Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

[Jrrarglblarg]

The steel used in its construction was solid steel, where even the steel used for the Twin Towers was hollowed out at the center, which provides nearly as much but not quite as much strength.

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.

Hollow tube is not "nearly as much" but stronger than solid material both pound-per-pound and at the same outside diameter.

So, no.

 

[I Ratant]

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.


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

Wait, I have seen solid steel...
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg[/qimg]
Wood beats solid steel. lol, the hollow WTC tower steel is cute.

.
Union Army General W.T. Sherman left a legacy of twisted steel beams on his march through Georgia, with his troops dismantling railroad track and heating it on a wood fire, then bending the tracks around local trees.

 

[Border Reiver]

Well, I discuss most of these in the articles I have linked:

Given that all the "Veterans Today" articles I've ever read have been poorly researched, and full of technical and historical inaccuracies, you'll understand why I consider anything posted on that site to be on a level best reserved for used car salesmen

Your answers are also un compelling

In response to my questions We get answers that would cause any teacher past the Grade 2 level to ask for more details

Q. Why if FBI agents are following a script and planting evidence to make it look like a Boeing 767 crashed into a WTC building, why did they not use only 767 parts?

a. They mucked up.

Would this they be the persons who you claiming brought the part there on that dolly and left a clean dolly where everything else is covered in heavy grey dust? Given the amount of planning that would be needed to carry out a deception operation (vice the infinitely simpler one of "hijack 4 planes and crash into prominent buildings"), the planners were able carry it almost off, but forgot to only use parts for the aircraft allegedly used?

Q. Why have none of these people had an attack of conscience and confessed to their crimes

b. They don't want to lose their jobs.

People have attacks of conscience and confess to criminal activity all the time for much smaller crimes, but not here? You're looking at thousands involved in roles where they would know that they were a part of the coverup of the deaths of thousands, and not one retiree or person with a terminal illness or a developed conscience decided to pull a Snowdon? This is either the most exceptional collection of sociopaths, or it hasn't happened this way.

Q. How many truckloads of airplane parts were trucked in and why haven't any of these people come forward?

c. Not a lot, it would have been too obvious.

How many is "not a lot"? Given the lack of large vehicles dropping off parts at the sites and the lack of witnesses I'm thinking it's a number less than 1.

And you forgot about the second part of the question.

Q. How does the scattering of plane parts around explain the people who saw the planes and filmed it?

d. They saw what they took to be "planes" but were not.

And their mass hallucination also affected the film in their cameras, the computer memory in their phones/digital cameras? Your answer is unsatisfactory as it fails to account for images that other parties could not access.

Q. What speed do you calculate the plane had and why is it impossible?

e. Pilots for 9/11 Truth exposed the excessive speed years ago.

Unresponsive to the question.

Q. Why is the entry of the plane into the plane impossible?

f. Because it displayed no collision effects and violated Newton's laws.

The flying debris, and exploding fuel with resulting fire aren't collision effects and the plane parts ending up blocks away aren't examples of an object in motion remaining in motion not an example of Newtonian laws?

g. You guys really don't pay any attention to anything going outside JREF?.

Didn't make the news in Canada.

Oh, and you neglected to answer my last question

 

[I Ratant]

Hollow tube is not "nearly as much" but stronger than solid material both pound-per-pound and at the same outside diameter.

So, no.

.
A test of a paper tube.
Ordinary 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of paper, bent into a tube, with just a small piece of Scotch tape at each end, then loaded longitudinally.
It took more than 2 pounds of load to get the tube to -begin- to buckle!

 

[Animal]

Hollow tube is not "nearly as much" but stronger than solid material both pound-per-pound and at the same outside diameter.

So, no.

I started on that angle......but figured if he doesn't know the difference between a "hollowed out" item and a shop fabricated one, trying to explain basic structural principles and why trusses are more efficient etc. all he would hear is a great whooshing sound far over his head.

 

[Redwood]

The engine was not planted. Why do you make up lies against your fellow Americans. No evidence, just BS. You realize hearsay is not evidence, or do you.

The planted engine lie fits into your fantasy version of 911 in what way. The engine clearly came from the aircraft flown by terrorists, as proved by RADAR. RADAR tracked the plane from takeoff to impact, which proves the real engine type, and the real aircraft type. Not sure how you will refute RADAR if you fly, it is used to keep your safe - if you fly, you are debunking your own lie by trust in RADAR, trust in the FAA. Your fantasy claims are self-debunking claptrap.

Beach, you've been around aircraft more than once. About how much would the big chunk of engine weigh? Could a couple of strong guys lift it out of the back of a van onto a standard handtruck and move it around?

 

[JayUtah]

I started on that angle......but figured if he doesn't know the difference between a "hollowed out" item and a shop fabricated one, trying to explain basic structural principles and why trusses are more efficient etc. all he would hear is a great whooshing sound far over his head.

Indeed the whole structural argument smacks of lay naivete. To suppose that WTC 7 was made of "solid" steel, as apparently opposed to some sort of tubular or other contrived cross section, is to miss almost all that is important about Newtonian statics, structural analysis, and materials science.

Indeed WTC 7 didn't use "solid" steel any more than WTC 1 or 2 did, in the sense that all the steel in WTC 7 used the standard cross sections in all its steel framing. Indeed some of the columns were of the same square-tube cross section as employed in WTC 1 and 2, and some the core columns of WTC 1 and 2 were of the customary cross sections.

The salient point is that forming steel members with various cross sections is, in all cases, meant to provide a suitable compromise between structural efficiency and cost (and other factors). Calling it "solid" is simply factually wrong. Claiming that the individual structural members were radically different between the two types of construction is also factually wrong.

What is innovative in the WTC 1/2 design was the structural system that combined these relatively ordinary members in more structurally efficient way than in more traditional framing.

No building is -- or can be -- designed to be collapse-proof. Engineers regard collapse as inevitable given an excess of stress or a compromise of the structural system. Structural systems are designed to withstand the expected loads, and to do so with a margin that accommodates some degree of unanticipated loads. They are not -- and cannot be -- designed to withstand all conceivable loads.

Further, WTC 7 had to accommodate the power station within its volume, and this limited the geometry of the eventual structural system. Engineers could not plant columns down through the power station, and so the normal method of providing resilience in the structural system by means of redundant load paths was not as readily employable in this case.

The notion that WTC 7 was some kind of impregnable structure is simply ludicrous.

 

[trustbutverify]

...and why did those guys forget to put on their Larry's Construction jackets, and instead wore their FBI jackets? Seems like a bad mistake to make during mission impossible.

 

[frenat]

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:

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

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

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

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

* 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.

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.

NONE of those are as high as they should be with an actual nuke and all have other possible sources. That is something you would know if you'd actually done the research yourself instead of passing on other's work. Or are you now a nuclear physicist as well? I note you ignored most of the rest of my post. EMPs? Seismic signature? Blinding flash? I note also that I didn't attack YOU though you claim I did and you proceeded to launch a personal attack on me. Why do you lie?

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 specifically mentioned the PAPERWORK implying flights after that day. Please read what you are responding to next time. But for that day as well, there is nothing concrete showing them in the air after the impacts. Especially since the radar shows them impacting. The ACARS data has been famously misinterpreted. There were signals sent by an automated system directed towards the planes along their predicted flight path but NO indication that those signals were received and NO replies from the planes. And I HAVE seen their "research". It is as ignorant as Jack White's "studies".

 

[kookbreaker]

.
A test of a paper tube.
Ordinary 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of paper, bent into a tube, with just a small piece of Scotch tape at each end, then loaded longitudinally.
It took more than 2 pounds of load to get the tube to -begin- to buckle!

When I was doing museum demonstrations we had a structures show where I would take a 'column' made of just light poster paper and then stack blocks of wood on top of it. 8 blocks in total were put on it. Then, for good measure (and a bit of theater) a brick.

 

[frenat]

This is ridiculous. FAA Registration Records, which I have in hand, show that the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005. So how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still be in the air four years later?

A late filing of paperwork does NOT mean the planes were in the air. AGAIN, do you have ANY proof that they were?

 

[frenat]

Whoever assembled those pictures and concluded that they show evidence of the engine being planted has the reasoning skills of a not particularly talented chimpanzee (though I don't want to insult chimpanzees here).

As oft repeated by Mr. Fetzer, that would be Jack White, who was notoriously bad at photo interpretation. He couldn't tell which side of the LM he was looking at even AFTER being told which it was. He also insisted a still frame taken from footage of the first collapse showed an explosion in building 6 before either collapse even AFTER the full footage that the still frame was found showing it was a dust cloud from the collapse itself. This is what I expect from his work.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I thought this guy was some kind of expert on the subject of 9/11 but so far I'm seeing posts of lower factual quality than those at the Icke forum. Is he maybe over it but just going through the motions for some reason or has he always been this unable to articulate?

 

[Redwood]

* 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.

Nonsense. Barium and Strontium are used in the manufacture of cathode ray tubes. Congratulations! You proved there are lots of computer monitors in office buildings!

* 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 is not fissile, is not used in nuclear weapons, and is found in only miniscule amounts in Uranium, since the isotopes of Thorium produced by decay of U-238 and U-235 have very short half-lives while U-235 and U-238 themselves have long half lives. I have a bottle of Uranium Nitrate in the closet (it's OK, I'm a retired chemist), and it would take sophisticated analysis to find the Thorium in it.

Thorium has widespread industrial uses which involve its chemical properties, not its radioactive properties. Everything from alloys to optical glass to phosphors.

Unless the Uranium in your samples is predominately U-235, it's not a bomb remnant as U-238 in not fissile.

* 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.

Gibberish. Thorium isn't produced by the fission of Uranium, it's produced by the alpha decay of Uranium. And the alpha particles (Helium nuclei) don't "decay" into Lithium.

Lithium is used in long-life batteries and rechargeables. You may have heard of them.

Sheesh! I feel like a high school chemistry teacher correcting one of my "slow" students.

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

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

Yttrium and Lanthanum are commonly used in cathode ray tubes. Congratulations, Doc! There were lots and lots of computer monitors in the Trade Center buildings! You really ripped the lid off of that one! (Oh - Lanthanum is commonly used in rechargeable batteries, too!)

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

Completely wrong! Chromium's atomic number is 24 and its weight is 52 and it is completely out of the range of common fission products! (It is, however, one of the most commonly used chemical elements in industry!) (See: Chart of Fission Products)

I know you're not smart enough to have thought of this one, yourself; but whoever told you this is making you into a fool. Cross him off your list.

* 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.

Tritium is commonly used in "glow-in-the-dark" paints. You know, like they use to paint emergency stairs.

Just another nice example of the utter lack of research ability.....

This is typical of the ignorant posts that have appeared in this thread.

You said it, Doc! Although you were tossing these insults against others, it certainly applies to you!

 

[matt.tansy]

Beach, you've been around aircraft more than once. About how much would the big chunk of engine weigh? Could a couple of strong guys lift it out of the back of a van onto a standard handtruck and move it around?

Dude, it's obvious Fetzer has never even moved a refrigerator with a dolly or he'd know how unwieldily they are and he never would have supported such a ridiculous idea.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

When I was doing museum demonstrations we had a structures show where I would take a 'column' made of just light poster paper and then stack blocks of wood on top of it. 8 blocks in total were put on it. Then, for good measure (and a bit of theater) a brick.

I'm now imagining a children's museum type rig that I could build in a day: a lightweight platform, 1/8" plex perhaps, a foot square. Four poles or bars at the corners rigged to allow the plat to slide up and down the bars without binding. This would give kids a system to try different ways to make 1 sheet of paper hold up the platform with increasing weights.

Man, I should just build one on spec and try peddling it to the various children's museums around here.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Those who insist that an aluminum airliner could effortlessly enter a Twin Tower are simply blowing smoke. They are the kind who would tell you that, if a car is driving really, really fast, it could pass through an enormous tree. I am sorry, but that illustrates the quality of thought that I have found here.

Did you know, that the both the yield and ultimate tensile strength of the high strength aluminum alloy used in Boeing 767 aircraft is usually equal to or greater than the grade 50 structural steel used in the WTC buildings.

Of course, we have all fallen into Prof. Jim's little trap. He loves to be the center of attention. He loves to debate people. And we have done that for him. I call it the Ward Churchill effect...as long as he is the center of attention, nothing else is important...IMHO

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

Completely wrong! Chromium's atomic number is 24 and its weight is 52 and it is completely out of the range of common fission products! (It is, however, one of the most commonly used chemical elements in industry!) (See: Chart of Fission Products)

I know you're not smart enough to have thought of this one, yourself; but whoever told you this is making you into a fool. Cross him off your list.

In particular, stainless steel is at least 10% chromium.

The composition of stainless steel is neither secret nor arcane. Neither is the use of chromium for chrome plating.

And so—Fetzer having spoken of "tell tale" signatures—the presence of chromium on Fetzer's list of things he believes could not have been present in quantity absent nuclear detonation is a "tell tale" signature of someone who has been telling tales concerning matters of science and technology of which he knows naught.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

Maybe it is made from solid steel. Like the white van the agents delivered it from. Designed to NEVER break.

 

[beachnut]

Beach, you've been around aircraft more than once. About how much would the big chunk of engine weigh? Could a couple of strong guys lift it out of the back of a van onto a standard handtruck and move it around?

The full up engine is over 9,000 pounds

You might need to upgrade the wheels on the cart/dolly/etc
The fan section was damaged beyond repair in the WTC before ejected.

A white van delivering the damaged engine would be overloaded - it would be funny.

Someone is missing the engine has the damage expected for impact with the WTC and being ejected. Spreading lies about the engine is bad; I wonder if the engine hit anyone.

I was loading scrap into my brother's van to be recycled, he got upset, with over 5,000 pounds to recycle, I think less than a quarter would be too much for the van. We made over 4 trips.

It is amazing how much BS flows from 911 truth pushers of woo.