• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

On Experiencing Jim Fetzer

pomeroo said:
Dr. Greening has taught me a great deal about the science of 9/11. To be fair, he said that both Ace and I were abusing science. He didn't offer any estimates of our comparative culpability.
Click to expand...


Sorry for the Side-Questions, Ron. When can we see the
debates in europe. :"> Never mind - we europeans are just
a bunch of inquisitive rascals. :p
 
TraitorBasher said:
Maybe this Mike Newman of NIST should get some courage and enter the debate like other scientists have. Why doesn't he join up here?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



He points out something that many tinfoil-hatters overlook. NIST has published ten thousand pages of analysis, diagrams, charts, illustrations, calculations, and commentary. That is NIST's contribution to the debate. He is not terribly interested in Fetzer's fantasies about the nonexistent political pressure the agency was subjected to.

If Dr. Greening complains that NIST is not receptive to his critique, then I'm on Greening's side. He has the chops to merit a fair hearing.
 
Yes, the mass of iron would stay the same, and I've previously told Mr. Baker he is out to lunch on his "missing steel" ideas. However, I am still amazed how my comments are misconstrued by some JREFers!

Sorry, once again!
 
Apollo20 said:
Metal dusting is the catastrophic high temperature carburization of steel which leads to the disintegration of Fe, Ni and Co-based alloys with the creation of particles containing iron and carbon, mostly as cementite Fe3C.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



C'mon, Frank. I suspect you're teasing us. Slice off a bigger piece of meat. How high are the temperatures at which this process occurs?
 
Thanks, TS, for stating explicitly that you have no idea what process could turn 80% of the steel in the towers to dust.

Perhaps you're on your way to admitting that you live in a fantasy world. Perhaps not. Anyway, it's a bit of progress.
 
Apollo20 said:
Yes, the mass of iron would stay the same, and I've previously told Mr. Baker he is out to lunch on his "missing steel" ideas. However, I am still amazed how my comments are misconstrued by some JREFers!

Sorry, once again!
Click to expand...


No need to apologize - even if the Towers were no controlled
demolition - as sad this fact is to me, I know what you mean. :blush:
 
I agree that at times many of us can get quite emotional and angry about these things...it goes with the topic.

I would like nothing more than for Dr. Greening to give us, in a very scientific, non-emotional way, his theories on some of these topics, in particular the "dustification" of steel (Judy is supposedly given credit for creating the word).

TAM:)
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Now Gravy, why don't you try this question on for me:

If there were really "fires" burning in the rubble for 100 days, why was the "smoke" bluish-white, when the smoke from the office fires was black?
Click to expand...

You got me there. We all know that the so-called "fires in the piles" were started each day at noon by ironworkers and operating engineers who were cooking lunch.

87904626d31b234d0.jpg




ETA: Here is one of the things that the 40,000 people who worked on them called "piles." You and I know better, right, TS?
​

87904626d477b15b2.jpg

​
 
Last edited:
Ace,

Are you really expecting people to believe you when your own images aren't showing what you declare them to be?

The "Spire" clearly collapses and falls off the bottom of the image at the same time as the dust from the collapse that is covering it floats off, you can see the darker steel dropping out of sight while the lighter dust blows away.

You can clearly see that the image of the steel on the ground doesn't show the steel that is inside WTC 6 after knocking big holes in it, and it doesn't show how far out the steel went, there are still large chunks of it at the edge of the image showing that there is more beyond that point.

Finally, your "mushroom cloud" not only forms from the smoke that was coming from the building before the collapse, and what is ejected as the collapse happens, mixed with dust from the shattering building, but it then drops in response to the building collapsing and it travels in exactly the same direction as the smoke above it is already heading.

Your whole argument is a joke.
 
Apollo20 said:
Yes, the mass of iron would stay the same, and I've previously told Mr. Baker he is out to lunch on his "missing steel" ideas. However, I am still amazed how my comments are misconstrued by some JREFers!

Sorry, once again!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Frank, I happen to know exactly how clearly you can elucidate your ideas. If your comments are being misconstrued, can we assume that you are deliberately striving to be cryptic?

The persona you've adopted, the contrarian curmudgeon, is intriguing and conceivably serves to stimulate hard thinking and less reliance on authority. I hardly need remind you, however, that you risk alienating the very people who admire your work and your fidelity to the principles of the Enlightenment--people, that is, who are eager to embrace you as a champion in this struggle against ignorance and irrationality. You can never hope to win the affection of the twoofers. The irreducible bottom line is that you seek the truth and they hate the truth with an unholy passion.
 
Myriad said:
Chemical bond energy is energy that is "liberated" (made available) when the chemical bonds form. Breaking chemical bonds, in other words, costs energy, it doesn't liberate energy. That's why we call a stronger chemical bond "stronger," because it takes more energy to break it. "Liberating chemical bond energy by breaking bonds" makes no more sense than "liberating gravitational potential energy by raising heavy weights higher."

However, if the military has discovered a way of reversing this rule, and thereby liberating energy by breaking chemical bonds, then all the world's energy problems are solved. Since we already know how to get energy by forming stronger chemical bonds (such as, by combining hydrogen and oxygen into H20), and now they've figured out how to get energy by breaking chemical bonds, unlimited free energy is now available. Even if the dustification mechanism doesn't release any usable energy, even if all it does is reduce the energy needed to break chemical bonds, it still amounts to unlimited free energy over the whole cycle.



Hooray! This possibility solves the world's energy problems too! Direct mass to energy conversion. Nuclear energy without radiation. Levitating cities, personal jet-cars, Mars bases, thermostats at 75 degrees F all winter, basement lights that don't even need off switches, here we come!



Even better still! Free energy without any messy chemical bond rearranging or nuclear reactions, just a gift from a generous universe! Thank goodness we didn't believe those depressing 20th century scientists with their silly equations and useless "semiconductors" and absurd "atomic clocks" and ridiculous "lasers" and preposterous "microwaves" and all the other worthless stuff they claimed to invent based on those so-called "laws of physics."

Now, please explain why this new source of unlimited energy has, so far, only been used to fake an attack to justify a war to steal oil, oil which of course is about to become completely worthless. That makes about as much sense as inventing a time machine, and using it only to return overdue library books without paying the fine.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Your analogy between chemical bonds and gravity is not correct, because gravity is always attractive, whereas electrical energy can have a polarity.Last i hear, they were still working on trying to unify gravity with electromagnetism. I also forgot to include mention of anti-matter, which may be developed to the point of weaponry.

However, what you point out is correct. If any of these ideas have merit, there would be very cheap energy. Which is why "they" would want to monopolize it. Just like "they" monopolized the production of money, which was originally produced competitively; just like "they" monopolized the production of protection and dispute resolution and road building and airport security and a whole lot else.

None of which means that any of my speculations about how classified energy weapons might work are correct. I don't pretend to know.

I'll bet some of these guys know:

http://deps.org/

Here's what I do know for certain.

A tremendous source of energy was applied to the twin towers. Energy far beyond gravitational energy. I am still open to the idea of some sort of explosive substance within the towers.
 
Last edited:
Ron,

my theory is that Fetzer is simply a pathological liar.

He knows full well that Judy Wood is not a structural engineer yet I have heard him insist that she is on at least 2 occations when he thought the interviewer didn't know any better.

Not sure if he tried that lie on you guys, but the fact that he has done it repeatedly says that he KNOWS he's lying. There's no way he doesn't.
 
Gravy said:
You got me there. We all know that the so-called "fires in the piles" were started each day at noon by ironworkers and operating engineers who were cooking lunch.

Click to expand...



ETA: Here are some of the things that the 40,000 people who worked on them called "piles." You and I know better, right, TS?​



Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Dammit, Mark, I was hoping you could nail him.

That smoke isn't black: It just LOOKS black!

Those guys standing on the dust particles must be really, really small. Pixies, I'd say.
 
CHF said:
Ron,

my theory is that Fetzer is simply a pathological liar.

He knows full well that Judy Wood is not a structural engineer yet I have heard him insist that she is on at least 2 occations when he thought the interviewer didn't know any better.

Not sure if he tried that lie on you guys, but the fact that he has done it repeatedly says that he KNOWS he's lying. There's no way he doesn't.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



CHF, you ain't heard nuthin' yet. Wait.
 
Apollo20 said:
Yes, the mass of iron would stay the same, and I've previously told Mr. Baker he is out to lunch on his "missing steel" ideas. However, I am still amazed how my comments are misconstrued by some JREFers!

Sorry, once again!
Click to expand...


Do the papers you cited earlier give some sort of conversion rate for this process based on the temperature, specific alloy present, etc.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom