Discussion in '9/11' started by Jim Fetzer, Mar 24, 2012.
Jim, when are you, a self professed scholar, going to address the lies you've told?
Judy may have degrees out the wazoo, but she's STILL crazy for thinking beams from space brought the towers down
Or that the entire collapse should have come to a complete stop as it reached each floor. That one still cracks me up and they STILL believe it even though they can't defend it.
Mr Fetzer, it seems to me that LIHOP is a much more reasonable explanation. Why take the huge chance and get your hands dirty, when all you have to do is look the other way and let Al Queada do what they were created to do? In fact, NORAD's excuse for doing nothing (letting it happen) was precisely that - they were looking the other way, still trying to intercept missiles from the USSR (lol). Acting through the Al Queada proxy is much lower risk than what you propose, and it is an established fact that the US funded and trained Al Queada, back when they were called the "Afghan freedom fighters", and that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset. It's so much simpler to just claim they "went rogue", and then let them carry out 9/11. Your evidence, cited above, does not prove otherwise. Sure, it implies intent, but that is the "on purpose" part of LIHOP. LIHOP proponents in no way believe that the government was just that incompetent; that is the official story.
I'm sure you did have an interesting time. I also notice how often you resort to ad hominems while at the same time criticizing others for using them.
As far as me projecting . . . have you seen me in a debate? No you haven't. But I have seen you which led me to my assessment. So again you are making claims based on evidence that does not support your conclusion.
I wasn't involved in your exchange with Fangbeer so with your permission, and at the risk of changing the subject, I would like to ask you why you could not rebut the evidence and replies offered by Mark Roberts in the debate?
This cannot be stated enough. Watch at 17min into this video,
[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330"]Hardfire SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / FETZER / ROBERTS / WIECK / 1ST PROGRAM[/ame]
Jim Fetzer believes space based energy weapons brought the towers down.
I mean this is so obvious, NORAD's main function has always been to intercept passenger airlines flying over the continental United States. They obviously routinely do live shoot downs of passenger airlines just to keep their pilots training up to date. I have no idea how anyone could have overlooked these obvious facts.
Because clearly it is impossible for governments to be incompetent, they are all smooth operating machines just like the 3 million U.S. Federal Employees who all operate in perfect unison when needed to cover up a conspiracy.
Or the obvious fact that the USSR dissolved a decade before 9/11? I mean, how hard is it to keep an eye on the airspace over NYC and Washington D.C.? I mean, those are kinda important cities. Maybe a little bit more important than looking out into the ocean.
Rofl. That has to be the clearest example of a strawman I have ever seen. Bravo.
Obviously, I mean once the USSR dissolved all of their aircraft evaporated like the twin towers. How foolish of NORAD to not be able to see the future before it happens!
In their own words: NORAD members recall September 11, Part 1: William Glover
What are you talking about? Governments operate like a Swiss time piece, planning every complicated detail of the conspiracy down to the second. All 20,000 employees of the CIA were hand picked by Bush to LIHOP just like the movies. I mean Bush Sr. was a former CIA director he clearly hand picked them all to be right in Bush Jr.'s back pocket.
Um, yes it is foolish. That is what wargames are for. That is why we pay them... to consider scenarios and prepare for them. It's not like terrorism was invented on 9/11. In fact, it's not the first time the WTC was a target of terrorism.
Yes, this was obviously what I was referring to.
Yeah, run that strawman into the ground! No 9/11 truther has ever, to my knowledge, claimed anything like that. But keep going; you make me laugh.
Redirect, refocus...right on cue. Shills are so blatantly obvious. One would think they try some different tactics by now. Like a nest of angry bees. No discussion....just insults, and evasion. Great job guys! Put yourselves in for a raise!
You see what you're dealing with here Mr. Fetzer? Have you ever seen a more blatant collection of handlers in one forum before?? They'll dance you round and round but they'll stay clear of substance. It's almost like it's their jobs!! Imagine that?
Stop trying to change the topic. It's like someone is paying 'truthers' to act all whiny and paranoid.
Don't you think this position is a bit hypocritical considering the following complaint about those who disagree with you?
Are you saying that your assertions and points do not need to be referenced, but all of ours do? It's mighty convenient that your points should all be common knowledge to "serious students" while it's a serious problem that our points are virtually never sourced and referenced.
It's ironic really, since the consensus of the majority of serious students and scholars agrees with a collapse model that doesn't require hurricane powered space lasers, super thermite, or massive governmental conspiracy. Myriad studies have been conducted by institutions across the planet that are completely devoid of what you think serious students should take at face value.
I question your definition of the words serious students, because obviously it doesn't mean the same thing to you that it means to me.
At 500 plus miles an hour all of the energy of the impact was directed in the direction of travel. 30 percent of the aircraft was inside the building before any volatile materials were ignited. Are you trying to suggest that the aircraft should have exploded outside of the building? How would this explosion at the instant of impact have been initiated? Please show me a reviewed paper that supports that strange claim with experimentation. Frankly, I don't find it credible at all.
You're trying to obfuscate the original point. No one claims it was necessary for the entire structure or even a majority of the structure to heat to reduce the elastic limit of the steel in the vicinity of collapse initiation. The steel below the plane of collapse initiation was buckled by the dynamic load imparted by the falling mass of the building above the plane of collapse initiation. It did not need to be heated to reduce its elastic limit. Its limit was met by overloading. The only steel that needed to be heated to fail was in the region where the collapse began. Once the collapse began the load from above exceeded the capacity below by an order of magnitude. This point has been demonstrated mathematically by the likes of Bazant, et al.
There was asymmetrical sagging and tilting observed. The upper sections of both towers rotated around their center of inertia due to this asymmetrical buckling. As the collapse progressed all sorts of asymmetrical chunks of building were ejected outward as structure buckled asymmetrically. The plane of collapse past below large sections of core columns which remained standing for significant periods of time longer then outer columns and floor sections. If that's not asymmetrical, I don't know what is. There were no blasts that blew any of the buildings apart and truthers have never shown any evidence of such.
The fire in 1975 took place on the 11th floor where the steel was considerably thicker, and not at all mechanically damaged by an impact with an airliner. I'm quite sure the two are not analogous.
This isn't rebuttal. This is stomping your feet and having a temper tantrum. I didn't not say anything about a stack of pancakes, and you seem to only observe what you want to observe. You know what wasn't observed? Any evidence of demolition or demolition materials in the rubble.
Is it strange because you don't understand what I'm talking about? How do you visually refute the combustibility of particulate iron? If the iron was rapidly reduced to small particles it would have spontaneously ignited. That's a basic property of iron. Are you saying you have a picture that refutes this? I'd like to see it.
It's strange to me that Dr. Wood doesn't understand, or remember what I'm talking about. Maybe the major trauma her accident caused knocked it out of her head. And of course I read it somewhere. That's how knowledge is gained. Are you trying to suggest that reading is not a valid pathway to education? How did you gain your knowledge?
This is not silly. They used precise data and tried to match it to the testimony of a man who is not a calibrated instrument. Can he provide us with data that illustrates precisely when he first detected reverberation, and when he heard the loud sound of impact? No, he can't. All that can be done is try to compare his description to the actual data and the result is not evidence of demolition, its evidence of correlation between what he thought he heard and what was recorded.
I keep agreeing with you. If you had read beyond the first 8 words in this section of my comment you would have noticed this:
So I'm not exactly sure who you think you're arguing with here, but it isn't me.
[/quote]Well, If There Had Been A Collapse, It Should Have Taken About 97 Seconds. See The Study By Judy Wood In The 9/11 Conspiracy.[/quote]
Wood's "study" is a ridiculous argument devoid of any study of the actual structure of the tower design. Collapse of 97 seconds represents a massive energy loss that cannot be accounted for by breaking or heating. The collapse simply could not have taken that long or the structure below would have arrested the structure from above.
The exponent doesn't go anywhere pal, this displays massive ignorance on your part.
I've taken a 400 level philosophy of science class and the one concept I took away from that experience is that nothing can ever be proven. For someone to be so sure of anything the way you are, especially since you claim to be a philosophy of science teacher and believe these claims with zero credible scientific evidence, doesn't bode well for any of your students or give any credibility to the mickey mouse university you worked at.
That's all you two ever have to say. It's pretty entertaining. You two are the epitome of hypocrites, running and ducking then whining about people being paid shills all the while complaining about folks not addressing he evidence while you two do what you whine about time and time again.
This is just silly. The word "proof" has different meanings in pure logic and in courts of law than it does in scientific contexts. Arguments that establish conclusions in the tentative and fallible fashion of science are still entitled to be called "proofs", even though they are based upon calculations of probabilities and likelihoods. That is especially true where no alternative explanations are reasonable. See, for example, "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK". This is a nice example of someone who thinks he knows more than he knows, which appears to be prevalent on this forum.
Well, you are ignoring basis findings about 9/11 to adhere to LIHOP. Study:
Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11" http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html
David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True
Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
Virtually everything we've been told about 9/11 by the government is false.
Dingo44 apparently does not understand the concept of instantaneous starts-and-stops. He really ought to take a good look at Judy's study about the time problem, which by itself refute the claim that the buildings collapsed, which is also inconsistent with the gross observable evidence, as I have explained in "New 9/11 Photos Released". Don't any of you ever do any actual RESEARCH on 9/11?
Too busy for more just now, but the planes should have crumpled, their tails and wings broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. I dare say you do not understand Newton's third law, according to which the effects of a plane traveling at 500 mph hitting a stationary building would be the same as a stationary plane being hit by a building traveling 500 mph.
Plus you continue to promote the absurdity that the towers collapsed! They are blowing apart in every direction from the top down. Compare them with WTC-7, which actually DID COLLAPSE. That you continue to reiterate points I have long since refuted indicates your lack of competence or that you are not a seeker of truth. In your case, of course, it may be that both points apply.
No one who has taken a good look at "This is an orange" or "9/11: Towers of Dust" is going to be impressed by your rubbish. Nor would anyone who has taken a look at "New 9/11 Photos Released", which includes clips in which you can see the remnant of the core colums of the North Tower as it turns to dust, which is not surprising, since the whole building is being turned to dust.
Well, If There Had Been A Collapse, It Should Have Taken About 97 Seconds. See The Study By Judy Wood In The 9/11 Conspiracy.[/quote]
Wood's "study" is a ridiculous argument devoid of any study of the actual structure of the tower design. Collapse of 97 seconds represents a massive energy loss that cannot be accounted for by breaking or heating. The collapse simply could not have taken that long or the structure below would have arrested the structure from above.[/QUOTE]
The word proof has no business in any scientific study or paper except in terms of mathematical proofs.
"Arguments that establish conclusions in the tentative and fallible fashion of science are still entitled to be called "proofs", even though they are based upon calculations of probabilities and likelihoods."
This is so absolutely wrong I don't even know where to begin. You have obviously zero scientific training if you truly believe this. Nothing in the fashion of science is ever entitled to be called proofs, except math. The very fact that you would even say that strips away any scientific credibility that you had.
Now that you have cited yourself once again and have failed to provide any link or cite to a peer reviewed source is another example of your scientific illiteracy.
This is a nice little bubble you have created for yourself where only you are responsible for backing up your own claims and ignoring the rest of the scientific world. Plus the fact that you consistently cite Judy Wood who has no training in the field she is claiming to publish studies on.
And she believes that an energy weapon from space took down the towers.
Who do you think you're fooling?
Ever heard of the term "pseudoscience"?
Well, I surely hope that Mr. Fetzer would not employ the same tactics.
Oh . . . wait . . .
Guess he's not one to lead by example. Tsk, tsk.
I think Mr. Fetzer described that tactic pretty accurately when he said . . .
Oh the irony. One would think that as a scholar encouraging others to do research, he would encourage people to look at the full body of available research not just the research of the two or three people that agree with him.
By the way Jim, you still did not answer my questions which was . . .
Someone doesn't understand Newton's third law and it isn't me.
The collision between the aircraft and tower was not elastic. Bodies, seats and luggage did not bounce off the side of the building because the building did not have enough lateral stiffness to reflect the energy of the impact. Mainly this is due to the fact that the majority of the surface area of the building was a thin sheet of glass with a miniscule amount of inertia in comparison to the inertia of the aircraft.
Your examples display a total lack of understanding of the application of the laws of motion. The entire inertia of the building does not factor into the forces present at the point of impact. Therefore a building traveling at 500 miles an hour is not the same as an aircraft traveling at 500 miles an hour as it pertains to whether the aircraft will penetrate or reflect off of the building.
Wrong yet again, troll. I pointed out numerous specific lies by Mr. Fetzer. He has not addressed them. A scholar would care about his reputation and credibility, yet he is still running. I addressed this shortcoming and YOU claim I am re-directing? Like I said. Wrong yet again.
Seems to me Fetzer thinks buildings are completely solid and nothing could ever penetrate them no matter how fast they are going. Something tells me his scholarly aspirations have gone by the wayside.
Remember, buildings are trees, lest we forget.
Separate names with a comma.