Jump to content
The Education Forum

Peter McKenna

Members
  • Content Count

    277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Peter McKenna

  1. In 2010 a college student named Sean Hughes wrote a paper about 9/11 conspiracy theories for a class called "International Terrorism". As part of his research he contacted Fetzer and they exchanged a few e-mails. Last January Sean, was uses the screen name “Brass” on the JREF forum contacted Fetzer again. In one of the e-mails he asked Fetzer:

    “If Building Seven was a controlled demolition, then why did FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro make the decision at 3:30 PM to halt operations and make a collapse zone around the tower TWO FULL HOURS before the building collapsed? Was he in on it?”

    Fetzer replied:

    “Well, you'd better ask yourself, why would anyone create a barrier if there was no reason to believe the building would collapse? In case you haven't noticed, it was not hit by any plane and had no jet fuel based fires. There were some diesel tanks, but diesel is non-explosive and burns at a rather low temperature. Unless he knew it was coming down (because he was in on it), what other plausible explanation could there be for his behavior?”

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229324

    Since it is well documented that (acting) Chief Nigro did call for a collapse zone Fetzer is accusing him of being “in on it.” Fetzer has a problem comprehending the logical implications of his claims but since other commanders of the FDNY also called for the area around 7 WTC.

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/%22pull%22%3Dwithdrawfirefightersfromdanger

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

    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 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.

    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. Obviously, Duane, you do not understand the nature of context

    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. I'm not slandering the Tea Party .. I'm merely exposing the incompetent, dangerous mentality of those who belong to it.

    As much as you might want their asinine statements to have been taken out of context, they weren't .. The context in which they made those inane/insane comments were included.

    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. Here are some of the outrageous beliefs and statements made by Tea Party leaders.

    ''Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.''

    Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don't win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas's WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010

    ''They're following me. They follow me home at night. I make sure that I come back to the townhouse and then we have our team come out and check all the bushes and check all the cars to make sure that -- they follow me.''

    Delaware GOP Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, claiming that unnamed political opponents are following her, Weekly Standard interview, Sept. 2, 2010

    ''I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change. It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination...It's far more likely that it's just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time. Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 'gets sucked down by trees and helps the trees grow.'''

    Ron Johnson, Tea Party-backed GOP Senate candidate in Wisconsin, Aug. 16, 2010

    ''The Federal Department of Education should be eliminated. The Department of Education is unconstitutional and should not be involved in education, at any level.''

    Nevada GOP Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle, July 12, 2010

    ''We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves.''

    Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), founder of the congressional Tea Party Caucus, speaking at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver about the evils of the Obama administration, July 9, 2010

    Tea Party candidate Ken Buck, after being asked why people should vote for him for the Colorado GOP Senate nomination: ''Because I do not wear high heels. She has questioned my manhood, and I think it's fair to respond. I have cowboy boots, they have real bullxxxx on them. And that's Weld County bullxxxx, not Washington, D.C., bullxxxx.'' Buck was referring to an ad run by his opponent, which decried third-party spending on behalf of his campaign and urged Buck to ''be man enough'' to run the ads himself (July 21, 2010)

    ''It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be abstinent alone. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. You can't masturbate without lust!''

    Delaware GOP Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, advocating against masturbation in a 1996 appearance on MTV's 'Sex In The 90s' TV show

    And my personal favorate...

    ''Do you know, where does this phrase 'separation of church and state' come from? It was not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. ... The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph Hitler's mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they're Nazis.''

    Glen Urquhart, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for the Delaware House seat held by Rep. Mike Castle, April 2010

    :lol::lol::lol:

    And the ignorance goes on and on.

    The next installment will include some of Sarah Palin's asinine quotes, plus much more ignorance from the Party who wants to take over 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. Peter,

    Here is a simple experiment. Do a frame-by-frame advance on the Hezarhkani and Fairbanks' vidoes and determine

    how many frames it takes for the plane to pass through its own length into the building and how many frames it takes

    to pass through its own length in air? What do you discover? Since others have performed this experiment and found

    that the answer is the same in both cases, what do you make of this result? I assume you will confirm their findings.

    This is simple science involving observation, experimentation, and calculation, where distance equals rate times time.

    which confirms that we are observing events that are impossible for a real plane and the absence of any deceleration.

    Jim

    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. Here is the latest from Mark Hightower about the Harrit et al. paper, which created such a sensation in the 9/11 Truth community.

    Contrasting uniformity and non-uniformity of WTC dust sample results of the Harrit et al. paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”

    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

    T Mark Hightower

    8/8/2011

    ABSTRACT

    Although the Harrit et al. paper claims great uniformity of results among all samples based on all the tests apart from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) tests, this is in significant contrast to the tremendous lack of uniformity reflected in the DSC results.

    Also, although the paper contains a rather doubtful statement regarding its findings in one part of the paper, it concludes with a strikingly confident conclusion in the final statement of the paper.

    THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE DIFFERENTIAL SCANNING CALORIMETER (DSC) RESULTS

    There are some weaknesses in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) data that is presented in the paper (Harrit et al.) for the 4 dust samples.

    There were 4 dust samples tested. Page 9 of the paper identifies them as

    1 MacKinlay

    2 Delassio/Breidenbach

    3 Intermount

    4 White

    The DSC data is presented in the text of page 19, section 3, which refers to graphical results of Fig. 19 on page 20. One of the DSC traces is compared to a trace of published nanothermite data in Fig. 29 on page 25. The results are presented in Fig. 30 on page 27 in the form of bar graphs reporting units of kJ/g.

    There is an oddity I want to point out before I get into the first weakness.

    The data referred to on page 19 and in Fig. 19 appears to have not included sample 2 Delassio/Breidenbach, but instead has a MacKinlay 2 sample in its place to give a total of 4 samples tested. In Fig. 30 the 4 samples are clearly labeled as 1, 2, 3, and 4, so here it seems to imply that the 2 Delassio/Breidenbach sample is included. Interestingly, the numerical value of 3 kJ/g given in the text on page 19 for the MacKinlay 2 sample of Fig. 19 is the same or at least close to the same as the 2 (presumably) Delassio/Breidenbach sample of Fig. 30. Clarification from the authors should be sought to clear up this confusion.

    So there were 4 separate dust samples, with multiple red/gray chips in each sample.

    I will use the numerical values of energy release given in the text (page 19) as representing the values in the bar graph of Fig. 30 for the 4 WTC chip samples. These would be

    Sample 1: 1.5 kJ/g

    Sample 2: 3 kJ/g

    Sample 3: 7.5 kJ/g

    Sample 4: 6 kJ/g

    As these four DSC data points are all we have, it is of note that there is tremendous scatter in this data. The average value is 4.5 and the standard deviation is 2.7. As two standard deviations is usually what is used when referring to a value being +/- some uncertainty, in rough terms, we would then say that the DSC data gives an average value of 4.5 kJ/g, with an uncertainty of +/- 100%.

    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. Are there two Peter McKennas, then? Perhaps I have mistaken you with the other. If so, my apologies.

    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. Peter McKenna: The man who conducted a study of the Zapruder Film that, according to him, PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT, that the film was an absolute fabrication! This is the same man who posted his entire study of the Z-film on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum complete with measurements, mathematical calculations, geometrical analysis, temporal studies, eyewitness statements, mechanical peculiarities of the B&H Directors Model Camera, etc., and then set forth his conclusion that it was, without any doubt, altered.

    It was his absolute finding that the film was a fabrication...

    Then something peculiar happened. He told us that after one "views the film over and over and over again, one can become almost ill, but still one can see that it probably is authentic."

    He then began to tear down his own pseudo-scientific study of the film himself and then claimed "IT IS AUTHENTIC" --

    That is not a scientist's methodology at work.

    I see you have not changed, Peter. Your methods are as shabby now as they were then. A pity.

    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. Peter,

    Do you seriously expect Jim to change?

    Besides, his claims and "proof" do more to discredit Twoofers than any debunker could ever achieve.

    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. Duane, I have long suspected that the ops use these forums to notice problems they need to deal with, such as by the simple but effective expedient of deleting videos that demonstrate that the positions they are promoting are false. My best guess! And of course you are right to notice that Pete McKenna has serious problems with the laws of physics, engineering, and aerodynamics.

    When you click on the second video that was posted today by Jim Fetzer, it shows this message.

    "This video is no longer avalaible because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated"

    Does anyone know why that account has been terminated?

    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.

    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. When you click on the second video that was posted today by Jim Fetzer, it shows this message.

    "This video is no longer avalaible because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated"

    Does anyone know why that account has been terminated?

    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.

    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. An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about "Absurdities"

    Re: "9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New-York Theory"

    Anthony,

    Just for the record, you and I have gone round and round over this for years--where you have saved up every exchange we ever had so you could cull them for quotes taken out of context, exaggerate my positions, and suppress information about my actual views. As an example, you claim I have a lot of articles with similar names, but you doesn't actually cite the most important among them,

    "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"

    Moreover, you love to shade the truth. Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight. You suppress the information that the speed of the plane in the videos (of 560 mph) appears to have been a lapse by using its cruising speed at 35,000 feet as if it could be attained at 700-1,000 feet as well, where the air is three times as dense and the turbines cannot suck the air through them, which causes them to function as breaks.

    651zbp.jpg

    "Fight 175" entering the South Tower

    Nor do you mention that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that this was an aerodynamically impossible speed for a Boeing 767, where you loves to talk about "special planes". But no matter how "special", no plane could have entered the building in violation of Newton's laws. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, while seats, bodies, and luggage fell to the ground. The engines would have made it into the building, but not most of the rest of a highly fragile aluminum "flying beer can".

    Your claims are preposterous. An obvious study to have cited, were you actually an honest broker, would have been Pilots' study,

    "9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"

    You know better than you pretend, where my most recent articles were published at Veterans Today, which apparently enraged you. I do not understand your proprietary interest in all this, but it clearly exists--and his arguments, when properly understood and placed in context minus the exaggerations and distortions--are without merit. See, for example,

    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. So how can a Boeing 767... pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, and not have its fuel explode as it makes contact with that massive edifice? Even the frames from the Pentagon show a huge fireball upon impact. If that was true of the 757 there, why is it not also true of the 767 here?

    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. I was confused about why Jim would raise such easily disproven points, why he teaches critical thinking but chooses not to apply those skills to his own 9-11 work, etc, but now I understand: Jim is actually on our side! He is some type of disinfo agent. I mean, all his claims have been rejected by the mainstream 9-11 truthers:

    http://www.911review...agon/index.html

    Then I found out about how many people questioned his actions and motives.

    http://911research.w...dex.html#fetzer

    http://gastronamus.p...int&thread=2635

    http://en.wikipedia....or_9.2F11_Truth

    Now it all makes sense!

    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.

  16. Bill,

    What, are you here as window-dressing? If you can disprove any of them,

    do that. Claiming that I am wrong without proof is trivial. Anyone, even

    you, can do that. Like Evan Burton, you are long on words, short on evidence.

    Give this a shot! Nothing else you have posted rises to the level of qualifying

    as an argument (which is a conclusion supported by good reasons, in case it has

    escaped your grasp). Substantiate your claims, if you possibly can, which I doubt.

    Jim

    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 provide proof of the veracity of your claims, and you have yet to provide anything close (unless you state that you have provided proof, which is itself an outrageous claim). All you have done is draw attention to, what you consider to be, suspicious conditions. Your remarks are not evidence. The reader is not obligated to prove the contrary (i.e. the negative, which of course, is NOT possible, & which is the likely reason you make such a ridiculous demand).

    YOU are responsible to prove your outrageous claims.

    You have not done so.

    Making the argument that the fanciful may be possible is not proof. You may want to (re)visit the scientific method.

  17. It's also worth pointing out that aircraft have a pretty large safety factor built into them, so that if you exceed design limits the aircraft is not going to automatically break up on you.

    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 extremely high buffeting wind loads for designs similar to a DC 8. I had not heard of this before. Sorry for the off topic questions. Just interested.

  18. Do you have any evidence to contradict the account he is presenting? It appears to be consistent with my own research on these issues, including, for example, "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda", "Is 9/11 research 'anti-Semitic'?", and a host of other findings, from "Why doubt 9/11?" to "What didn't happen at the Pentagon" and "9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job". Perhaps you do not grasp that ad hominem attacks on the author of a message is not the same as defeating the message. If you have any relevant evidence, you might think about presenting it, because what you have here doesn't show that any of his arguments are wrong or that any of his conclusions are false.

    Moreover, you do not appear to be informed about the 9/11 Truth movement. There are some 1,500 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth alone. There are Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth and Law Enforcement for 9/11 Truth as well as a host of government, intelligence, and military officials who support the movement. If you visit http://patriotsquestion911.com, for example, you will find thousands of experts and scholars across the disciplines who support 9/11 Truth, where you can view their photos, access their bio sketches, and read there statements about why they reject the official account. Because you really have no idea what you are talking about with regard to 9/11.

    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 his "expertise". The truth of the matter -- with respect to both his background and his claims -- is quite different, of course.

    Sabrosky was working at the US Army War College as an administrator. He never was the director or dean of the college. Far from it. According to the Press Office of the Army War College, in the mid-1980s, Sabrosky served as a civilian administrator at a research department of the college, supervising the publication of papers written within that department. Putting it simple, he was something like a librarian, a mid-level civilian manager at a military college, without access to the sort of highly classified material of the sort he now fraudulently claims to have. Moreover, he worked there 25 years ago. How on earth could someone who worked on the level of a college librarian in the 1980s be privy to top secret information about the 9/11? And how on earth could he be the only person to know about it or think it worth revealing?

    (From Yahoo Answers)

    So 9/11 was a Mossad operation but was accomplished using top secret US holographic technology and space beam weapons to destroy WTC 1&2?

    Wonderful! Keep em coming!

    You do realize that there is not one single mainstream (i.e. credible) scientific or engineering journal or book that seriously entertains your theories? I can also assure you that no one in any credible (i.e. employed) science or engineering field wastes any significant time even thinking about it. You can, and will, I'm sure, heap your typical insulting and jingo filled meta-technical BS (I assure you none of it has any technical merit, you don't know the meaning of scientific method) upon anyone who disagrees with you, you are still part of the lunatic fringe and if you had one modicum of integrity you would agree. Unfortunately that is not the case, is it?

    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 say it?

    And I have read now at least two points of view re-espoused by you which originate from assured anti-semites; Hutchins and now this glorified librarian, Sabrosky. You are fully aware there have been obvious ties in your past posts to anti-semitic origins.

  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 his "expertise". The truth of the matter -- with respect to both his background and his claims -- is quite different, of course.

    Sabrosky was working at the US Army War College as an administrator. He never was the director or dean of the college. Far from it. According to the Press Office of the Army War College, in the mid-1980s, Sabrosky served as a civilian administrator at a research department of the college, supervising the publication of papers written within that department. Putting it simple, he was something like a librarian, a mid-level civilian manager at a military college, without access to the sort of highly classified material of the sort he now fraudulently claims to have. Moreover, he worked there 25 years ago. How on earth could someone who worked on the level of a college librarian in the 1980s be privy to top secret information about the 9/11? And how on earth could he be the only person to know about it or think it worth revealing?

    (From Yahoo Answers)

    So 9/11 was a Mossad operation but was accomplished using top secret US holographic technology and space beam weapons to destroy WTC 1&2?

    Wonderful! Keep em coming!

    You do realize that there is not one single mainstream (i.e. credible) scientific or engineering journal or book that seriously entertains your theories? I can also assure you that no one in any credible (i.e. employed) science or engineering field wastes any significant time even thinking about it. You can, and will, I'm sure, heap your typical insulting and jingo filled meta-technical BS (I assure you none of it has any technical merit, you don't know the meaning of scientific method) upon anyone who disagrees with you, you are still part of the lunatic fringe and if you had one modicum of integrity you would agree. Unfortunately that is not the case, is it?

  20. That's what I was asking :P

    Just to do some checking. In a purely scientific research manner.

    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. This one web site alone contains all the evidence necessary to debunk all of Burton's and Colby's false claims about the 911 attacks.

    http://911lies.org/full_size_911_pentagon_attack_damage5.html

    What really failed.gif is the US government's version of who really attacked America on 911.

    Like I said before, anyone who believes the official version of the 911 attacks are complete fools.

    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 Duane, when Jack's a dotard, will you sop the spit off his chin? As usual with the ludicrously weak - fishwrap proof.

    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 for sure, he has not been heard from in a very long time.. Which most likely means that the man assassinated in Pakistan on May 1,2011 was not Bin Laden.. Plus, how convienent that "Bin Laden's" body has already been dumped at sea in the middle of the night.. Let the cover up begin!

    Osama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government

    ON MAY 1, 2011, JUST MOMENTS BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA ANNOUNCED THAT THE US HAD KILLED OSAMA BIN LADEN, THE WHATREALLYHAPPENED WEBITE CAME UNDER MASSIVE DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK. THIS PAGE, WHICH DOCUMENTS THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN ACTUALLY DIED IN DECEMBER OF 2001, APPEARS TO BE WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE DIDN'T WANT AVAILABLE WHILE THE NEW PROPAGANDA WAS "CATAPULTED FORWARD". IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS IS THE OPENING GAMBIT IN A PLAN TO STAGE A "REVENGE" ATTACK FROM "AL QAEDA" ON THE UNITED STATES, WITH WHICH TO JUSTIFY TOTAL WAR ON THE MIDDLE EAST.

    Bin Laden's voice was detected regularly until [14 December 2001] by intelligence operatives monitoring radio transmissions in Tora Bora, according to the Pentagon [details]. Since then, nothing has been heard from the al-Qa'eda leader and President Bush has hinted in private that bin Laden's silence could mean he has been killed. [Telegraph, 12/28/2001]

    More here.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osama_dead.php

    Nasty Hostility Duane? My guillable worldview keeps me restrained in a little propoganda box?

    I think not.

    I think you may have been reading a little too much Tom Swift or Harry Potter. That you are postulating Bin Laden's death as a coverup for some kind of Government attack on domestic territory is so over the top, well, you may want to check your meds and make sure you haven't missed any. A bit of creative conspiracy theory? Just because Bin Laden didn't host a talk show didn't mean he was dead. In that case, Pee Wee Herman would have been dead fifteen years ago (as I'm sure you well know).

    As to you and Jack's dead rat, Jack (or you) probably ran it over. Check for tread marks.

  23. Excellent debunking of the thermite fantasy by someone well qualified to do so.

    9/11 truthers may agree that (1) if unignited nanothermite was in the WTC dust after the event, it proves a demolition plan of some kind; or (2) if unignited nanothermite was found in the dust after the event, it only proves that nanothermite played some role either on 9/11 or in its aftermath – including the cleanup, which was overseen by the federal and city governments. Those who believe (1) may in fact be satisfied with the lack of conclusive evidence of explosives the discovery of nanothermite presents. Those who agree with (2) are most likely to be unsatisfied by the current state of affairs, and may indeed argue, “We still have no real ‘hard evidence’ proving that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.”

    We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate to any discerning viewer that the Twin Towers did not come down by gravitational collapse. However, apart from that, we are still where we started – pursuing different inquiries into how and why the buildings fell the way they did. “Explosive nanothermite” is no firmer a theory than conventional explosives demolition, nuclear demolition, or directed free-energy technology; in fact, it is somewhat misleading and – for that reason alone – probably not the best horse for us to be betting on.

    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 in the way of constructive thought or speculation. Are you a nihilist Mr. Fetzer?

  24. "But isn't Osama Bin Laden already DEAD?

    A few years ago, shortly before she was assassinated, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan was being interviewed by the BBC and she spoke casually of the murder of Bin Laden by his own people. The reporter was surprised. But Bhutto and other non-westerns apparently have access to the REAL news instead of the bullsht the US media spoon feeds us."

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081127003540AAONnjQ

    by Russell Clark

    http://www.Catnews.org

    Dateline: Jan. 2008

    "I was surfing the net the other day and came across a link leading me to a You Tube clip of an interview with Pakistan's former prime minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

    Heading up the populist Pakistan People's Party, Bhutto was a leading contender in the country's general election, before she was gunned down a few weeks ago.

    In this You Tube clip from a November 3 Al Jazeera interview with British television presenter Sir David Frost, Bhutto discusses who she thought was responsible for the prior assassination attempt on her life.

    The shocking part is when I heard Bhutto make reference to the people who assassinated Osama Bin Laden.

    Stop the tape! What did I just hear? I backed up the tape and at the 6 minuet and 15 second mark she does in fact say that Osama Bin Laden has been assassinated. I had to play it a few times to let it sink in.

    She says it with a straight face and Frost doesn't call her on it. What the h**l is going on?

    My guess is that Bin Laden is indeed dead and this administration is keeping it a secret. Why would they do that?

    Maybe because someone killed Bin Laden and the Government doesn't have enough proof and releasing the information would be more trouble then its worth... Who knows. I do suppose that it would be an easy affair to hide Bin Ladens death from the public.

    Please check out this video for yourself. Once again the government is hoodwinking us LOL."

    http://searchwarp.com/swa289934.htm

    Bhutto's Video

    Funny how it took President Obama only one week to allegedly find and kill bin Laden, while Bush and Co. couldn't accomplish his assassination in eight very long years during their regime.

    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. Al-Qaeda founder and leader Osama Bin Laden is dead, according to US media reports citing officials.

    The US is in possession of Bin Laden's body, the reports say. President Barack Obama is due to make a statement shortly.

    Bin Laden is top of the US most wanted list.

    He is accused of being behind a number of atrocities, including the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001.

    The al-Qaeda leader was killed in a mansion outside Islamabad in an operation based on actionable US intelligence, CNN reported.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676

    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...