Support 911Blogger


Five Papers Added to the Letters Section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Five papers were added to the Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies today, as the pace for publication continues to grow. Five papers in one day:

Prof. Graeme MacQueen: Sonic Booms in the Collapse of the Twin Towers?
Gordon Ross, ME: Response to "Anonymous": Partial Logic - Partial Answer
Anonymous: Letter to Gordon Ross (NB: 'anonymous' authorship is strongly discouraged)
Arabesque: 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples
Dr. Steven Jones Replies to James Fetzer

There are now about seventy papers total in this peer-reviewed Journal.

ProfJones, thanks for posting

I would urge you to not waste your time responding to, or even acknowledging, "those people" any longer. They serve no purpose other than to try and discredit valid scientific research. They use the journal, this site, and others, to perpetuate their baseless garbage, and everyone sees through it. I would think that your time and effort is better spent in this continued fight for 9/11 truth, instead of dealing with these people who will end up in the dustbin of history. I know you will do what you feel is right, I just wanted to express my opinion on it.

Thanks for your work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Show "I have answered your questions, Professor Jones" by Ningen

Basis for a question, yes.

The landing gear that is claimed to have exited from the south face of the north tower -- is a legitimate matter to question, yes. However, I do not think the answer is unequivocally that this is "planted evidence" (isn't this what you are claiming?)

One event can happen in quite unexpected ways. (Not three skyscrapers collapsing fast and straight down!)
For instance, since we agree the core is NOT SOLID, then it is possible for ONE piece of gear from the high-speed plane to have ricochet'ed its way between obstacles in the core.

Another hypothesis, which seems more likely to me, is that this ONE piece of gear took a couple of bounces, including a bounce INSIDE the outer perimeter which directed it towards the south face where it went out a window. Can you EXCLUDE that hypothesis for this ONE piece of gear?

Occam's Razor?

Planted evidence is the conclusion I draw, but I stated earlier that this is debatable. The main question is whether the plane impact would put it there. If not, I think the simplest explanation is that it was placed there, and can think of no other explanations.

Why are you looking for a ricochet? The trajectory for the wheel in question is straight through the tower and straight to Rector Street, 1,385 feet south of the North Tower. The landing gear did not need to be directed to the South Wall.

As I stated, it is conceivable that the landing gear missed a core column as it passed straight through, but if it did hit a core column in a glancing blow, that ricochet would have diverted the landing gear from the observed trajectory and likely would have resulted in multiple ricochets.

The windows were very narrow and you should not speculate without comparing the width of the wheel with the width of the windows. NIST speculates that the 6-ton panel was the door opened, without explaining how it was propelled almost 700 feet. As I wrote, NIST said it was "less certain" about the wheel at Rector and West, which is unsurprising because all of their models show it stopping inside the core or just outside the core, not exiting the tower at over 100 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_on_the_world_window_seats.jpg

http://bp3.blogger.com/_7yk2MF3y9xE/RaH9hI8ARFI/AAAAAAAAACc/RIpyf_uRHYQ/...

I'm down to the explosion/fireball as explanations for the 6-ton panel and the wheel being propelled 700 and 1400 feet.

But as I said, the official story also requires that the fireballs shot down the elevator shafts to take out the elevators and apparently the 22nd floor Security Command Center. Isn't that considered the path of least resistance rather than continuing through the heavy gypsum of the core?

I apologize for jumping in to this blog post, rather than waiting for your reply at your other blog post. It seems that Castle Rustler's statement was in response to your Letter responding to Jim Fetzer. I am sensitive due to constant, baseless attacks that I am a "shill."

I appreciate your point,

CattleRustler... At the same time, when Dr. Fetzer threatens legal action against my friends (which he did last fall) and makes bold defamatory statements on his radio program against other 9/11 researchers -- I feel I must speak out in their defense. Similarly, when he attacks me and I know the facts to counter his verbal attacks, then I speak the truth to counter and correct the falsehoods.

It is similar to what we are doing as a 9/11 community to "bullies" in the Bush/Cheney administraion -- is it not?
They threaten with torture and removal of Geneva convention and Constitutional protections. Attorneys who do not do their bidding are fired. "Whoever is not with us is against us -- terrorists" -- that is the declaration of a bully, IMO.

We will "speak truth to power" at all levels. We will not cower nor accept "proof by intimidation."

Show "Re Arabesque's disinformation article" by Ningen

Ningen

To answer your objections

I am not criticizing Rice's Foot of God paper. In fact, I am praising it by suggesting that "the foot of god" (as implicity supported by NIST, not Rice) is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. You obviously missed my humor here (ironically this is a straw-man, see my discussion of your objection on this below).

"I told Arabesque several weeks ago that he was misusing Wudka's definition, apparently to no avail."

And I replied and explained why you are wrong. You can re-read that thread to see my responses. In any case, speculation that new technology will materialize in the future is in itself non-falsifiable speculation.

Speculation: technology exists that can do things we don't know about now

This is non-falsifiable because
1. No evidence can be presented to convincingly prove this speculation false.
2. If evidence is presented, the person speculating can simply say: "you haven't found it yet. They are hiding the evidence".

I removed the tag "straw-man" fallacy from the example on page 3 because it is not a clear example of this. A straw-man misrepresents someone's position. So if someone misrepresents the events of 9/11 to support their conclusion, this is related to the straw-man fallacy. I changed this example before reading your comments here, and an updated version has been uploaded. In fact, I changed it many weeks ago, but this version was not initially posted.

You are of course welcome to your opinions on my paper, but I find it ironic that you claim my paper is a waste of time, since you promote arguments on 9/11 blogger that the majority of the users on this site consider a waste of time. While this is not necessarily my opinion, it shows that some things are a matter of opinion.

I fully expect my sixth type of disinformation to be the most controversial of the points in the paper. It does not change the fact that falsifiability is a requirement of scientific thinking and argument.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

If you want to define "non falsifiable" yourself

then do so. That is not how the source you cite defines it. You use that source to support a completely different argument -- that the current availablity of evidence determines falsifiability.

What I think is a waste of time is the rehashing of arguments between Jim Fetzer and Steven Jones and Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood and Greg Jenkins. I'm not sayng don't debate, but the way it is being done, especially among the first four and most obviously by Jim Fetzer, is very strange.

I'm not completely sure that God's foot is falsifiable under Wudka's definition, but I think it is falsifiable by showing that a natural mechanism did it. Same with the aliens and DEW - prove an earthly mechanism and origin and you've ruled out aliens and/or DEW.

The holograms is not non-falsifiable - prove the technology is not possible and you've falsified it. I think that has been done which is why the only person arguing holograms is former? spook Shayler.

I do get your humor, but I think it is a shame for the Foot of God paper to be relegated to a humerous footnote. My point is that this is really all we need -- the proof that the Progressive collapse theory is impossible. Gordon Ross is dealing with that well, but I would like to see more of this. The Foot of God paper is a a great piece of rhetoric showing how absurd the official story is. Why can't we unite around this? This should be the first argument, in any submission to NIST about the pulverization of the towers.

I say ignore DEW if you disagree with it. Even if false and absurd, the concern about being discredited, and the resulting accusations and division, is far worse than actual discrediting. Your cure is worse than the illness. You argue for over 20 pages about stuff that you think is bullshit. What's the point?

Moreover, the idea that something should not be talked about because it will "discredit the movement" is a pernicious doctrine that is easily misused.

I believe that this idea is being used to keep people from looking at the ample evidence for TV Fakery.

The means to insert video into national broadcasting systems existed and was being used by the Pentagon in 1997, as reported in the Harvard publication discussed here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/dangers-of-disinformation-in-wa...

See also Amatao, Lying with Pixels, MIT Technology Review, 2000.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/artic...

With today's technology, along with a wealth of knowledge of social psychology, creating a reality is child's play for our military. It's Mind War, PsyOp, Information Operations, and it's a well-known military doctrine. People at this blog need to get over their denial of this.

The wall of denial is crumbling as we speak:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10727

Response

My own understanding is that you are misinterpreting the definition of non-falsifiable theories. As I quote Dr Jones in my paper:

“Is the directed-beams hypothesis a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis? Let the proponents delineate crucial experiments which will permit testing the hypothesis, and which have the potential of proving the hypothesis wrong. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable by experiments, it is not scientific.

Dr. Jones' explanation speaks for itself. What are the experiments that can prove the DEW hypothesis incorrect?

"The Foot of God paper is a a great piece of rhetoric showing how absurd the official story is. Why can't we unite around this?"

Clearly you are asking the wrong person. I support the strongest evidence to get an investigation and answer once and for all these never ending and unanswerable speculations.

"I say ignore DEW if you disagree with it. Even if false and absurd, the concern about being discredited, and the resulting accusations and division, is far worse than actual discrediting."

The time for ignoring weak theories on 9/11 has long past. I am not going to wait for defenders of the official story to do our own work for us.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

You defined it with Wudka

Failure to propose experiments that could prove or falsify does not mean that such experiments do or do not exist.

Moreover, as Wurdek says, the non-falsifiability requirement "means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue." (emphasis added)

Experiments are not necessarily required to a prove or falsify a theory. Evidence can do that.

See also Wikipedia on falsifiability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificationism

"Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. " (emphasis added)

Controlled experiments are not always necessary, and systematic observations can form natural experiments. Wood claims that her theory accounts for various observations. Whether or not that is true, her method is not unscientific. Jones constantly speaks of "experiments," as if observations are not part of the scientific method.

You cited Wudka, not me. Non-falsifiability has an accpeted meaning in the philosophy of science and you should stick to that. If your argument is that her theory cannot be proved with available evidence or evidence that is likely to becone available, and thus should be abandoned, just say that.

I thought Jenkins had falisfied her theory by showing extremely high energy requirements. If so, it is a falsifiable hypothesis.

Again, I'm not promoting the DEW theory here. I'm critiquing your paper and the overemphasis on "experiments" over observations.

Let me explain again

"Moreover, as Wurdek says, the non-falsifiability requirement "means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue." (emphasis added)"

You are again misinterpreting here. What he means is that if you hold a theory, you have to be able to first observe evidence. I discussed this in my paper when I said that disinformation does not constitute legitimate evidence (i.e. observations) to support a theory. As I say in my paper, non-falsifiable theories CAN be supported with disinformation, and in this case, it is possible to show that the evidence supporting these theories are illegitimate (i.e. the falsely supported OBSERVATIONS are falsifiable).

Evidence and Observations are interchangeable.

So, in this sense, there are no "observations" to support DEW, because as I point out in my paper, these observations are really misinformation (i.e. toasted cars, etc.).

So while what you say is true, you ignore the fact that I specify in my paper that only LEGITIMATE observations (i.e. evidence) can support a theory.

Your argument is a straw-man. I've answered this point already in my paper.

"I thought Jenkins had falsified her theory by showing extremely high energy requirements. If so, it is a falsifiable hypothesis."

This is again, a misinterpretation. While Jenkins HAS specified energy requirements he provided no TEST to meet them. So how can we TEST to get these energy requirements.

1. DEW requires thousands of earths worth of power. Is there technology to accomplish this? Falsifiable--it's false until shown otherwise.
2. DEW CAN manage thousands of earths worth of power. Non-Falsifiable. How can I show you that this is not true?

Which of these two positions is Judy Wood maintaining? As you can see, there is a subtle, but IMPORTANT difference. While the first option implies a test to prove the theory false (the test: if no technology exists, the theory is proven false), the second option does not (test: how can we test this?).

Do you understand the difference? It is clear to me that you are misinterpreting this essential distinction between a falsifiable hypothesis and a non-falsifiable one. Judy Wood maintains a position that is non-falsifiable because there are no tests to prove that technology does NOT exist which can provide thousands of earths worth of power. THAT is non-falsifiable.

This is another straw-man... sorry Ningen.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Are you that obtuse?

If I wanted to teach remedial English I would have become a community college instructor.

Do you understand what the words "possible" and "could" mean?

I cannot believe we are still arguing about this. I told you before you published that you were misusing Wurdka, and you ignored me and published anyway.

It's a simple point. It's about the potential for being proven false, not about whether it has been proven true or false.

"This is again, a misinterpretation. While Jenkins HAS specified energy requirements he provided no TEST to meet them. So how can we TEST to get these energy requirements."

There you go again. You're pushing the misinformation that only a controlled experiment--a TEST!!!--is valid for supporting a theory. The scientific methid is not as limited
as you and Steven Jones claim here. If it is, astronomy is not a science.

Jenkins argued that enormous energy requirements prove that DEW is false. I'm simply pointing out that on the terms of the source you cited, this is a way in which the theory could be proved false - hence it is falsifiable.

Falsifiability is a term of art in the philosophy of science. If you want to philosophize about the science of 9/11 you need to at least stick to one definition of your terms.

"This is another straw-man... sorry Ningen."

You're misusing this again, right after you were called you on it. Is this intentional?

Well there's no need to be rude here...

"Jenkins argued that enormous energy requirements prove that DEW is false. I'm simply pointing out that on the terms of the source you cited, this is a way in which the theory could be proved false - hence it is falsifiable."

I'm being obtuse? I just explained to you that you are (partly) RIGHT in my last post! DEW does require massive amounts of energy. The hypothesis:

Dew requires thousands of earths of power. Is there any known technology to accomplish this? is FALSIFIABLE. It's false until proven otherwise. Has Judy Wood abandoned her theory? Of course not!

Therefore, you are committing a Straw-man because Judy Wood does NOT maintain this position. She maintains it is POSSIBLE in SPITE of these energy requirements. She maintains that in SPITE of this qualification that 1000 earths of power are required, DEW is still possible. This is non-falsifiable. How can I prove THIS false?

I'll quote Dr. Jones again:

"“Is the directed-beams hypothesis a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis? Let the proponents delineate crucial experiments which will permit testing the hypothesis, and which have the potential of proving the hypothesis wrong. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable by experiments, it is not scientific.”"

Given the fact that no known technology exists to support Wood's theory, how can she provide any experiments to test or validate it. That is non-falsifiable.

Now you can sit here and claim it "could" be "possible" to disprove this argument, but it is not. All Wood has to do is say: "well I know that the technology isn't known to us. They are HIDING it." In fact, she specifically says this.

How can I prove to you they ARE NOT hiding it? This is the crucial point you are missing. I can't prove to you that they are NOT hiding it, therefore the theory is non-falsifiable.

I am not misinterpreting the definition:

""the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?)."

The theory "there are no DEW weapons" is falsifiable. You can disprove it by finding one.
The theory "DEW are being hidden from us and were used on 9/11" is not falsifiable. I can not disprove this.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I made it clear I am not arguing in support of DEW

You have written a paper on the meta-theory of 9/11 analysis. You have cited Wudka using a term of art from the philosophy of science. I pointed out that your argument is not supported by what Wudka said. I provided a similar quote from Wikipedia. I'm not the one that used the words "could" and "possibly" - it was Wudka.

What Judy Wood has done with this is not the issue. I am waiting to see if she does more with it, because the idea of conventional explosives doing what we saw is hard for me to believe. I am just saying it is falsifiable.

I see what you are saying about the argument that the weapons are hidden, if in fact the theory is that we cannot know because they will always be hidden. That would be a non-falsifiable theory. If that's your argument, I apologize, as it fits Wudka's definition of non-falsifiability.

However, I don't think that is what Wood is saying. What you or I can find out is not the issue. It may be unrealistic, but assuming we really do have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the question of what weapons exist in the hands of the military-industrial complex, and whether they were used on 9/11, should be discoverable.

Therefore, in theory, Wood is taking the right approach by asking whether explosives and/or thermate account for the data. Whether or not the alternative weapon she postulates is correct or even discoverable, it would be important to know that conventional devices could not do it.

Again, Im not arguing the merits of her theory, and whether she has properly interpreted the data. That is beyond me.

This relates to my biggest concern -- this idea of "experiments." That seems to me an overly narrow view of scientific inquiry.

As I have said, I think we have more than enough to unite around the simple idea that energy must have been added, through whatever deivice known or unknown, because gravity could not do what we saw.

Agreement

"However, I don't think that is what Wood is saying. What you or I can find out is not the issue. It may be unrealistic, but assuming we really do have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the question of what weapons exist in the hands of the military-industrial complex, and whether they were used on 9/11, should be discoverable."

This is why I also made the argument in my paper that we should stick to the strongest evidence to get an investigation. I am not objecting to these theories simply because they are unprovable. I am objecting to them because we can use the strongest evidence we have to get an investigation and answer these questions once and for all. If we can't answer these questions in the foreseeable future, why are we wasting so much energy on them? is it the purpose of the 9/11 truth movement to engage in endless debates or get justice?

By "experiments" (i.e. to test a theory) I also mean "validation". In other words, as evidence is the same as "observations", "validation" is the same as "experiments to prove a theory". I did link these together in my paper. Perhaps I should have just stuck with "validation" because it is more encompassing, but don't misconstrue that I only meant "experiments" to prove a theory. You are quite right there are other ways, hence "validation".

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Yes, some agreement

But I think the strongest evidence is the impossibility of the official theory of gravity-driven progressive "collapse," which proves that energy of some sort was added. We all agree on this. The rapid pulverization of the towers is the strongest evidence. My concern with going in with a theory of explosives and/or thermate, even if there is some basis for it., might allow the government to offer evidence, even fraudulent, proving that explosives were not used. This would leave the real issue unaddressed. Going in with a DEW theory raises the same problem.

I agree that we should not waste time debating what happened. This has been very divisive. The point I was trying to make is that your paper continues this time-wasting debate. I know you spent a lot of time on your paper, but I am sorry, I think it rehashes time-wasting debate.

"Validation" is fine. I have been concerned about Steven Jones using the word "experiment," which I read as very narrow. Thank you for clarifying that.

Unfuckingbelievable. (<-- period)

Ningen says:

"the ample evidence for TV Fakery."

I am to take it that he means that no planes flew into the World Trade Center towers, and this was "faked."

Apart from being one of the most ridiculous and offensive pieces of disinformation I think I've ever heard, one would have to be at least partially retarded to fall for this shit.

I know Nico Haupt was pushing this crap. Are you Nico Haupt, Ningen? And that he was quite appropriately shunned and ridiculed for it.

But in anonymous land, I suppose we have to expect the ridiculous and the retarded.

Now, Ningen doesn't write like a retarded person, quite the opposite. He/she/it has some command of the language. I suppose some bad mothers used hallucinogens while pregnant, but we don't have the evidence for such a charge, of course (although with the standard of evidence Ningen is accustomed to, we may be able to slide).

The evidence does appear to cast quite a dim shade of light on Ningen's motives however. An honest person would not conclude that 'no planes hit the World Trade Center', and say it in public, based on some video technology papers he came across. That's an insane leap only a madman would take.

So, something smells here, and not too flowery. There's no relation to the "truth" in a discussion about faking the planes crashing into the towers. That is clearly an agenda to discredit us as "nuts", "kooks", and "fruitcakes."

Pay close attention to who brings out these claims.

Have they bothered coming up with a motive for "faking" the planes crashing? Was it to avoid killing people? Or are the planes too pricey to bother crashing? Just what are your handlers telling you to support this, uh, ahum, "theory?"

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Who is your handler, John?

Once, again, I am accused of being an agent. I write for myself. Do you?

Your techniques and your logic are laughable. "Ridiculous" and "offensive."

I think Killtown makes a great argument for the motive for faking planes:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wt...

No matter, the key fact is that the videos were faked.

I've noticed that you also criticize the remote controlled planes theory, but without the false accusations:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5821#comment-111774

Why is that, John?

How is the faked videos more offensive than remote controlled military drones? Both assume that the passengers were not on the planes.

Give it up, John. The evidence has moved far beyond your "70 facts" that affirm the core fraud in the 9/11 hoax. Been there, considered that, five years ago. Lots of good it has done.

"I know you are but what am I?

Yes, I must be the disinfo agent for believing that planes actually crashed into the towers. That's convenient "logic."

"Once, again, I am accused of being an agent."

Agent or dupe, it makes no difference to me.

"Your techniques and your logic are laughable. "Ridiculous" and "offensive.""

Really? You think that tens of thousands of people looking up at a plane didn't exist. I'm laughable? How come no one ever heard of this "theory" for YEARS after the event? How come no witnesses came forward to challenge the "plane theory" in NYC until whack jobs got together to promote this sewage YEARS LATER?

"I think Killtown makes a great argument for the motive for faking planes:"

You would, wouldn't you? A cozy little cabal you have going. Are any rubes actually buying into your disinfo?

"No matter, the key fact is that the videos were faked."

"FACT!"

"KEY FACT!"

Not speculation. Not a possibility. Not opinion. Not a suspicion. This is a FACT!

You have less than zero credibility Ningen. And nothing further to add.

"I've noticed that you also criticize the remote controlled planes theory, but without the false accusations:"

I haven't actually criticized it. I have mentioned that it is unprovable. Which is true. You are welcome to prove it, although you would no doubt resort to Killtown/Fetzer/Wood nonsense arguments. Is that on the agenda?

"Why is that, John?"

Ah. Why don't I post unsupportable speculation as "fact?"

Do you really need it explained?

You're smarter than that, agent N.

"How is the faked videos more offensive than remote controlled military drones?"

I never said they were "military drones." Are you resorting to some straw men now, agent N?

"Both assume that the passengers were not on the planes."

I have never assumed the passengers were not on the planes, agent N.

"Give it up, John. The evidence has moved far beyond your "70 facts" that affirm the core fraud in the 9/11 hoax. "

Thank you agent N. for that unintentional compliment. They do "affirm the core fraud", don't they? Nice turn of phrase.

"Been there, considered that, five years ago. Lots of good it has done."

So much more can be "done" with your contrived nonsense about faking the plane crashes at the World Trade Center, agent N. Pathetic plus one.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

We'll see, John

I think you are either an agent or a dupe, and you think the same of me. I suggest we ignore each other.

One point -- my question about the passengers was not a straw man and I did not attribute the military drone plane position to you. If you don't want to address what I said, fine, but don't misstate it.

Well said

The no plane theories are nonsense. The other day I was watching one of these "tv fakery" videos and they are offensively moronic--perhaps even intentionally so.

Ningen should take his views to a discussion forum, and debate them there. If he feels he can prove his theories, write a paper about it and submit it somewhere for review. The fact that he criticizes me as "wasting time" by criticizing the weakly supported theories in this movement is to me--suspicious. The very foundation of 9/11 truth is to determine what is and what is NOT true. That he calls these "debates" (implicitly; criticizing bad theories) a waste of time seems to "conveniently" suit Ningen's agenda in the promotion of no-planes.

I believe in free speech, but I also strongly disagree with the promotion of misinformation. And yes, I believe there is a lot of misinformation in the 9/11 truth movement, and not all of it is obvious.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Whatever, Arabesque

For what it's worth, I don't trust you, either.

If you have a specific critique of "September Clues," let's hear it.

I called further criticism of DEW a waste of time. The point has been made. There is common ground that should be emphasized more.

Thanks

Given your credibility around here that's a compliment.

The fact that you are "suspicious" of me doesn't surprise me since you appear to base your no-plane theories on... paranoid suspicions about the laws of physics rather than concrete or credible arguments.

Nice try

I have used the same reasoning skills that I use to assess the FEMA/MIT/NIST/Northwestern/Purdue fraud claiming the pulverization is a "progressive collapse," and to assess the implausibility of debris passing through the towers and exiting at over 100 mph. It's not me that has to explain why the same laws of physics don't apply to the plane crash. The absurdity of the Purdue animation begins with the smooth entry of the plane, with fuselage intact.*

Incidentally, I hope that Professor Jones might have further thoughts about the wheel at Rector and West that purportedly passed through the core of the North Tower and exited at over 100 mph to come to rest 1,385 feet beyond the tower. I believe I have addressed the ricochet theory and the window theory and hope he might reply after the Vancouver conference.

--------------------------------------
*The Purdue video shows the fuselage as narrower in diameter than the space between floors. This is a lie. As MIT's Wierzbicki pointed out in his paper, the fuselage has to come into contact with one or two floors, depending on point of impact, because it is 5 meters in diameter while the length between floors is 3.7 m. He says the floors were 0.9 meter thick or about 3 feet. See this paper, pages 38-39:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

On second thought, the animation may be showing the fuselage being cut by the floor, with the other portion passing above the visible floor. If so, that raises another question--how does the fuselage penetrate when impacting external columns backed by a floor? Is penetration of the external columns followed by cutting by the floors, really plausible? Wouldn't the fuselage crush and fragment against the columns backed by a floor, particularly since energy would be distributed up and down the columns and into the floor?

Wierzbikci says that relative orientation of the fuselage with respect to the floors is a condition for the structural analysis of the impacts. (p. 36) He claims that the relative orientation of the fuselage with respect to the floors is unknown. (p. 38).

NIST gives a better idea of where each fuselage hit, at NIST NCSTAR 1-2B pages 170-171, but with a 4 foot uncertainty up or down.

I question this--why can't the exact point of impact be determined from the photographs? I would like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to address this problem. It relates to analysis of NIST's claims about core column damage, since more interaction with the floors means less damage to core columns. Therefore, this analysis is both necessary and politically correct. Where did the engines and fuselage hit on each tower?

Point of impact also affects the analysis of the starboard engine fragment that is not claimed to have passed through the core of the South Tower. NIST says the starboard engine interacted with floor 82, but that if the point of impact was raised 1 or 2 feet, which it says is within the aircraft impact geometry uncertainty range, then the engine would not have interacted with floor 82 and might have exited the building (though not at over 100 mph). (If the uncertainty is 4 feet, it could also have interacted with floor 83).

Thanks for trying to help

sort out the wheat from the shaft.

A bit off topic but I think you might be interested to take a look at this picture?

The picture is from James L Wilson at http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/gallery/270398/17/10697258/Large

The large beam on the left close to the camera is the most significant item. Is this steel that had melted and then some of it ran out of the bolt holes? What do you think would cause the edges to crinkle and thin like this?

DYEW

Compare WPI results...

Sorry -- busy days getting ready for the big Vancouver conference... Hope to see some of you there!

DYEW -- any date at all on this photo? Any way to be sure that beam on the left was not cut during clean-up?

Interesting to compare the steel there, the way it is cut with steel in the WPI study, here:

www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps

Both WTC 7 and Towers' steel shows the thinning, "swiss cheese" effect per this "official" study... of great interest to me. Thanks.

This image is from a collection

put together by James L. Wilson. It appears that the image was taken on or before 09/21/01.

Here's the info from Wilson's website BocaDigital
FAU@bellsouth.net
http://www.416-1100.com/

Date Modified 2001-09-21 20:42:58
Camera OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD C2020Z
Exposure Time 0.0333s (1/30)
Aperture f/2.0
ISO 400
Focal Length 6.6mm
Photo Dimensions 1600 x 1200
File Name P9210030.JPG
File Size 424.18 KB

"These images were captured by anonymous heroic members of the law enforcement community in the days following 9-11-2001. The images are made available for unlimited viewing. Any net proceeds generated by these images are used to sustain the hosting and maintenance of the site. This is a not-for-profit gallery displayed as a public service in memorial of this tragic event."

Copyright: James L Wilson

There are about 660 hi res images that Wilson has collected. I have looked through all of these images, but this is the only one that I've seen with this kind of damage.

http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/gallery/270398#10457707

http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/gallery/275893#10948680

It might be best to get in touch with Mr. Wilson, since he probably has good records for these images and might have others that he hasn't posted.

Thanks for getting back to me on this one. When I originally posted it on Democratic Underground, all the OCTers tried to prove it had been doctored. That's usually a good sign, that you've found something that could be important.

Peace
DYEW