Jump to content
The Education Forum

Peter McKenna

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peter McKenna

  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. 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.
  3. 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 M
  4. 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
  5. 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 nee
  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 v
  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 cal
  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.
  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 re
  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 pla
  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, t
  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
  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
  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 m
  16. Mr. Fetzer, as you well know, unless your flowery accreditations are untrue, that you cannot prove a negative. You might well claim that trolls and faeries roam the Earth, and demand proof that they do not, as to continue your disputatious allegations concerning the events of 9/11. All the parts have already been disputed convincingly and yet you continue to repeat your claims under different headers. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It is not an obligation of the reader to prove the negative to your outrageous claims. It is your responsibility to p
  17. Quite true, as I provided proof for in the other thread where I gave examples of the Chinese 747-SP that briefly went to 5 G's and still hung together, and the DC-8 that was deliberately flown faster than mach one. Very high speeds simply are not going to be a problem at all, even down low though the wind noise in the cockpit would be quite high. Although not pertinent to the gist of the thread, I am intersted in the deliberate occurrence of > Mach 1 velocity for the DC-8. Was this a sustained air speed? Was it in a dive? Was the nose modified (or blunted)? CFD modeling would indicate e
  18. For all of your group's supposed "qualifications" then why can't you present one valid and credible mainstream scientific or engineering periodical or publication that reports on your POV with concurrence or with even detachment? Of course no one knows what they are talking about if they don't agree with you Mr. Fetzer. Do you not now state that Mossad ran an operation that the entire US military upper infrastructure was aware of (because that is what Sabrosky has written), that utilized supposed top secret holographic and space beam technology? If you are spouting this nonsense why not just s
  19. Well Mr. Fetzer, this is quite in keeping with your history of using anti-semitic sources to further your fabulous conspiracy throries. Alan Sabrosky bills himself as the former Director of Studies at the U.S. Army War College. He has made quite a name for himself in recent months by first declaring himself a military expert with high-level connections in the U.S. military hierarchy, then by outrageously claiming that Israel was responsible for 9/11 and that the U.S. military knows this and is concealing it. While he offers no evidence for this, he claims that he should be trusted because of
  20. Does this mean that when nothing happens on June 26, Prof Fetzler will stop posting his paranoid distortions or is that too much to hope for? Don't think so. This is, I think, what they call "a self reinforcing delusion". If it doesn't happen Fetzer saved the day.
  21. RIGHT!!! Glad I'm not really smart like you. Those poor stupid fools, graduating from West Point, the Air Force Academy, or Annapolis, then going off to Afghanistan, to find terrorists, etc, you really ought to get in touch with them and let them know you are available, maybe do their taxes, or to just generally sraighten them out, let em know where the Bear Sh__ts in the Buckwheat!. I know I'll sleep better.
  22. Gee Peter, why all the nasty hostility? .. My opinions about the alleged assassination of Bin Laden has nothing to do with Jack.. We just happen to smell the same dead rats when it comes to certain subjects.. So as usual, your gullible world view won't allow you to think outside of the little propaganda box that's been provided for you by the highly deceptive US government. This web site has a different opinion on when Osama Bin Laden really died.. But whether he was assassinated a few years ago, as claimed by the now assassinated Benazir Bhutto, or if he died of natural causes, one thing is
  23. Your case that the collapses were unnatural is much weaker and based on something outside both your his expertise. I didn't see where HE presented any evidence the towers were demo'ed. Thanks for sharing! Len's right, Fetzer, as usual substantiates his claims bsed on nothing but "it looks like", and heresay evidence. I've made the mistake of getting sucked into reading the reams of vacuous propoganda dispersed by Fetzer and his facilitators, that the WTC was felled by "Space Beams" or causes unknown, when thousands have SEEN the strike by an airline. What you offer is absolutely nothing
  24. Gee Duane, when Jack's a dotard, will you sop the spit off his chin? As usual with the ludicrously weak - fishwrap proof. What's your theory as to Bin Laden's fate? Do you believe anything anyone says that undermines the US position vice Al Quaeda?
  25. Clearly a manufactured event to take the spotlight off of Obama COLB. Jack Clearly White doesn't have a clue but pronounces the event as manufactured, without even a particle of proof. With what auger does this knowledge arrive? Such Hubris merely clutters the traffic of relevant information.
  • Create New...