions of American children with that vaccine, so by killing his grandson, he actually saved many, many lives. The doctors and scientists who used placebos without bothering to find out what was in them, may have harmed millions of people by making pharmaceuticals appear to be helpful when they were not.

Science, I'm fond of saying, is often nothing more than the business of taking things out of context so as to misunderstand them better. ;)