• 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:
Admittedly, if a liberal Democrat becomes President, the twoofer ranks will be thinned considerably, but Alex Jones and Morgan Reynolds will remain to proclaim da twoof.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that many of these people believe any president to be nothing more than a puppet for the NWO so a change in government won't mean much to them.
 
JamesB said:
I think I have an idea, but just to make sure, could you describe the Osama Conundrum for me?
Click to expand...

I think it's that, him and al Q always dance jigs, around pictures of the towers burning. Oh, and they took credit for it!
 
aggle-rithm said:
My thought was that since they are in the habit of using specious arguments themselves, they assume the arguments of others are just as flimsy and can be summarilly rejected.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Very, very good! It is possible that the practice of always employing specious, hole-riddled arguments deadens them to the possibility that an argument can be sound.
 
Last edited:
Hey Ron, and Bingly B. Thanks for taking on the loon, for our amusement, if nothing else! Look forward to seeing it! Keep fighting the good fight!

DT
 
Stellafane said:
OK, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and I think I have an extention to my doink...doink...doink theory. Basically, it involves the individual's perception of the universe, which of course is a combination of external sensoral input and internal interpretation of this data. As babies, we're extremely self-centered, with a hyper-inflated senses of our place within the universe. Our internal thoughts are pre-eminent, thus we cannot distinguish fantasy from reality -- to us anything we imagine is every bit as real as something we can see or hear.

As we get older, most of us develop a more mature and realistic understanding of the role we and our imaginations play within the universe. Thus we are willing to accept external input, such as facts and evidence, as important components on which to build our views of the world.

Only some of us don't do that. We continue to believe that our thoughts, imagination, and opinions are pre-eminent. This produces a sort of inflated ego, a form of meglomania if that's the right word. Within such a mind, facts can simply be ignored if they don't fit in with what one already believes. Thus the individual has no problem ignoring evidence...it's probably all just faked, or irrelevant, or something else; whatever, it can safely be discarded at will. And such people can blithely dismiss the opinions of even the most highly trained experts bearing mountains of supporting data. Within their internalized universe, all opinions (especially theirs) are equal to anyone else's. (This is the main theme of my original "doink...doink...doink" post.)

So I think this is what colors at least some of the CT'ers thinking. They still perceive the universe as a place where their own thoughts can contravene external reality. It's sort of a paranoid version of "The Secret" -- if you believe something, you can make it true. Just like a three-year-old, their world consists of equal amounts of reality and fantasy. Only instead of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, they see missiles and concrete cores.
Click to expand...

Good post, and put very simply.
Regarding the OP I think ace has come in and is helping us grasp an understanding of a legible theory. I have said it before but will actually do it this time, I will approach a friend who I believe has either graduated or is just finishing in psychology at uni and ask for his thoughts.

Personally I just cant see any way around it other then they do it on purpose. Once your shown the facts most people can sit comfortably with egg on their face. These guys cant so they resort to knowing they are wrong but still lying. Ace and Fetzer certainly seem more 'normal' then not (eg: Mental illness), so to me, as highlighted by JamesB's email conversation with fetzer and the subsequent posts in this thread - they are lying purely because they dont want to be embarressed with being wrong.

edit: I am basing this purely on how I read there posts. Video footage of them actually conversing may change my position. EG: Judy Wood is clearly suffering something (laymans observation) so her ramblings appear to be from a genuine crazy person. Dylan and Bermas appear to want fame and will ride lies to keep it.
 
Last edited:
JamesB said:
I think I have an idea, but just to make sure, could you describe the Osama Conundrum for me?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The way we worked it with Fetzer was to raise the issue of Ed Haas and his refutation of the fantasists' claims that the Osama videos were faked. Fetzer was forced to recycle his nonsense about the bogus "experts" who have "proved" that they are fakes. After exposing him completely, showing that it is clear that the Osama we see in the videos is real and he actually did acknowledge his role in the jihadist attacks of 9/11, we switched gears:

Let's suppose the videos are fakes. We won't even ask why the first one, in which Osama denies any involvement, should be real, but not the others. Let's just assume that Osama doesn't exist (Fetzer thinks he's dead) and the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy can make whatever use of him it requires. Now--

Faced with a crushing defeat in the November elections, a defeat that would strip them of much of their power, why wouldn't the IVC simply announce that they had killed the bogeyman? Seriously. They were staring at a disaster at the polls and they chose not to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Let's spell it out: The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy decided, voluntarily, to suffer a crushing, humiliating defeat that sharply reduced their ability to control events, when they had at their disposal a simple means of avoiding it.
A fighter with a devastating right loses the first eleven rounds of a twelve-round championship fight because he avoids throwing that punch. His corner begs him to let it go in the final round. He doesn't. WHAT WAS HE SAVING IT FOR?

There are no more opportunities to play the Osama card. Bush and Cheney leave office in less than two years. No matter how hard you try, no matter what hoplessly convoluted Rube-Goldberg explanation you concoct, you can't account for the IVC's failure to announce that they had, at long last, nailed the bad guy.
 
TS, your avoidance of my question is noted. Once again you prove that you live in a fantasy world.

Please stop accusing people of horrible things based on your fantasies.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
dustified
Click to expand...

I've dustified steel in my own basement.

The process involves a rapidly spinning wheel of abrasive material.

The wheel requires about 500W to power it, and the process can dustify about an ounce of steel in about 15 minutes.

A quick calculation tells me that it would therefore take me about 1.6 billion hours, or 180,000 years, to dustify 200,000 tons of steel.

Let's imagine someone has invented a steel dustification process that's 100 times more efficient than that. (Note that this would revolutionize steel fabrication; put this technology into saw blades, sandpaper, drill bits, and self-tapping screws, and steel could be worked and assembled as easily as softwood.)

Now it'll only take me 1,800 years to dustify a WTC tower with my grinding wheel.

But that's okay. As Tim Allen says, all I need is more power! If a 500W machine, using this pipe-dream technology, can dustity 200,000 tons of steel in 1,800 years, all I need to power a machine to dustify the same amount of steel in 15 seconds is...1,900 Gigawatts.

That's nearly twice the total electrical power generation capacity of the entire United States.

And as no gigantic grinding wheels were observed at Ground Zero, you still need to invent, you know, the actual machine that does this from a distance.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Gravy said:
You were speaking of the "mushroom cloud" that rose from the collapse. I answered your question.

The video was taken from the northeast, looking southwest. So much for your video analysis skills.


Final request, TS, or you will once again be shown to be representing a position that is not reality-based:

By what process could 80% of the steel in the towers have been turned to dust?

You've been working on this for months. Do you mean to say you have no idea whatsoever?

Please answer the question. It's rude and silly to keep avoiding it.
Click to expand...

Gravy, you and the other OCTs have avoided so many of my questions I've lost count.

Here is the answer to your question.

We theorize that "they", that is the military, have developed energy weapons. These weapons could operate in one or many different frequency ranges, above, within, and below visible light. They could involve individual beams, or intersecting beams creating interference patterns.

The conservation of energy question is perfectly valid. Where does the energy come from to sever so many chemical bonds between iron molecules?

One possibility is that beams tuned to a particular frequency, or with a certain interference pattern are able to selectively excite target molecules, reversing the polarity and liberating the chemical bond energy that is already present.

A second possibility is that said energy beam is able to liberate nuclear energy, converting mass to energy according to E=mc^2. In both cases, a relatively small energy input can yeild a huge energy output.

A third possibiity is that the 19th century scientists were right about the aether after all, and that all of the universe is seething in free energy, and "they" have figured out a way to make use of it.


All of the above may be wrong. What we know for sure is that there is plenty of physics left to be discovered. You must understand, we are approaching this from the standpoint of trying to explain the observations. We've got dustification of steel, melted cars, round holes, including WTC7 BTW. All the OCTs have is denial that these events occurred. You can deny all you want to, it only emboldens us.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Gravy, you and the other OCTs have avoided so many of my questions I've lost count.

Here is the answer to your question.

We theorize that "they", that is the military, have developed energy weapons. These weapons could operate in one or many different frequency ranges, above, within, and below visible light. They could involve individual beams, or intersecting beams creating interference patterns.

The conservation of energy question is perfectly valid. Where does the energy come from to sever so many chemical bonds between iron molecules?

One possibility is that beams tuned to a particular frequency, or with a certain interference pattern are able to selectively excite target molecules, reversing the polarity and liberating the chemical bond energy that is already present.

A second possibility is that said energy beam is able to liberate nuclear energy, converting mass to energy according to E=mc^2. In both cases, a relatively small energy input can yeild a huge energy output.

A third possibiity is that the 19th century scientists were right about the aether after all, and that all of the universe is seething in free energy, and "they" have figured out a way to make use of it.


All of the above may be wrong. What we know for sure is that there is plenty of physics left to be discovered. You must understand, we are approaching this from the standpoint of trying to explain the observations. We've got dustification of steel, melted cars, round holes, including WTC7 BTW. All the OCTs have is denial that these events occurred. You can deny all you want to, it only emboldens us.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No, we don't "deny" you: We point out that you talk nonsense.

Judy's sci-fi, futuristic weapons don't exist.

No steel was "dustified"--that's ZERO steel.

Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings.

You are doing no research and you have made no discoveries.

You have no competence in any scientific field.
 
On the question:

"What process could cause "dustification" of steel?"

A few places that provide an answer:

Steel Research Volume 66(5) page 217 (1995)

"Microprocesses of metal dusting of Iron" by E. Pippel et al.

ISIJ International Volume 29(4) page 291 (1989).

"Mechanism of Dust Generation in a Convertor with Minimum Slag" by R. Tsujino et al.

Steel Research Volume 66(8) page 341 (1995).

"Numerical Simulation Model for Exhaust Gas Transportation of Dust in the BOF" by C. Chigwedu et al.
 
Apollo20 said:
On the question:

"What process could cause "dustification" of steel?"

A few places that provide an answer:

Steel Research Volume 66(5) page 217 (1995)

"Microprocesses of metal dusting of Iron" by E. Pippel et al.

ISIJ International Volume 29(4) page 291 (1989).

"Mechanism of Dust Generation in a Convertor with Minimum Slag" by R. Tsujino et al.

Steel Research Volume 66(8) page 341 (1995).

"Numerical Simulation Model for Exhaust Gas Transportation of Dust in the BOF" by C. Chigwedu et al.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Frank, you gave Jim Fetzer an excellent explanation of the problem with Sweet Judy Blue-Eye's theory. Could you remind Ace of the amount of energy she's talking about?
 
Therefore, Pomeroo, when you say "No steel was "dustified"--that's ZERO steel." I don't think you can prove that, its probably NOT true, and it's NOT the way to win an argument with the likes of Ace Baker.

METAL DUSTING IS A RECOGNIZED PHENOMENON INVOLVING CO, or more precisely CARBON MONOXIDE/HYDROGEN MIXTURES...

This is not what Ace Baker is talking about, for sure, but "metal dusting" probably occurred in the Twin Towers in oxygen starved regions in the fire-affected zones.

BOTH SIDES ARE ABUSING SCIENCE HERE!
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
Therefore, Pomeroo, when you say "No steel was "dustified"--that's ZERO steel." I don't think you can prove that, its probably NOT true, and it's NOT the way to win an argument with the likes of Ace Baker.

METAL DUSTING IS A RECOGNIZED PHENOMENON INVOLVING CO, or more precisely CARBON MONOXIDE/HYDROGEN MIXTURES...

This is not what Ace Baker is talking about, for sure, but "metal dusting" probably occurred in the Twin Towers in oxygen starved regions in the fire-affected zones.

BOTH SIDES ARE ABUSING SCIENCE HERE!
Click to expand...

Great point.
 
pomeroo said:
Faced with a crushing defeat in the November elections, a defeat that would strip them of much of their power, why wouldn't the IVC simply announce that they had killed the bogeyman? Seriously. They were staring at a disaster at the polls and they chose not to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Let's spell it out: The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy decided, voluntarily, to suffer a crushing, humiliating defeat that sharply reduced their ability to control events, when they had at their disposal a simple means of avoiding it.

There are no more opportunities to play the Osama card. Bush and Cheney leave office in less than two years. No matter how hard you try, no matter what hoplessly convoluted Rube-Goldberg explanation you concoct, you can't account for the IVC's failure to announce that they had, at long last, nailed the bad guy.
Click to expand...

That's great logic to use on a committed Democrat like Fetzer, but a conservative like Reynolds or a survivalist like Alex Jones would say that the CFR just switched puppets. Remember, a sizeable contingent of 9-11 Deniers also believe in some sort of government coverup at Oklahoma City as well.

Did you get him to squeak much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom