Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Peter McKenna

Members
  • Content count

    277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peter McKenna

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/17/1955

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    petemckenna38

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Destrehan, Louisiana, USA
  • Interests
    Guitar, reading, writing, cooking, history, discussion.
  1. The JREF blog linked "My Conversations with Jim Fetzer" are hilarious. That student merely offered some contrary evidence and opinion so Fetzer simultaneously insulted him and demanded he read through his tank farm of contrived nonsense. I had somehow thought Fetzer may have absorbed some common sense and actually deferred to real science and engineering with respect to the WTC events. Sadly no, he's pedantically serving up the same old hypocritical BS. Critical thinking indeed. Some things never change.
  2. Does the Tea Party Want to Destroy America?

    I suggest you read more unbiased material, instead of more republican propaganda.. Reagan's "trickle down economics" was a joke. The Reagan Budget: The Deficit that Didn't Have to Be "With all the heated arguments about Reaganomics in the last year and a half, the following may seem a startling assertion, but it is true: There is no Reaganomics. There is a new style of rhetoric in Washington, a lot of talk about tax cuts, getting the government off our backs, reducing the size of government. But it is all talk. Taxes and spending are going to be higher every year. The rhetoric is different. The policies are the same. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013.html The massive (but under-reported) Reagan Administration corruption "Conservatives and Republicans are such paragons of virtue and truth that they tried to pin Ronald Reagam's "most corrupt administration in American history" medal on Bill Clinton! Despite the fact that the President and first lady, and many members of the Clinton administration were deluged with charges of criminal behavior on the street and in the media, their accusers fell flat on their faces when they had to prove their trumped up charges in court, where it's evidence and proof that matter not claims that a good lawyer can show to be devoid of serious credibility. Contrast that to the great numbers of the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan who were not just charged, but were found guilty, in court! How can it be that most Americans don't remember the Reagan administration for its corruption? It couldn't possible be because the so-called "Liberal media" rarely, if ever, shines its powerful spotlights on that part of U.S. history? My spotlight is nowhere as strong as theirs, but if enough of us help to spread the word, mayhe we can make up for that deficiency. The contenders for the title of "the most corrupt administration in American history" are all Republican administrations. It may be hard to order them exactly, but the contenders for the first, second, third & fourth "most corrupt administrations in American history" are the Republican administrations of Grant, Harding, Nixon and Reagan. Before any conservative dismisses what we have to say about Reagan on this site just because we are liberals, after taking a good hard look at the record, the very conservative site Jesus-is-Savior.com/Wolves/reagan.htm came to many of the very same conclusions that we reached, i.e. ( in their own words) : "Let us remember Reagan as he really was : xxxx Thief Mass murderer Supporter of abortion War criminal Destroyer of freedom Traitor of the American people Corporate whore Destroyer of the environment Supporter of Satanists & child murderers " Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration: "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever." Much more here... http://great-liberal-insights.org/about/Reagan.html Actually Duane, in the article you linked there were only 38, not 138, officials in the Reagan Administration either indicted or convicted. The liberal site you linked isn't very reliable, especially the math. Look at the list. There are 38, not 138, identified officials. Records show that 31 Reagan adinistration officials were convicted, compared to 40 Clinton Administration officials. The Clinton Administration was one of the most corrupt administrations in history. http://www.prorev.com/legacy.htm As to slandering David Stockman's book "Triumph of Politics" calling it right wing propaganda, without even opening the cover, that is fairly sleazy, even for you. Stockman's book provides the history of the OMB in producing a balanced budget and provides a great deal of insight into the workings of the OMB. Of course the Congress actually approves the budget, not the President, so you would have to understand the legislative side of government spending. For your information, due to the absolute mismanagement of the US Government under Jimmy Carter, the resulting double digit inflation created a huge tax windfall, and the US was capable of running in the black (i.e. out of debt), when Ronald Reagan was President. Congress and pork Barrel spending may be blamed for the beginning of the debt that currently plagues and overshadows us. If you would care to read Stockman's book you would learn how this happened. It is not right wing propaganda. By any metric, the Clinton administration was more corrupt than the Reagan administration, unless of course you quote extreme liberal websites, such as "great liberal insights.org" Some of the labels you apply to Reagan are so wrong they're funny.
  3. Does the Tea Party Want to Destroy America?

    My solution to fixing what's wrong with the current political situation in DC would be to elect a Democrat like Hilary Clinton, who doesn't just talk the talk (like our current President) but can also walk the walk, like her husband Bill. President Clinton not only c, leaned up the original 12 year Reagan / Bush financial mess and balanced the national budget in less that eight years, but did it while being attacked by the rabid republican witch hunters who impeached him for not keeping his pants zipped.. An offense that is NOT impeachable .. An impeachable offense is LYING ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ, WAGING TWO WARS FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON, AND STEALING TWO ELECTIONS. Congress actually appropriates monies, not the President. I suggest you read David Stockman's book (he was Director of the OMB under Reagan) "Triumph of Politics" to provide an understanding of why there was a budget deficit under Reagan and Bush. To my knowledge Hilary Clinton has never held an elected office. What is your basis for saying that she can "Walk the Walk"? To what political philosphy does she subscribe? I have never read her political platform, maybe you can provide some reference?
  4. Does the Tea Party Want to Destroy America?

    Obviously, Duane, you do not understand the nature of context. For one thing, you cut and paste an editorial, not just a post, because the editorial uses the first person POV; The "I"; When you copy an editorial without using quotation marks around each statement, regardless of the imprimatuer of the origin site, the context appears to be in your point of view, ie, it is your statement. That is rather unethical. Secondly, just stating the title and/or your label of the subject (in your opinion?) is not context. To offer the context, you have to identify the object of the speech as well as the statement, the state of mind of the speaker, and the audience, as well as the nature of the audience. There is a difference speaking out for choice, between addressing a feminist action group and a Walt Whitman poetry convention, just to apply a simple analogy. You do not apply context with a couple of opinions as to what the speaker was really saying. Your definition and application of context is not only unethical, it can be dangerous, in the wrong hands. Quite a large part of the Tea Party constituency primarily just advocate change. That is one point of context you quite glaringly omit. So your point then is to advocate the status quo? Not a very enlightened point of view, Duane.
  5. Does the Tea Party Want to Destroy America?

    Duane Slandering the Tea Party Movement and posting collected statements by Republicans, most of which appear to be taken out of context, offers les than nothing in the way of constructive criticism. After the congress has used the debt ceiling as a political football, resulting in partisan bickering on both sides, but especially by the Democrats, indicates an urgent need for change in our government. That is the platform of the Tea Party. George Will, when questioned about the Tea Party and their seeming naive belief that election of Tea Party oriented legislators would bring immediate needed change said: "....the Tea Party movement, which doesnt understand the fundamental paradox, which is if Washington were as easy to turn around as they seem to think it is, we wouldnt need the Tea Party movement which we do, Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/17/george-will-tea-party-lacks-understanding-of-difficultly-of-change-in-washington/#ixzz1V1c65MCs Your post offers nothing in the way of insight as to reason, or alternative, to your vapid and trite attempt to libel. What do you offer as to the current state of the ineffectual Washington political situation?
  6. Jim, I have already seen the lack of deceleration and have no trouble with that. When striking the building the plane must either 1., stop dead, like in the bugs bunny cartoon, and smush into a mass of junk, 2., slow, which requires elastic behavior of the building wall components (like rubber bands which would impart equal force to the plane, slowing the plane and damaging it, or 3., the building compnents experience shear failure, the most likely failure mode, and which would not have caused any deceleration of the plane, since the building did not behave elastically (like in the karate video, for a simple analogy). If number 3 happened the plane need NOT decelerate, in fact, if deceleration did occur, the building components would have had to behave elastically, which they obviously did not. The wall components should have suffered shear failure, based upon the velocity, mass, and structure of the plane. I have no problem with that. Analyses have born this out.
  7. Note that the paper does not identify margin of error. The particles are concluded to be exomthermic, yet are not heated to combustion in vacuum (or sans O2) to confirm. Ordinary organic fuels (eg pine needles) have a calorimteric heat rate of 13.1 kJ/G^-1. http://www.dqfire.com/resources/A-calorimetric-study-of-wildland-fuels.pdf For Calorimetric data taken the standard is measuring the oxygen consumed during combustion (for normal combustible fuels). This was not performed (or at least is undocumented) in the Harrit paper. Since the reaction is not confirmed to be exothermic and the calorimterics are specified this would be salient information. This paper appears to be BS, just some obscure data spreads. Besides, the material was supposedly obtained by Joe Citizen, out for a stroll near ground zero. no chain of custody or forensic validation. But I'll say one thnig, there is more science here than any of the claims that the plane would have smushed into a "telescoping" beercan when striking the WTC. That is sheer speculation without any analysis (and that's just one point of observation).
  8. Maybe so, I'm not the Peter McKenna (although I am unaware of this person) who deals with the JFK assassination theories. I have my beliefs, but I am way underqualified to jump into that forum with eyes open. My apologies also for possibly a somewhat (over-emotionally rhetoric) vitriolic (is that a word?) response.
  9. This post makes no sense. I do not delve into JFK assassination theories and have never even seen the Zapruder film. To simplify my prior post: The plane in the video does not slow due to its momentum. If it were to slow that would indicate that significant forces were transmitted back into the plane structure, possibly significant enough to damage the plane, prior to penetrating the wall, as Fetzer suggests. The simple fact that it doesnt slow follows the analogy of someone's hand breaking 8 inches of concrete using Karate, the hand does not slow because it must break the concrete blocks. If the blocks were made of hard rubber and sufficiently elastic, then the Karate guy's hand woould likely break. Same with the building. If the walls were more elastic, the plane may have crumpled prior to penetrating the wall. It didn't, the walls experienced shear (like a hole punch). It isn't mystical, just sufficient momentum. It can be modeled using dynamic computational analysis. NIST did that. Of course, you will say NIST has suspect loyalties, therefore the analysis cannot stand on it's own merits. That is not an argument, it is only an emotional attack on analysis. If anyone of Fetzer's so-called "qualified" pack of truthers really could rebut the NIST analysis, let them do so. I haven't seen anything close to resembling real engineering analysis from that camp. So continue bleating emotional diatribes instead of evaluating the events rationally. Due to the fact that not one single bona fide scientific or engineering publication has commented on the truther point of view, or supported these alternate theories that Fetzer and others propound, that should indicate that these so called theories have dubious merit. Otherwise where is the alternate engineering analysis? These points of view seem nothing more than political footballs to foster an anti-Bush-Cheney platform. I do not support the Iraq war. But I do not see that the events of 9/11 had much to do with fostering that war. The events of 9/11 had much more to do with a breakdown of effective intelligence and the ability to act on valid information. There was a huge post 9/11 intelligence analysis that concluded this you know.
  10. True, Evan, It just becomes tiring when people propound thoughts as Fact based sheerly upon a firmness of need rather than a detached perspective. The idea that Bush and Cheney engineered the 9/11 events after being in office for eight months, co-opting the entire military infrastructure, including a huge chunk of the civilian population, and to disregard hundreds of eyewtiness accounts, etc. etc., in order to foster wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (of course the Iraq war was demonstrated to have been fostered by false intel from a dubious asset, not 9/11 events), is just ridiculous, and no real proof of any of these supposed facts has ever been offered or provided by these proponents, just guesses, propounded on soapboxes, and backed up by emotion and hubris. As Hoffa said (paraphrased), those facts lack only the simple attribute of being true.
  11. That bit of disinformation is almost as compelling as the one about Doug and Dave creating all the intricate crop circles in the entire world, with their trusty planks on ropes. As usual Jim, you reply with barbed rhetoric rather than addressing the facts. The refutation I posted precisely addressed your erroneous theory with an analogy using the same physical laws that you espouse. The problem is you cannot argue theory or science, as you apparently haven't the ability. I have posted the link to the NIST site with the computational model that accurately correlates the events of the plane strikes to the building collapses. But you and your sycophant minions would rather slander and denounce the politics of NIST than offer any serious scientific rebuttal. Where is your analysis of these events? Go ahead and trot out the list of your supposed "qualified" members. That of course proves nothing. I seriously doubt your ability to reason soundly since you offer no proofs of your fanciful theories.
  12. That bit of disinformation is almost as compelling as the one about Doug and Dave creating all the intricate crop circles in the entire world, with their trusty planks on ropes. No Duane, it is not disinfomration. The analogy is correct and actually fairly precise. You should put forth an actual intelligent argument rather than just irrelevant slander. The plane does not slow (significantly) because that would indicate force imparted to the plane from the building, ergo no visible plane damage prior to penetrating the building. The momnentum of the plane is sufficiently significant, that it does not absorb these forces, just as the hand penetrates the concrete in the video (and does not decelerate). The analogy is apt. Provide justification Duane, for your inane remark.
  13. As usual Jim Fetzer, you qualify your theories with false analogies, apply misleading terms (eg "flying Beercan"), use bad scientific method (stating that the planes' striking the WTC violate Newton's Laws, which you do not establish using any form of scientific method), then call it Fact. The reason the planes actually penetrate the World Trade Center is really quite similar to the way a simple human hand can break greater than 8 inches of concrete using Karate. An object with sufficient momentum creates a force sufficient to break objects seemingly impenetrable. Look at this video if you would like an example. Unless you believe this is staged as well. The long and the short of it is the the WTC was not sufficiently strong to withstand the planes' mass and momentum. Just like a hand breaking bricks, the velocity of the planes would NOT slow as the building gives way. That would result in broken bones, obviously. A plane has a center keel and reinforced connections at the wings (I defer to Bill Sherwood's knowledge of plane design, please refer to his prior posts on this subject). http://tpt.org/newtons/video.php?id=1297 Obviously, if the planes had slowed as they penetrated the WTC, they would have exhibited failures. They just had too much momentum too slow or break apart prior to entering the building. Why is that so hard to understand?
  14. Evan, what is the explanation of this? I must have missed it previously, and still do not believe what I see on the tape (the plane simply passing into the building like a ghost through a wall in the movies). From The NIST website: "The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces." NIST comprehensively modeled and analysed the impact and subsequent collapses. Their website is open and navigable. The analyses may be a bit complex.
  15. Interesting reading Evan. No matter what evidence is presented to Fetzer (and he will always demand proof that his claims are wrong), he returns to his pattern of disinformation, making the same spurious unprovable claims. Fetzer demands proof of the negative, that his critics prove his versions of events did not occur, which is of course impossible. That Fetzer is actually a disinformation agent sowing dichotomy in the ranks of his "truther" organization(s) makes a lot of sense. More sense than his claims anyway. For all his claimed expansive education, no other explanation seems to make much sense.
×