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:

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]

Thoth II said:

So if the plane does not decelerate, according to Newtons Second Law F=ma=m(0)=0. There is no force to act on the plane or the building in this video.

There is another explanation: F=ma implies :
1- There is nothing enough strong in the plane to create a reaction force enough strong to make itself decelerate enough.
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.

These both arguments are true, and they prove the plane was a true one, a real B767-200.

As you made some research, you give us 11 pictures to cross the length of the plane itself, what's the number of pictures per second in that Fairbanks video?

[Mark E. Smith]

First you make an ad hominem attack, then you want others to have scientific arguments?

Poor Jim--he probably still thinks you're capable of logic.

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.

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. None show a real plane crashing into a real building the way that a real plane would crash into a real building. The building was real, but the plane was not.

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?

.

[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.

[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.