Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

[Animal]

Have you paid any attention to the design and construction of these buildings?

Yes.....but apparent;y you haven't

WTC-7 was erected over a pair of electrical generators providing electricity for lower Manhattan.

And if you knew anything about transfer girders and structural design, you might comprehend the problems that those sort of structures pose.

The steel used in its construction was solid steel, where even the steel used for the Twin Towers was hollowed out at the center,

Wow.....what lunacy......no steel was "hollowed out" Rolled steel shapes and manufactured section are designed for the loads they need to carry......hollowed out....LMAO. Come back with you buy yourself a clue.

which provides nearly as much but not quite as much strength.

Talking out of the wrong orifice I see.

But for WTC-7, they used SOLID STEEL. I am not making a definitive claim here, but it looks like an accurate appraisal. It was designed to NEVER COLLAPSE.

No building is designed to collapse.

And it took them a long time to prep it.

So, besides ignorance of structural design, you are totally ignorant on building operations and facilities management in NYC.

Those of you who have never watched Barry Jennings talk about his experiences in WTC-7 really need to do that: explosions, dead bodies, a staircase blown out beneath him--all that morning long before 5:20.

So much woo in such a short post.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, something was ejected, just as something was filmed, but it was not a part of a Boeing 767 and it was not a Boeing 767. ...

This lie, debunked by RADAR.
https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Flight_Path_Study_UA175.pdf

Better not fly since you don't understand why RADAR debunks the dumbed down no plane lies. 13 years of failure, 911 truth, and the consensus for woo on 911.

The steel used in its construction was solid steel, where even the steel used for the Twin Towers was hollowed out at the center,

Wow, solid, not hollow, but solid...

Wait, I have seen solid steel...

Wood beats solid steel. lol, the hollow WTC tower steel is cute.

 

[Africanus]

Lolwut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinides_in_the_environment#Thorium_in_the_environment

I'll quote:



Furthermore, Thorium, Th132, far the most common type of Thorium does occur naturally. Did you just see 'Thorium' on the list and jump to the conclusion that it was one of its more radioactive isotopes?

An examination of the USGS tables shows a mean of 9.3, just 50% above the natural ppm found in soil. This in an urban environment. You somehow find this to be proof of a nuke?!

The following quote is even more interesting:

Thorium is a component of the magnesium alloy series, called Mag-Thor, used in aircraft engines and rockets and imparting high strength and creep resistance at elevated temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Applications

 

[Animal]

Typical of the slovenly approach that dominates this forum.

Troofer projection.....that is nothing new.

The amount of glass was less than 1/4 of the facade (deliberately to not over-stress the air conditioning equipment).

The limited window sizes was part of the architect's design to reduce fear at such heights.
Air conditioning is sized to the building load, the buidling design is not sized to the AC.

The North Tower "plane" was intersecting seven (7) floors and the South eight (8) consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8" of concrete (or, at 208' a side, about an acre of concrete apiece).

And the concrete was designed to provide lateral bracing to the structure, not to absorb a massive impact load.

Posting in ignorance seems to be the standard here.

For troofers. yes I would agree.

I have explained CLAIMED all of this AGAIN AND AGAIN, but no one bothers to study my work. Like you, they just make up what they think I believe and attack that!

Snicker..........I don't have the desire nor time to study fantasy fictional works.

You are doing a fine job of showing what you "believe" with your own posts.....and confirming what everyone always suspected.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't want...

Is it even remotely possible for you to formulate a post without making personal attacks against your critics?

By all means continue to ignore anything and everything I say. It only proves what I wrote about your earlier in this thread, which you claimed upon your arrival was unfair and inaccurate. Apparently it is quite accurate -- you deal with criticism of your theories only through bluster and evasion.

We have...

You're just repeating your unsubstantiated claims. Every single one of those propositions requires the reader to simply believe your unfounded dicta as if they were incontestable fact. I trust I don't have to explain to you what it means to beg the question.

We have a white van with agents wearing FBI vests unloading something heavy. Since the engine component was planted...

No, you have not proven this. There is no need to explain an unproven hypothesis. Your entire argument rests on the apparent need to explain a proposition you've established solely by begging the question. That's the very definition of a circular argument.

Given the available evidence, your stance is irrational and indefensible.

Nonsense. You confuse evidence with supposition, in that you supply the latter and through bluff and bluster purport it to be the former. You have supposed, but not proven, that the engine was planted. Every single branch of the inferential tree you have drawn stems from that begged question. Your myopia derives from your failure to recognize that any other tree might exist, and your frustration from your critics' unwillingness to be crippled by your myopia.

For a solid page now you have done nothing but label my rebuttals as indefensible. But you cannot show that they are indefensible. Name-calling does not address the meat of the argument, nor does abject denial that the argument contains meat. As I said, if your argumentation consists of nothing more than trying to summarize and characterize your opponents' claims for some unseen reader, then you have clearly conceded the argument on its merits and are spinning the straw man around in circles.

 

[beachnut]

Nukes? Where is the heat? The BOOM?

A nuke that is silent, and cold. Wowzer - now this is the biggest lie one can make, and appears to be making fun of 911 truth by taking what is easy to debunk and claim it is the truth.

911 truth CD was bad, the silent explosives, the no product thermite. But Nuke CD, cold fission, and zero sound.

This is typical of the ignorant posts that have appeared in this thread. I have a dozen or more articles about the use of nukes on 9/11, including "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II", which includes a summary of the USGS dust sample evidence:

Really you are playing the projection extra credit ignorant posts card..., in a post of a failed claim of a silent cold nuke. A bunch of crazy articles, insane articles about nukes on 911.

* Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.

Barium samples show at background levels or slightly higher; why higher... could it be Barium is used in fluorescent lamps, vacuum tubes, TV picture tubes, pigments, paints, glassmaking, and more? lol, research and the fantasy of a silent cold nuke bust this big time.

Strontium is used for producing glass for color television sets. Big bust on this one.

* Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.

Thorium was found at the same level as background soil - oops, research is botched, and your claim is bogus.
Uranium, found a little over background, and the background levels are higher than a fourth of the samples - oops, some samples less Uranium than background - oops, poor research and failed logic.

LOL, yes, Uranium and Thorium have no stable isotopes, but finding them at the WTC is normal, not proof of your fantasy cold fission silent nuke. What a fantasy.

* Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.

In batteries, electrical, electronics, lubricants, glass, optics, air purification and more. Wrong again, the nuke is so far out; no wonder 911 truth followers think you are trying to discredit their delusional claims.

* Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.

That is funny, you failed to study isotopes, so you post woo.
Cool part here, of the samples with lanthanum, some are same as background. OOPS
Did you try to study this, or cut and paste from some paranoid conspiracy theory web site.
Lanthanum is used to make carbon arc lights which are used in the motion picture industry for studio lighting and projector lights. Lanthanum also makes up about 25% of Misch metal, a material that is used to make flints for lighters. It is used for camera lenses. oops, there can't be cameras in the WTC, and no one uses studio lighting, or projectors... no one, no body... lol

* Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.

Sorry, this is used to help make the red stuff in our computer monitors, and your decay crap is silly, you failed to do the research, and have no clue the element in the sample was not radioactive. But make up more lies.
yttrium is used as a "phosphor" to produce the red color in television screens - oops

* Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.

Chromium? How is chromium a sign of your silent cold fission nuke of fantasy?
OOPS, Chromium is used high quality audio, data and video tapes, and is used in photographic chemicals, engraving and lithography, paints, plastics, enamels, concrete and other building materials. Did we say, chromium used to make different colored pigments and dyes, YEP, paint... lol, this debunking can't get easier, until you talk about pilots for truth, with less than 0.1 percent of all pilots, you can make debunking easier... do you do anything other than google woo on 911.

* Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.

LOL, this takes the cake - Tritium Exit Sign

Do you do any research? No. Where is your valid source for Tritium? Did you make this up, or what.

Just another nice example of the utter lack of research ability, which is the theme of this thread: attack Fetzer for his views but don't bother to figure out what they actually are, because that might undermine the vigor of our attack.

Yes, you failed to research the elements to realize you don't make sense. Why do you lie about nukes at the WTC?
We know the views you have on 911 are bogus, and each post you make proves your views are based on nonsense and fantasy. The nuke is fantasy.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done the research on Flights 93 and 175 having been in the air that day, but of course you wouldn't know that because you won't lift your least digit to discover what I have said or why I have said it. Unreal!

I have the RADAR data for 175 and 93, which flew on 911. What is your point?
I have the FDR data from Flight 93, which proves where it crashed, because the FDR was in the crash crater you deny exists. What is your fantasy on this topic, and why do you use hearsay to support your fantasy.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf

did you read the USGS studies? no

Do you believe the nuke fantasy? Why do you support lies about 911 - what is your goal after 13 years of failure to understand 911. You can confess, you are doing a parody of 911 truth.

 

[carlitos]

But for WTC-7, they used SOLID STEEL. I am not making a definitive claim here, but it looks like an accurate appraisal. It was designed to NEVER COLLAPSE. And it took them a long time to prep it.

Wow, solid steel. Designed to NEVER COLLAPSE. Got it. When were your home and place of work designed to collapse. I'm guessing never. When we planned our house, 'COLLAPSE TIME' wasn't part of the planning.

You're making **** up, pulling **** out of your ass. Pathetic.

 

[I Ratant]

Engineering inspection of the 911 structural dynamics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg
.
Looks well done compared to the 'recommended' stuff.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yes, something was ejected, just as something was filmed, but it was not a part of a Boeing 767 and it was not a Boeing 767. And surely you were not taken in by the planted fuselage parts on the rooftop.

How did your conspirators manage to eject a spinning smoketrail-leaving object at 400mph from the exact corner of a building where an engine would emerge based on the entry angle of the airplane?

How did your conspirators "plant" a hundred square foot piece of fuselage on top of a skyscraper in the middle of Manhattan during the most public event in human history? Invisible flying ponies? Rope? Freight elevator? That's the least well thought out of a very poorly thought out set of explanations I've read from you so far. But I'm an optimist, so I expect you to exceed the fairly high bar you've now set for yourself.

Do you understand my position on what we see in those videos and why I maintain it?

The phrase "circular logic" comes to mind.

Do you appreciate that, since we are witnessing impossible events (flying faster than possible at that altitude for a Boeing 767 and entering the building with no collision effects in violation of Newton's laws), we are witnessing some kind of video fakery? I am troubled if you've been taken in.

Even were it possible to accurately fake video of moving objects in the sky correctly for 20 different angles and differences how did your conspirators manage to prevent FIVE MILLION POTENTIAL WITNESSES from plunking a camcorder on the balcony and taping over old episodes of Friends? How did they convince 5 million potential witnesses to NOT look at the most interesting thing that has ever happened in their lives just long enough to blow up a building with whatever whatever whatever? I've asked this one before of nope lamers and so far nobody has managed to present an explanation that isn't stundie winning.

Seriously, 5 million potential witnesses. Not one has wandered into Democracy Now and blown the cover off.

One of the clips in the "all known footage" video I posted upthread wasn't even released until months later, almost a year later, when the young couple unpacked a box. See, they were about 6 blocks from the WTC and moved VERY soon after 9/11. Later, unpacking a box, they found the camcorder containing a tape labeled "Friends" that they were taping over. So even if your Magical Riders Of Invisible Ponies somehow confiscated every single video tape in Manhattan and eastern New Jersey, they would have missed that one.

<SNIP>

Thanks for the backhanded compliment, but please stop insulting my friends. I've known some of these people for a very long time.

You need to watch one of my presentations or read some of my articles,<snip>

I'm pretty sure you don't want me to do that and I know I'd rather not. From what I've seen of your "articles" thus far I'd need to buy a new set of hip waders first.

I explain these things again and again in my articles and presentations, but NO ONE HERE bothers to study them, which is the absurdity of this entire thread: you are attacking my work without knowing my work! I guess that is par for the course here. Practically no one here gives a **** about truth.

Consider me your fresh start in life. Tell me what you think and why, here and now, and I will respond. Then, apparently, you will ignore my response and linkbarf the thread with references to your own work, until eventually you have a tantrum and get banned. In the meantime, if you bother to respond to people maybe we can have a conversation.

 

[tsig]

I suppose I'm way too gullible to see that the dolly is clean and the engine is dusty with no dolly tire marks near it.

That two wheel cart (dolly) could never carry the weight of that engine .

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

That two wheel cart (dolly) could never carry the weight of that engine .

No, but it's quite well suited for carrying the milk crate of equipment still on it in the picture.

 

[DGM]

That two wheel cart (dolly) could never carry the weight of that engine .

He's been showing this for years, claiming this as proof. Only the fringe of fringe see it his way. Now he thinks it's good enough to pass a evidence here. Feel offended yet?

 

[tsig]

No, but it's quite well suited for carrying the milk crate of equipment still on it in the picture.

That's no milk crate, it's the Tesla Device that was used to aid the thermite, nukes and conventional explosives in totally atomizing the buildings.

 

[trustbutverify]

He's been showing this for years, claiming this as proof. Only the fringe of fringe see it his way. Now he thinks it's good enough to pass a evidence here. Feel offended yet?

In so many different ways.

 

[tsig]

He's been showing this for years, claiming this as proof. Only the fringe of fringe see it his way. Now he thinks it's good enough to pass a evidence here. Feel offended yet?

Yeah, I've seen the claim before but had never seen the cart. I have one like it and it serves to bring a keg of beer into the house but it would collapse (at free fall) if I tried to haul something as heavy as a jet engine.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

That's no milk crate, it's the Tesla Device that was used to aid the thermite, nukes and conventional explosives in totally atomizing the buildings.

Uh oh! I have one just like it in my garage! How do I safety it off so it doesn't make my garage fall into it's own footprint at greater than freefall speeds?

 

[matt.tansy]

How did your conspirators "plant" a hundred square foot piece of fuselage on top of a skyscraper in the middle of Manhattan during the most public event in human history?

They used TWO of them magic dollies!

 

[JayUtah]

That two wheel cart (dolly) could never carry the weight of that engine .

No, but it's quite well suited for carrying the milk crate of equipment still on it in the picture.

And that's part of the problem. Fetzer and White have cherry-picked the available evidence, combined it with lay supposition (e.g., anyone who thinks an in-service jet engine should look like "shiny metal" has obviously never seen one), and constructed a narrative that satisfies their desire for a conspiracy.

This narrative is then put forward as if it were established fact. Any disputation of the narrative appears to touch a nerve. Clearly that's the sensitive part of the argument -- the part they don't want questioned too closely. Naturally that's the best place to examine closely.

 

[matt.tansy]

We need to call it "The Magic Dolly Theory".

 

[I Ratant]

That's what I just did to find the Purdue simulation. Looking for a good video of the 2nd plane impact, I did find such, with the 8 frames that are the impact, but Purdue did a much more comprehensive investigation.
Notice how much of the plane gets into the building through the lightweight structure before it gets to the core columns. There was really nothing to impede it!
.
And the many disagreements in Twinkie land about the planes, or drones, or no planes at all is amusing/sad, as I saw going through the video files available.