Greening Speaks on Fetzers Show

This interview is absolutely priceless.

Frank, I tip my hat to you sir.

TAM:)
 
Not that Gravy needs any advice but assuming the Fetzer debate is still on I'd suggest he study this recording carefully.
 
Just finished listening to it. Fetzer brings up the same old canards that greening knocks down easily like so many ten pins. Fetzer also seems to be under the impression that 7 was within the bathtub and shared the same basement depth for the debris pile. it didn't. As far as the debris pile depth Fetzer makes no mention of the fact that as building seven accelerated during its collapse it was less than half the height of the towers and therefore the debris never attained the fall speed the towers did. Therefore the debris pile of building 7 would be less compact. also what was not mentioned was that the video that supposedly showed missiles or other aircraft had already been debunked and shown to be nothing other than common birds. About Judy's mile square of powder all over southern Manhattan. Was it not clear to anyone who viewed the collapse of either tower that the dust cloud flowed primarily between the buildings? and that therefore more of it would precipitate onto the streets themselves than the rooftops of adjacent buildings? so how did she reach a measurement of precipitate dust thickness with any degree of accuracy? You cant just invent a number like 10 or 20 percent of total debris and assume dispersal area. Thats not scientific. About the fires. I want to know how did NIST during its test duplicate the convective air currents of a fire storm almost 3/8 Th's of a mile in the air which would be somewhat comparable to a forest canopy fire.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. I've listened to a little over half so far. Greening is gentlemanly but quite firm. Nice job.
 
I almost vomitted to myself when Fetzer tried to open with his "no planes".. and then he follwed that up with the more "neutral" term for what happened is "destruction".

As logical, thorough, and delibrate as Greening is, I get the feeling he is talking to a wall.
 
It is simply amazing how even when Fetzer is confronted with a logical, polite, intellectual, he will still move from subject to subject, the minute he does not recieve the answer he wishes.

TAM:)
 
Anti-sophist said:
As logical, thorough, and delibrate as Greening is, I get the feeling he is talking to a wall.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, a perfect example is when Fetzer makes the comment of how no steel strucutre has fallen due to fire (incorrect in and of itself anyway). Greening then adds,

"Yes, but no steel structure has ever been hit by an airliner going 500mph."

A sane person would say Touche, but not Fetzer...Fetzer then adds right as he is going to commercial,

"Yes, which (the aircraft) did negligible damage." Even though earlier Greening had argued that the aircraft had done considerable damage.

James Fetzer - The Brick wall of insanity.

TAM:)
 
Anyone have any idea if Fetzer is correct about the columbia university seismology data. Did they get a spike 14-17 seconds prior to impact?

TAM:)
 
Fetzers wife calls in during the show. @ 9:36

"yeah babe..... yeah hold on a sec real quick.... yeah that i got my guest on, .... Ok terrific thanks honey.... bye"'




EDIT .. but then again maybe that was Judy Wood calling it reminding Fetzer to make a few points.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
Anyone have any idea if Fetzer is correct about the columbia university seismology data. Did they get a spike 14-17 seconds prior to impact?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

He's wrong. Shocking, I know.

Popular Mechanics has the actual Columbia scientists debunk it themselves.
 
Anti-sophist said:
He's wrong. Shocking, I know.

Popular Mechanics has the actual Columbia scientists debunk it themselves.
Click to expand...

I had thought I read that. The problem is that Fetzer says things with such (false) assuredness, that you often find yourself second guessing.

TAM:)
 
Yes, this is quintessential sophistry. Fetzer is rapidly changing topics and going around in circles. He tried to get Greening to say the planes didn't do any damage, Greening said he disagrees. And then later he brings it up to prove his point...

This is hard for me to listen to.
 
Anti-sophist said:
He's wrong. Shocking, I know.

Popular Mechanics has the actual Columbia scientists debunk it themselves.
Click to expand...

You should know by now that Popular Mechanics isn't a reliable source since they asked some government experts about the conspiracy theories. They also don't even cover every single point brought up by the "Truth Movement."

That debunks Popular Mechanics! :)
 
Whew. That was a chore for me to get through - because I can't stand listening to Fetzer's annoying voice, self-important and uninformed sputtering, cheerleading for Wood & Reynolds, self-serving crap, dishonest spin, and constant topic changing when he doesn't like the response he gets - but it was worth it to hear Greening's current position(s) spelled out with at least a somewhat reasonable degree of clarity.
 
Last edited:
Anti-sophist said:
Yes, this is quintessential sophistry. Fetzer is rapidly changing topics and going around in circles. He tried to get Greening to say the planes didn't do any damage, Greening said he disagrees. And then later he brings it up to prove his point...

This is hard for me to listen to.
Click to expand...

Even with the tactic of changing topics Fetzer fails to make any strong points. And if you think this is hard to listen to check out the 911 topic interview list on that site. There is an interview between Sofia and Judy Wood. I ain't even going to touch that one.
 
I love it when Greening tells Fetzer that the amount of energy required to power the "Beam Weapon", just to vaporize 10% of the WTC Steel, would be the equivalent of having 15 Nuclear power plants going full tilt...lol

Priceless.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I love it when Greening tells Fetzer that the amount of energy required to power the "Beam Weapon", just to vaporize 10% of the WTC Steel, would be the equivalent of having 15 Nuclear power plants going full tilt...lol

Priceless.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Yes, I liked that part too ~ although I thought he said "50" rather than "15" nuclear power plants running flat out. Not that it matters whether it was 50 or 15, since the point is made just the same.

Edit to add: And while this is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, am I the only one who finds the "Dynamic Duo" label that Fetzer and Barrett bestow upon themselves really, really pathetic?
 
Last edited:
What was his answer? The equivilent to "Well the NIST didn't explain it so we can't leave anything out!"... I suggest filtering out the absurd before inventing rationalizations. But maybe that's just me...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom