3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
jfetzer Research, Split from Latest News

Tamborine man
post Feb 10 2011, 11:09 AM
Post #41

Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 8 2011, 12:36 PM) *
Look, I have my hands full here without attempting to justify Judy's work, whcih
I find extremely interesting. The exaggeration of someone else's position to make
it easier to attack is called "the straw man". I spent 35 years teaching students to
avoid elementary fallacies like this, where your characterization of Judy's work is
an example. We don't know how the Twin Towers were destroyed and she may
be wrong about the use of directed energy weapons, but they have been around
long enough that the could have been used, where the case has not been proven.

It does not appear to me that you are interested in becoming more familiar with
her work, which is my subjective impression from posts like this one. My interest
in her work derives from the brilliant job she has done collating photos and other
studies of the effects of the attack on the World Trade Center that an acceptable
theory would have to explain. Those include the extent of the dustification, the
odd damage to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 as well as the "toasted cars".
If you have a theory that can explain all of this, let me know, because I don't.

Jim, I don't follow you. Why on earth are you addressing this to me?

Should it not be bleeding obvious that i'm responding to SandersO!!

Take a second look Jim, and start afresh ....please!

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 10 2011, 11:40 AM
Post #42

Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331

Human behavior is always fascinating.

In some places, the mere mention of Woods is tantamount to heresy.

Yes, dogma is NOT limited to religious groups.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 10 2011, 12:00 PM
Post #43

Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331


Away from this cyber world, I have been called Cynical Dick for many years, because I am known for my cynical view of life in general.

But your cynicism regarding Woods filing the Qui Tam suit makes me look like a Cub Scout.

Quick research of definitions and history show that a large part of the reason for the Qui Tam action (in modern law) is the protection of whistle blowers, and there have been several court decisions affirming that.

The financial benefit to Woods would have been neglible, but the benefits to helping discover the truth were potentially huge. That is, if her action had prevailed, it might have been made public as to whether and why certain companies specializing in DEW provided "assistants" to NIST to possibly control the direction of the agency's "research" into the events of the day. IF she is right, the coverup was engineered by certain for profit companies.

But your "instincts" tell you that she took the action for financial gain.

Your bias and prejudice are obvious. Why, I haven't a clue. But it is obvious you do not like the woman, or you do not like the questions she asks. Shame on you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 11 2011, 12:54 PM
Post #44

Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 8 2011, 10:31 AM) *
A basic desideratum of criticism is to be sure you know the argument you are attempting to defeat.
Why don't you explain my arguments and tell us how these videos are supposed to defeat them? As
far as I can see, they do nothing of the sort, but there seem to be some who are eager to agree in
spite of the evidence. Since John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, and a study by
Pilots for 9/11 Truth both support the impossible speed of the plane shown in the videos, how does
this response cope with that question? The impossible entry in defiance of Newton's laws cannot be
defeated by showing the plane entering the building in defiance of Newton's laws. So what exactly
do you think you are proving here? Do you think the plane should pass through its own length into
the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air? That implies
that this massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance to the plane's trajectory
than air. If you think this is a real plane, then my hats off to you. Some of us have a far greater
tolerance for fantasy than do I. You may be the best example of living in delusion on this thread.

The first video not just in my opinion clearly shows significant deceleration. The second quite significant sway of the building consistent with impact of something heavy from the right direction. So I'm quite not sure what interpretation of Newton's laws you mean... The speed of the plane is realy very high as confirm multiple sources including official ones. In fact first when I came to this forum years ago I came with the question about "UA175" almost unbelievable speed, later I even persuaded the same author of the videos I posted to make 3D simulation based on available videos to exactly determine booth trajectory (btw the videos fit each other) and speed and it was found out that the impact speed is 250+ m/s relatively to the buildings wall and the impact angle is almost perpendicular. You really believe a plane with such speed can't penetrate through "wall" of which almost half of the surface are just windows and the rest in form of columns is 0.25 inch thick steel (I really don't know what means "massive" for you) moreover easily dislodgable from its position because bolted just with 4 bolts on the connections. I must say that sustained trolling usually ends with holydays at this forum, so if you like it please keep it strictly here.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 11 2011, 01:50 PM
Post #45

Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814

I would love to interview her or get her into a discussion at the 911 Free Forum, here or at Deep Politics. She's a no show.

I didn't consider the Jenkins interview a hit piece. She, BY HER OWN WORDS came off like an incompetent person and I base my understanding of her dustification by what SHE said.

Calling Judy, Calling Judy.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th May 2018 - 05:56 AM