IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
jfetzer debate

jfetzer
post Feb 10 2011, 06:49 PM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Are these links to clips that are not included in "National Security Alert"? I have watched it before
and thought it was pretty good. Are these more complete with regard to the interviews? I have
a tentative recommendation in mind for Pilots to consider, but I will do more on this before I offer
my suggestion. I am completing a paper this evening, but I should be able to pursue this Friday.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 10 2011, 03:45 PM) *
What happens when some of those witnesses couldn't physically have seen the "NTSB trajectory" or were in a position where they could not describe certain aspects because of their surroundings?

Terry Morin was in between the wings of the Navy Annex and is on record as saying that the aircraft went over his head and that he couldn't see the stripes on the side of the plane. That description narrows the physicality of his testimony considerably.

http://www.thepentacon.com/ona.htm

He should have been able to see this according to the data and his POV:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/b...rinPOVsouth.gif



(sorry for the caps...gotta fix that)


William Lagasse was at the Citgo Gas Station and was under the canopy. Looking toward the official/directional damage path from his POV, he wouldn't have and is on record as stating that he couldn't have physically described what he remembers seeing. Namely the "starboard" of the aircraft, corraborated exactly by his co officer Brooks who was not under the canopy but viewing from behind the gas station and drew the exact same flightpath.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/b...s/northside.gif

http://i43.tinypic.com/23jimc2.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/ivg1f5.jpg

Robert Turcios confirmed this and pointed to an overhead sign as a landmark which he remembered that the aircraft had to "pull up" to avoid.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/b...pointsnorth.gif

http://i42.tinypic.com/1znvix2.jpg

Sean Boger, who was directly facing both the gas station and the Navy Annex and whose description cannot be twisted into some "line of sight issue" as the official path is to his left for the entire duration.

http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm

http://i40.tinypic.com/sq6mus.jpg

William Middleton and all of the ANC witnesses have a memory of the aircraft coming straight for them and banking over/beside the ANC carpark.
William Middleton in particular was in a position where he could not physically see the official path (and in fact can be seen to have the most northern approach over the Annex) as it allegedly passed the south side of the Annex and detractors have to paint these people as, well, morons/liars/cointel (I kid you not) or to have jointly hallucinated the image of the aircraft's position as it came towards and passed them.

http://thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giX1a1qnL_w

http://i39.tinypic.com/1zlbvkk.gif

All interviews here:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

Chandler and Cole made the claim that this guy and apparently his "interview techniques" are above board?

This same guy found more NOC witnesses Jim. CIT have been painted as somehow hiding the "impact" testimony which is a blatant lie as all interviews are available warts and all. As to "leading" them?
Watch the interviews.

Detractor and denier of his own early solid research, Russell Pickering sent a questionnaire to Robert Turcios asking him to pinpoint where he saw the aircraft (again) and he reiterated what he had told CIT.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...der%202/rt2.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Feb 10 2011, 10:04 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



could we please remove fetzer from this board?

i consider him a pot-stirring malefactor.

as do most of you, based on what i have read.

this makes him a troll. unworthy of consideration. a waste of energy to deal with his hijacking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 10 2011, 11:21 PM
Post #3


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



I second that, albert. But I think just from the thread would suffice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wilddaddy
post Feb 11 2011, 11:14 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 31-December 10
Member No.: 5,553



For what it's worth, I actually think Jim is sincere, however, this thread can now officially be considered "highjacked." It is now all about Jim and his feelings. Regardless, I am sure the professionals here will stay focused on the very important discussion.

Jim,

Please just start a thread elsewhere to continue with those who wish to debate you. That would be the polite and manly thing to do IMHO.

This post has been edited by wilddaddy: Feb 11 2011, 11:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 11 2011, 11:16 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes, by all means, stifle and eliminate dissent. Surely a wise move, showing great confidence in one's position. Kinda like the way ol' Dubya handled dissent--ship the fookers a few blocks away from the action and let them dissent to their heart's content.

And really, Jim's is hardly dissent.

We're not all that interested in a rational approach or any questions, we're interested in persons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 11 2011, 01:18 PM
Post #6


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Let's get it straight.

Fetzer has:

-promotes bad information
-promoted that the C-130 controlled pentagon attack plane in a BBC television interview
-promotes video fakery/no plane at the towers
-promoted DEW at the towers
-was involved in the dividing of Scholars for 9/11 truth

Now he is here literally re-posting and acting as a conduit for Chandler/cole and Gage and their recent statements, acting as if they haven't been or really need to be addressed. Meanwhile, JONES suppporters and/or other truthers are here saying, "Oh great, here is Fetzer coming to support CIT. Makes sense then if CIT is supposedly promoting bad info." They want sides and division and of course Fetzer being here only helps enflame the situation and piss off the "scholars" and "truth police" who have sided with Chandler, Cole, JONES etc.

Amazed, you can take your wild theories somewhere else. We are talking about our evidence and the Chandler/Cole article.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 11 2011, 01:41 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,099
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 04:46 PM) *
That suggests to me that someone is fudging the data (again) to come up with a way to create uncertainty about what did or did not happen at the Pentagon.

I don't know why they're doing it, but it very much looks like they are doing it. Look here, but please if you would like to discuss it keep strictly on topic -it is there research section, not a parlor for wild speculations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 11 2011, 01:44 PM
Post #8





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



Aldo,

Spot on about Fetzer. He's a loose canon and he needs to be isolated from serious discussion. He's little more than a charlatan or a dis info agent. He's on some sort of mission and he's not interested in science or research. He's a poseur and a fraud. Or so delusional and egotistical that he cannot be taken seriously.

This assessment is HIS doing. He is judged by his actions and words. He earned. He owns it. And he IS toxic.

Jim Go Away or be sent away by serious researchers.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 11 2011, 01:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 11 2011, 02:44 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,684
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Mod edit: off topic posts above, including this one, have been split and moved from the Latest News Section.


Guys... back on topic please. This is not a Jim Fetzer bash thread.

As long as Jim follows the rules of this forum, he is welcome to post. We dont censor or ban, as does Blogger, just because we may disagree with someone, their point of view or their theories.

Again, the topic of this thread is "CIT Publishes Response To Chandler and Cole".

If any mod/admin wishes to split out the off topic posts, please feel free. Move them to the debate forum where they can debate to their hearts content.

Hopefully i'll be able to get to it later today... been busy trying to wrap up our latest presentation. Trailer should be ready hopefully later today.

Jim, if you wish to respond to the above, please start a new thread in the debate forum (DO NOT RESPOND HERE), and post the link to your response thread.... in this thread, then we'll split/merge all the posts to your new thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 11 2011, 04:13 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Aldo

I bow and genuflect before your Supreme Knowledge. It is your dogma and pride that makes the world a good place.

Maybe one of these days you will be called to testify before Congress, just to enlighten America with the truth and nothing but the truth. I wait with bated breath.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 11 2011, 06:19 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



truth, right? that's what we are all after, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 11 2011, 07:12 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,099
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 11 2011, 11:19 AM) *
truth, right? that's what we are all after, right?

Sometimes I think "That's a question". When I see people like JF, who even when confronted with evidence to the contrary to what he claims, continues with the rants, I'm not sure. Recently I was for example publicly blackmailed by certain D. Khalezov, that if I would wipe my rebuttal of his 150kt (3)nukes WTC demolition terrory from internet, that he would not publish a "counter-rebuttal" (which allegedly was prepared for publication). I think it is important to operate within scientific method. -I would be glad if Mr. Khalezov would publish a rebuttal of my rebuttal - if he would bring real arguments in form of the facts, not erroneous "data" and wild speculations -to finally support his claims, and I clearly told him. Since then he leaves me alone and I still wait for his rebuttal... rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Feb 11 2011, 08:25 PM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 12 2011, 05:14 AM) *
Mod edit: off topic posts above, including this one, have been split and moved from the Latest News Section.


Guys... back on topic please. This is not a Jim Fetzer bash thread.

As long as Jim follows the rules of this forum, he is welcome to post. We dont censor or ban, as does Blogger, just because we may disagree with someone, their point of view or their theories.

Again, the topic of this thread is "CIT Publishes Response To Chandler and Cole".

If any mod/admin wishes to split out the off topic posts, please feel free. Move them to the debate forum where they can debate to their hearts content.

Hopefully i'll be able to get to it later today... been busy trying to wrap up our latest presentation. Trailer should be ready hopefully later today.

Jim, if you wish to respond to the above, please start a new thread in the debate forum (DO NOT RESPOND HERE), and post the link to your response thread.... in this thread, then we'll split/merge all the posts to your new thread.


Even though 911blogger may be ran by a pack of morons i still do like some of the articles they publish, not this one
http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011-02-05/dr-f...ntagon-probable
Now that's just plain stupid, one could think 911 blogger is ran by a pack of shills for publishing this article, any truther who supports this new paper
by Legge is in essence supporting the OCT some people are just really plain stupid.

thumbdown.gif thumbdown.gif thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 12 2011, 10:52 AM
Post #14





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



At the risk of going "off topic", I have given more thought to the
question of differences and would like to elaborate upon them here.

The differences in the modes of destruction of the Twin Towers and
WTC-7 are rather substantial, include the following characteristics:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . WTC-1 & WTC-2 / WTC-7

. . . Sequence: . . . . . . Top down . / . Bottom up

. . . Floor motion: . . Stationary . / Falling together

. . . Mechanism: . . Pulverization* / Controlled Demolition

. . . Time/Speed: . . About 10 secs. / About 6.5 secs.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (~ free fall) . . (~ free fall)

. . . Remnants: . . . . No pancakes . . / . Pancakes
. . . . . . . . . . . . (below ground level) . (5-7 floors)

They display substantial difference even in gross appearance.

On WTC-7, watch YouTube: "This is an Orange"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLz9ewBt-dw

On the Twin Towers, see: "9/11: Towers of Dust"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPJUP-Ry7d0

Their modes of destruction thus appear to have been different.

. . . Debris motion: . Upward & . / . Remaining
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outward . . . . . Intact

. . . Difference: . . . Explosion . / . Implosion

If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--
as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.

For a still series, see "New 9/11 Photos Released"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/ne...s-released.html

The phrase, "controlled demolition" still applies, since they
too were brought down by a demolition that was under control.

* NOTE: One commentator has suggested the "pulverization" conveys
the impression that the process was mechanical, when it might have
been chemical, nuclear, electro-magnetic, or something else indeed.

We still do not know how the Twin Towers were destroyed and other
odd kinds of damage were done to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-
6, not to mention the "toasted cars". It poses a scientific challenge.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 6 2011, 12:05 PM) *
The differences in the modes of destruction of the Twin Towers and
WTC-7 are rather substantial, include thing following characteristics:

. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . WTC-1 & WTC-2 / WTC-7

. . . Sequence: . Top down . / . Bottom up

. . . Floor motion: Stationary . / Falling together

. . . Mechanism: . Pulverization / Controlled Demolition

. . . Time/Speed: About 10 secs. / About 6.5 secs.
. .. .. ... . . . . . . . (~ free fall) . . (~ free fall)

. . . Remnants: . No pancakes / . Pancakes
. . .. .. . . . . . . (below ground level) . (5-7 floors)

They display substantial difference even in gross appearance.
Their modes of destruction thus appear to have been different.
If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--
as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.
The phrase, "controlled demolition" still applies, since they
too were brought down by a demolition that was under control.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 12 2011, 12:40 PM
Post #15





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



If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--
as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.

WTC 7 resembles a "classic controlled demolition"... but there are differences.

WTC 1 and 2 resembles a "classic controlled demolition"... in the upper sections which led to a gravity driven destruction of the lower sections in both cases.

Controlled is a vague term here. All three were planned and engineered.

Imploding the twins would require destroying the core in the bottom of the structures quite low down (similar to WTC7). And to do THAT would require HUGE explosives placed at the core columns where they were massive. It would be hard to explain how a plane strike at the slightest thing to do with it. Classic looking CD was not an option for the planners who need to pin it on the Islamist hijackers.

Hardly anything was controlled about the collapse. It was an engineered destruction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 12 2011, 01:53 PM
Post #16





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



This is the kind of rubbish to be expected from someone who doesn't know what he is
talking about and trades in rumor and speculation. Nothing does more damage to the
CIT team than to make gross distortions that demonstrate they can't even do research
on the views of those they attack! These guys are in love with themselves and have no
sense of decency or of objectivity. Consider my refutations of Aldo's reckless charges:

Let's get it straight. Fetzer has:

-promotes bad information

About what? Focusing only on my 9/11 research, I have published many articles and one
book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), while organizing the Madison meeting, "The Science
and Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not", which I then produced as a DVD.

Among my articles are "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", "Is 9/11
research 'anti-Semitic'?", "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", and many more, which
can be found on http://911scholars.org, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, and YouTube.

The fact of the matter is that my contributions to 9/11 are overwhelmingly greater both
in quantity and in quality than those of Ranke and Aldo, who come across as a couple
of punks who think their work is more important and central than it is. Self-infatuation!

I have been dealing with those who are trying to thwart the revelation of truth about 9/11
far longer and more effectively than have they. Check out my appearances on "Hannity &
Colmes" and at the American Scholars Conference, when they were still in their diapers.

-promoted that the C-130 controlled pentagon attack plane in a BBC television interview

The BBC came to my home and taped me for eight (8) hours. They feigned that they were
going to present the findings of Scholars. At one point, they asked me REPEATEDLY about
the Pentagon, where of all that footage, they picked what they thought was least flattering.

I was explaining that, since the pilot of the C-130 reported that he had ACTUALLY SEEN the
plane--presumably, Flight 77--fly toward the building, between the pilot and what we learned
from Mineta, THE PENTAGON HAD TO HAVE KNOWN IT WAS COMING. That's damning!

I also explained that, given the clear, clean, unblemished lawn AFTER THE ALLEGED HIT,
which is featured in "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", the debris that starts showing
up had to have come from somewhere. I suggested it might have come from the C-130.

Now I don't quite get this CIT "brain trust" that thinks its so smart, but what is CIT's own
explanation for all of this debris? I certainly cannot have been taken out onto the lawn by
enlisted men. Coming down from the sky seems to me a far more plausible explanation.

-promotes video fakery/no plane at the towers

Well, they want everyone to swoon over their interviews, which are nice but hardly carry
the weight of the absence of debris at the hit site on the ground floor or the violations of
the laws of aerodynamics and physics involved in the official account of what happened.

In the case of the videos in New York, we have an impossible speed (which Pilots itself
has confirmed), an impossible entry into the building, the plane passing through its own
length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air, and so on.

These are stunning indications that something is terribly wrong, but perhaps Craig and
Aldo are simply not smart enough to understand these things. I laid it out in "New Proof
of Video Fakery on 9/11" and recently in "Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?" at ATS.

I don't understand what these two are doing in the 9/11 truth movement if they are not
interested in the truth. As with the Twin Towers, the problem is figuring out how it was
done. If they had any brains, they would study the case before shooting off their mouths.

-promoted DEW at the towers

Well, yes, I have PROMOTED THE STUDY of unconventional alternatives to explain what
we do not yet understand, namely, how the destruction of the Twin Towers was done. I
am skeptical that thermite combined with conventional explosives could have done it.

Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, which means that, to become explosive, it
has to be combined with explosives, where the same thing could be said of toothpaste!
Nanothermite burns faster but still becomes explosive only if combined with explosives.

I doubt that Craig or Aldo have any idea what I am talking about or the nature of the
issues involved. They seem to have no grasp of science or of the nature of scientific
research, even though they like to think that they are intellectual wonders of the world.

In elaborating on a question that appeared earlier on the thread, I explained certain of
the differences between the classic controlled demolition of WTC-7 and the demolition
under control of the Twin Towers, but this involves issues far beyond their competence.

-was involved in the dividing of Scholars for 9/11 truth

Well, since I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, when Steve and his buddies attempted to
take over the society, I had to cope with a phony poll, impersonation of my membership
administrator, and was even frozen out of st911.org, which I had made world famous.

Every single item that ever appeared there was determined by me. I had the assistance
of some excellent people in setting it up and making the posts, but it was my work. They
were nasty, unprofessional and even unethical about it, so of course CIT is on their side!

I have explained these things many places, including the history of the society archives
under "Founder's Corner" on 911scholars.org, "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op",
and "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan", none of which they appear to have ever read.

So they have expressed their outrage that Chandler and Cole DID NOT CONSULT WITH
THEM before they published their critique. But CIT DID NOT CONSULT WITH ME when it
began going after me, hammer and tong, on the basis their own FALSE IMPRESSIONS.

Where do things stand?

So which of us has committed the greater offenses? Me, who came here to extend my
support to their for their efforts, or CIT, who has been trashing me without having any
idea what they are talking about, as I have demonstrated in this post? Ask yourself!

Those who are making baseless and unfounded accusations against others who may be
doing better and more important work than are they do untold damage to the movement
and could far more reasonably be charged with allegations like those made against me.

I have done more to expose those who are spreading false information about 9/11 than
they have ever done. My articles about Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley were already
published in early 2006. They were responsible studies based upon logic and evidence.

Their attacks on me disregard both. Yet they find support here from other intellectual
mediocrities like SanderO and other unworthies. I am reminded of an old Marine Corps'
expression: "He wouldn't make a decent pimple on a corporal's butt!" That seems to fit.

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 11 2011, 12:18 PM) *
Let's get it straight.

Fetzer has:

-promotes bad information
-promoted that the C-130 controlled pentagon attack plane in a BBC television interview
-promotes video fakery/no plane at the towers
-promoted DEW at the towers
-was involved in the dividing of Scholars for 9/11 truth

Now he is here literally re-posting and acting as a conduit for Chandler/cole and Gage and their recent statements, acting as if they haven't been or really need to be addressed. Meanwhile, JONES suppporters and/or other truthers are here saying, "Oh great, here is Fetzer coming to support CIT. Makes sense then if CIT is supposedly promoting bad info." They want sides and division and of course Fetzer being here only helps enflame the situation and piss off the "scholars" and "truth police" who have sided with Chandler, Cole, JONES etc.

Amazed, you can take your wild theories somewhere else. We are talking about our evidence and the Chandler/Cole article.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 12 2011, 01:58 PM
Post #17





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



From this post, I frankly have no idea what you do or do not understand about events at the WTC. Here are some clues, which reflect the findings of members of Scholars and of previous students of 9/11 who came before us. It may be found archived as "Why doubt 9/11?" on the upper-left hand corner of our home page at http://911scholars.org.

The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.

If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,” displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes" equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot have been any "pancake collapse" of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition.

QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 12 2011, 11:40 AM) *
If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--
as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.

WTC 7 resembles a "classic controlled demolition"... but there are differences.

WTC 1 and 2 resembles a "classic controlled demolition"... in the upper sections which led to a gravity driven destruction of the lower sections in both cases.

Controlled is a vague term here. All three were planned and engineered.

Imploding the twins would require destroying the core in the bottom of the structures quite low down (similar to WTC7). And to do THAT would require HUGE explosives placed at the core columns where they were massive. It would be hard to explain how a plane strike at the slightest thing to do with it. Classic looking CD was not an option for the planners who need to pin it on the Islamist hijackers.

Hardly anything was controlled about the collapse. It was an engineered destruction.


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 12 2011, 02:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 12 2011, 02:23 PM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



<humor>

ah, jim, appearing on hannity & colmes is not a point in your favor. </>

trying humor to set a congenial mood for a group that has become adversarial.
just to be clear, i respect the work of craig, aldo and jim. now can we play nice, please? smile.gif

back to humor.

a guy walks in to a bar....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 12 2011, 02:49 PM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



SanderO

More of your semantic trivia, thanks so much.

The collapse was caused by humans controlling demolition, right?

It's time to move on. Makes me wonder about the seriousness of your argument.

Jim, did you get a message I sent?

This post has been edited by amazed!: Feb 12 2011, 02:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 12 2011, 04:02 PM
Post #20





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Well, I don't think SanderO has thought this through, but I am glad that he is
considering the issues. And GroundPounder seems to have the appropriate
intention of reconciling the various parties to pursue their mutual objective--
which, I had thought, was exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11,
not committing libel and distorting facts about me as the founder of Scholars,
which, however, has become an extremely popular pastime, both here and
elsewhere. Perhaps he will find the time to watch my appearances (both of
them) on "Hannity & Colmes", where I managed to get Mineta's testimony on
the air twice! (Yes, amazed!, I did and I appreciate your message. Thanks!)

QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 12 2011, 01:49 PM) *
SanderO

More of your semantic trivia, thanks so much.

The collapse was caused by humans controlling demolition, right?

It's time to move on. Makes me wonder about the seriousness of your argument.

Jim, did you get a message I sent?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 2nd September 2014 - 02:46 AM