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

[Thoth II]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mehmet Inan said:

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

[sandy rose]

got this from clg. do we have $2000?

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

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

3 Comments


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mehmet Inan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark E. Smith]

That explains it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[James H. Fetzer]

Mehmet, If you watch the first 20 minutes of "9/11 Ripple Effect", which is archived here and shows many videos of the hit on the South Tower, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3969310749489496889# you will see what I am talking about with regard to the manner in which the plane enters the building in violation of Newton's laws. The discussion in the film is about the "pod" and the electrical discharge as the plane reaches the building, but far more interesting is the way in which the plane effortlessly enters the building. As Scott Forbes observed from his vantage point, it was as though the South Tower simply "swallowed the plane". I would like to have your opinion on the physics of the interaction between them.

My latest presentation, by the way, if I have not mentioned it already, is at the London Symposium, "Debunking the "War on Terror'", which is archived at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ , where I discuss all of the issues that seem to divide us.

[James H. Fetzer]

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



Mark E. Smith said:

That explains it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mehmet Inan]

JF, “Mehmet, If you watch the first 20 minutes of "9/11 Ripple Effect", which is archived here and shows many videos of the hit on the South Tower, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3969310749489496889# you will see what I am talking about with regard to the manner in which the plane enters the building in violation of Newton's laws. The discussion in the film is about the "pod" and the electrical discharge as the plane reaches the building, but far more interesting is the way in which the plane effortlessly enters the building. As Scott Forbes observed from his vantage point, it was as though the South Tower simply "swallowed the plane". I would like to have your opinion on the physics of the interaction between them.”

8:13 : The pod under UA175 is just and optic effect. I checked it in 2006 in the beginning of ST911. You can go to check the archive in ezboard forum. The claimed pod is just the connection part of the right wing. Now, 4 years later you ask me to check it again?

11:00 : The flash on UA175 could be the explosion and destruction of the automated control system installed in the nose of the plane, according to my conclusion on the possible control system of the planes. But considered alone, this is meaningless evidence.

Do not consider a missile under the plane that goes to create the flash at the nose. That’s totally impossible, the “pod” was under the wings, not in the nose, and we saw no fire going from the pod into the nose.

I watched whole video. We agree that the twin towers were demolished, but you, all ST911 members and AE911 members do not explain how the towers were demolished! Why? Are they unable to study the demolitions? Or are they not motivated enough to do it? I did that explanation and there is no more doubt about the demolition for me. I now where the charges were placed, how they were placed, when they were placed, why it was made in that manner, … and everything is consistent with that explanation.

JF, “My latest presentation, by the way, if I have not mentioned it already, is at the London Symposium, "Debunking the "War on Terror'", which is archived at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ , where I discuss all of the issues that seem to divide us.”

I gave you answers for issues that divide us. Why you do not study my comments and try to refute or admit them?

Here is my answer essay for that question; do not take that as a personal critics: You are a professor of university, you thought for logical thinking, philosophy, … What ever it could be, you remained in theoretical aspects, not reached the application, the realization of systems, the required reliability of systems, … So, you are obliged to follow some technical people like AE911, Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Pilots for 9/11… And you are obliged to follow all their lies. Because there are too many fake evidences produced to misguide people. Especially the st9/11 members like you.

For example, the ground effect that appear when a plane fly near the ground! It seams that you believe it’s impossible. Lat’s compare that to anothersimple case: Imagine you are driving a car with high wind variable in direction and speed. And you should keep the constant speed of 100mph. Yes, you are unable. But if you use a cruise control, there will be no problem, the speed will remain stable at 100mph +/- 2mph (something similar). Same for the plane, if an on board automatic control system is installed, it will fly the plane at 2m above ground without any problem, especially when that takes only some 10s time.

It’s the same for the intact lawn on the Pentagon. If the plane was taking off, the engines can damage the lawn; they are at maximum throttle, 100%. But when the plane is lowering to land, the engines are at minimum throttle, about 10% or less. In this case they won’t damage the lawn, even if the throttle increased to 15%.

What about me? In my life, I studied and realized many systems, and by the time I was used to know what’s possible and what’s not, finally all what I make runs. That requires being able to study the smallest detail to solve every problem by the right solution. That’s me. I know, I have other defaults, like everybody. But for studying the detail, I am the needed man. And here, in 9/11 investigation we need to be able to study details.

As conclusion, I do not need to follow any body in technical aspects; I am able to evaluate what’s true and what’s false. You can go back to ezboard forum and you’ll see that I studied all proposed evidence and I rejected many of them with proofs and arguments.

Unfortunately all the evidences I rejected remained within the arguments of the st9/11 and other 9/11 truth movements. Why? Did you never understand what I told at that time? May be; my English is not good enough. But is that the only answer? I don’t think. Was ST911 members preferred to keep false evidences and false arguments? For many of them, I think so: Yes they preferred to keep false arguments. For you, I am still divided; I still want to believe you do not want to keep false arguments. That’s why I still speak with you.

Jim, if you want to remain credible, you must remove all weak or false arguments and evidences from your claims. That’s the main thing you should do. By the time, your claims should be more and more related each to other; so that no individual unexplained evidence should remain. If you keep two independent theories that you are unable to link them together, they can both be wrong. But by eliminating the wrong and weak theories, the number of unrelated theories will be null. You’ll get only strong theories that complete each other coming near and finally converging to the truth. Only with that you can reach the truth about 9/11.

[Thoth II]

"We agree that the twin towers were demolished, but you, all ST911 members and AE911 members do not explain how the towers were demolished! Why? Are they unable to study the demolitions? Or are they not motivated enough to do it? I did that explanation and there is no more doubt about the demolition for me. I now where the charges were placed, how they were placed, when they were placed, why it was made in that manner, … and everything is consistent with that explanation."

I believe that people are working on H's from DEW to mini nukes to others. Science is always "in progress" . They are working on it, and should have better and better results as time goes on.

[Thoth II]

"Here is my answer essay for that question; do not take that as a personal critics: You are a professor of university, you thought for logical thinking, philosophy, … What ever it could be, you remained in theoretical aspects, not reached the application, the realization of systems, the required reliability of systems, … So, you are obliged to follow some technical people like AE911, Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Pilots for 9/11… And you are obliged to follow all their lies. Because there are too many fake evidences produced to misguide people. Especially the st9/11 members like you."

I believe Jim is doing exactly what he should be: applying a scientific technique like IBE to 911 research. I cannot see anything he has done wrong. He has edited many books on JFK and 911 where he has experts contributing papers. On the other hand, you mention Steve Jones. Here is what is wrong with his approach, he only studies one H (hypothesis) and excludes all the others. That is not science, it is something like "special pleading". Jim isn't following "lies", he is evaluating the liklihood of various H's that have been advanced to explain the extent evidence. I hate to say this, but after going back and forth with you for a week, Mehmet, , that it is you that does not understand the scientific method.

if your controlled demolition sequence is to gain supporters as a very likely H to explain destruction of twin towers, I recommend you have a much more detailed powerpoint on that one aspect without all the other stuff. And in that new powerpoint, show us exactly how the demolitions explain all the observed evidence. What I saw on the other powerpoint looked like a promising starting point for research, but I think you need to do much more with it.

[Mehmet Inan]

Thoth II said: Jim isn't following "lies", he is evaluating the liklihood of various H's that have been advanced to explain the extent evidence. I hate to say this, but after going back and forth with you for a week, Mehmet, , that it is you that does not understand the scientific method.

Hypothesis are true if they are verified and consistent to all available known strong evidence. As long as you check any hypothesis on basis of individual subjects, you can still check them for long years. Instead, if you check for all available evidence the wrongness of each will arise quickly.

Thoth II said: if your controlled demolition sequence is to gain supporters as a very likely H to explain destruction of twin towers, I recommend you have a much more detailed powerpoint on that one aspect without all the other stuff. And in that new powerpoint, show us exactly how the demolitions explain all the observed evidence. What I saw on the other powerpoint looked like a promising starting point for research, but I think you need to do much more with it.

On the internet, I’ll not write more about that subject. More detail about the demolition and whole strikes is included in my book. Unfortunately it does not exist in English. It needs to be translated from French or Turkish.

That does not mean, I’ll not answer your questions

[Thoth II]

"Instead, if you check for all available evidence the wrongness of each will arise quickly."

Well, maybe, but not in the case of the DEW and mini nuke yet. I do not believe enough evidence is available yet to (a) tell which of these is the more likely, (b) and the available evidence certainly does not prove the "wrongness" of each.

I can certainly understand your impatience. I believe too that the proponents of DEW and mini nuke have basically been "doing battle" with each other for almost a decade, and the debate seems to be stagnant. But be patient. In JFK research, it took 30 long years before a Dave Mantik came along and finally "solved" the medical case. I too hope it doesn't take that long, but I'm confident evidence will surface when we can finally eliminate one of these main H's.

So DEW and mini nuke are still alive and kicking today. Let the researchers keep on getting the evidence and then maybe we'll be able to start eliminating like you're suggesting.

[Mark E. Smith]

This being the official off-topic topic, I have an off-topic comment.

In his article, "Another feeble-headed nuke drops dead," Harvey Wasserman says, "...not one of 104 US reactors has a containment dome designed to withstand a serious jet crash."

And of course I thought immediately of the World Trade Center towers, which WERE designed to withstand a serious jet crash, and are no longer with us.

Messianic Technologism is a very dangerous belief system, as its adherents often lose track of reality.