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]

(1) 9/11 was
(a) a terrorist act: for sure
(i) involving 19 Islamic fundamentalists: not at all, Muslims are not involved
(ii) directed by Osama bin Landen from his cave: Not
(b) an inside job where: not only, also Israelis were involved
(i) the administration "let it happen": yes for the part made by Israelis
(ii) the administration "made it happen": Participated to the realization

The real answer is not included: 9/11 was made by 200 members of the “Israelis Spy Ring” (5 “dancing Israelis” were also member of those people) and the help, protection and participation of Bush Administration.

(2) The videos are
(a) authentic: most of them
(b) faked: some of them
(i) flying what'sits at the North Tower: a true 767
(ii) CGIs, compositing, or holograms at the South: no holograms, it was a 767

Useless question, asking such question is removing all credibility to the researches. Sure main videos were authentic, and only one being authentic is enough to tell the planes were there. All non authentic videos are made by “disinfo agents”. Why are we still discussing such crazy subjects?

(3) The "collapse" of the Twin Towers
(i) actually happened as the official account claims: false
(ii) represented a demolition under control: false
(a) using thermite and conventional explosives: false
(b) using unconventional methods, such as mini-nukes or some kind of directed-energy devices: false

Again the true answer is not there : There was no thermite involved in the collapse; radio controlled military explosives were used and placed at key places to make the towers collapse; Dr. Bazant probably participated to the preparation and conception of the demolition.

(4) The collapse of Building 7
(a) was collateral damage from the destruction of the Twin Towers: false
(b) was arranged and brought down by a classic controlled demolition: True

The answer is given, but this is a secondary subject; the collapse happened later, the main subject is the “strikes and the collapse of the twin towers”. That question only deviates the subject.

(5) The Pentagon attack
(a) really took place with a Boeing 757 hitting the building: false
(b) involved a fly-over by a Boeing 757 which did not hit the building: false
(c) involved a second, smaller plane that may have fired a missile into the building: false

The true answer is not given as choice: A smaller plane hit the Pentagon; it was sized same as a B737


(6) The Shanksville crash
(a) occurred just as the government has claimed (into a mining shaft or whatever)
(b) did not occur at all and is just as phony as the rest of the official story

The true answer is not in the choices: It occurred, but not like the official story told it.

(7) What happened to the passengers?
(a) they were killed in the plane crashes: For sure
(b) they were kidnapped and are in undisclosed secret locations: false
(c) they were mostly fabricated, just as fake as the rest of the official account: false

The answer is given, but it’s so simple answer that it’s meaningless face to the official story. These flight existed, they were regular flights, there were passengers on board, their lists were published quickly, … Why asking such question?

And nobody speaks out about the coordination between the planes that 4 separate teams could never make. This coordination is an obligatory outcome if the planes were controlled from outside of the plane by one team making one plane at a time, so the hijacks were successive. http://users.swing.be/mehmeti/

Why no researcher speaks out about this issue? And I am telling that to all groups since 2005?

The 9/11 truth movements are infiltrated and are being led by disinfo agents; as conclusion the confusion and wrong theories are pushed forward while nobody tries to give a global scenario explaining how the strikes were made.

[Thoth II]

Dr. Segarra,

The coast to coast is only broadcast live, I think, that one is already past the due date. If you check CTC website, they list programs in advance and sometimes they have shows on conspiracies and 911, but I think it is like midnight through 4 am, some terrible time . Local radio stations in all areas of USA carry coast to coast with George Noory and Ian Punnett.

[Thoth II]

"Mehmet: Sure main videos were authentic, and only one being authentic is enough to tell the planes were there. All non authentic videos are made by “disinfo agents”. Why are we still discussing such crazy subjects?"

Please explain this in more detail. Are you saying that the videos we saw on 911 of the plane crash into south tower is different from the one we have today? I doubt that , because the one I saw all day on 911 looked exactly like one of the ones we see today. It looked that day like a CGI plane to me, and still does. I have a good memory and believe me, the one I saw on 911 had the same physically impossible features like today's "butter plane" where it glides in effortlessly with no damage. What was broadcast on 911 WAS an intent to fake out the public into thinking they were seeing real plane when they definitely were not.

[Mehmet Inan]

Thoth, the athenticity of the videos was questioned by several theories:
- No plane theories, all videos are holograms! That's totally crazy.
- Planes were not the claimed ones, especially UA175 on WTC2; no windows visibles, so it was not a civil aircraft! This is a little bit less crazy, but at that altitide, and speed the windows were not visibles.

Any way, do not waste our time and credibility; after 9 years any theorist should be able to give a complete scenario of his theory. If you have any complete and evidence supported theory explaining how the strikes were made, and why they were made in such manner, I am listening you. Without such arguments, seperated alone arguments like the windows of the plane is useless, time, energy and credibility waste.

[James H. Fetzer]

You might want to view my presentation, from the London Symposium at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/

Mehmet Inan said:

Thoth, the athenticity of the videos was questioned by several theories:
- No plane theories, all videos are holograms! That's totally crazy.
- Planes were not the claimed ones, especially UA175 on WTC2; no windows visibles, so it was not a civil aircraft! This is a little bit less crazy, but at that altitide, and speed the windows were not visibles.

Any way, do not waste our time and credibility; after 9 years any theorist should be able to give a complete scenario of his theory. If you have any complete and evidence supported theory explaining how the strikes were made, and why they were made in such manner, I am listening you. Without such arguments, seperated alone arguments like the windows of the plane is useless, time, energy and credibility waste.

[Thoth II]

Mehmet,

"Any way, do not waste our time and credibility; after 9 years any theorist should be able to give a complete scenario of his theory. If you have any complete and evidence supported theory explaining how the strikes were made, and why they were made in such manner, I am listening you. Without such arguments, seperated alone arguments like the windows of the plane is useless, time, energy and credibility waste."

you are not fooling some of us with your multiple logical fallacies here. For example, the founder of this forum Jim Fetzer is a professional logician, and he could tear your logical fallacies to pieces. We here this banal fallacies over and over again throughout the media, from JFK through today, luckily we can now smell them a mile away. I could spend two pages debunking your fallacies, but I'll just comment on one easy one: after 9 years any theorist should be able to give a complete scenario of his theory" Why, praytell???? Sometimes it takes centuries for theories to be hammered out. And the only people who will ever be able to give a "complete scenario" are the perps who did it, and since their were so many of them, even the left hand doesn't necessarily know what the right hand is doing.

Bottom line is, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But my point is, when we do serious 911 research we MUST follow established principles of scientific reasoning, such as (IBE) inference to best explanation, 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.

[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.