On Experiencing Jim Fetzer

[Gravy]

What dates were those taken on?
Why is the colour of the smoke so important to you?
What does 'white "smoke"' prove?
Or is this another of your arguments based on incredulity/ignorance?
Interesting that you call it "smoke". I say it's mainly (white) steam, mixed in with a little black smoke.

Here's what Ace Baker's hero, and Jim Fetzer's investigative partner, Judy Wood, has to say about that:

"Building vapor" wafts up from the WTC1 and WTC2 "piles." Where is it coming from? It resembles steam off of a manure pile. – Dr. Judy Wood

These truthers are class acts.

 

[Minadin]

There is a very simple way to tell the difference between smoke and steam, visually, even if they are the same color. When backlit, compared to your viewpoint, smoke will absorb and dissipate light, whereas steam will refract it. So, basically, if it looks more opaque, it's smoke. If it seems to kind of shimmer, it's steam.

You can test this on a clear cold night, very easily, provided you have a gibbous / full moon and a cigar. (The cigar makes it more enjoyable anyway, scotch makes it tolerable)

 

[Orphia Nay]

"Building vapor" wafts up from the WTC1 and WTC2 "piles." Where is it coming from? It resembles steam off of a manure pile. – Dr. Judy Wood

There just isn't a big enough stunned/amazed/jawdropping/LMAO smiley for that one!

She would know about steam wafting off manure piles.

Seriously, steam is steam.

What the glockenspiel is she on (about)??? Were there that many Keebler elves?

 

[Calcas]

The Greg Jenkins interview of Ms. Wood is classic. I mean, he wants to believe, but he has so much schooling that . . . he just can't. I think that this was one of the better interviews I have seen regarding the truth movement, even if they use it to claim she is "disinfo".

I felt bad for her in the interview, just because she comes off seeming so completely nutty, but, I can't imagine a more receptive interviewer possible to conduct it in a less hostile way.

OMG. I just watched it and it IS classic. And, I had no idea that Jenkins was a truther until afterwards. He just can't believe the nuttiness that Woods is spewing. Two of my favorite quotes from her.

"I'm talking about the data from my website. I'm not making calculations of how much it took for anything because I don't think we should get distracted with that." (That was the second or third time she referenced not getting "distracted" with data.)

And, then of course, this.

"I'm not saying there's absolutely no debris because somebody may have had some pennies on the windowsill that may have been falling down..."

P.S. Jenkinks seems pretty smart. What are his specific 9-11 beliefs?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

What dates were those taken on?

Why is the colour of the smoke so important to you?

What does 'white "smoke"' prove?

Or is this another of your arguments based on incredulity/ignorance?

Interesting that you call it "smoke". I say it's mainly (white) steam, mixed in with a little black smoke.

I don't think the blue-white vapor is smoke or steam. Yes, there was steam, yes they sprayed a lot of water. But I think the stuff coming up is dissociated building matter, that is very fine dust.

The color of the "smoke" is important, because during the office fires, the smoke was thick and black. We are expected to believe that the "fires" in the rubble were feeding on the same fuel mixture, and with less oxygen. How could the fuel mixture change so radically, so as to produce a completely different smoke?

Perhaps Dr. Greening could come by and ignore this question for the fifth time.

The photos are all from Dr. Wood's paper, I suggest you read it.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

 

[Minadin]

I suggest no one read it.

Principal: Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112508/quotes

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

P.S. Jenkinks seems pretty smart. What are his specific 9-11 beliefs?

He appears to be supporting the far-fetched Jones thermite theory, but we don't really know. Jenkins has worked for the NSA, and is probably a spook sent in to infiltrate.

 

[Pardalis]

He appears to be supporting the far-fetched Jones thermite theory, but we don't really know. Jenkins has worked for the NSA, and is probably a spook sent in to infiltrate.

Maybe you are...

 

[Disbelief]

He appears to be supporting the far-fetched Jones thermite theory, but we don't really know. Jenkins has worked for the NSA, and is probably a spook sent in to infiltrate.

So, thermite theory is far-fetched but death ray/space beams aren't?

 

[Pardalis]

So, thermite theory is far-fetched but death ray/space beams aren't?

If I recall correctly, Ace is also a "no-planer".

 

[Unfit4Command]

He appears to be supporting the far-fetched Jones thermite theory, but we don't really know. Jenkins has worked for the NSA, and is probably a spook sent in to infiltrate.

"The far-fetched Jones thermite theory"? Are you kidding me!? You think laser beams destroyed the Twin Towers, and "dustified" the buildings!

 

[Hokulele]

Perhaps Dr. Greening could come by and ignore this question for the fifth time.

Speaking of ignoring questions, I am going to try again. Why do you state that the photographic evidence is the only reliable source for your steel estimates? Your answer to this can help shed some light on the ideas contained in the OP. (Yay! I can make the question relate to the actual topic of the thread.)

Here are some examples of an answer:

1) I am most comfortable with photographic evidence, as it is easier for me to understand.

2) It is harder to lie in a picture than in numbers.

3) I don't like math, I like photographs.

4) Pictures are easier to distribute and discuss on the Internet.

5) Anyone can look at a picture and see what I mean.

Yes, several of these options basically mean the same thing. I am just curious as to how you would word your answer. Feel free to choose one of the above if it fits what you think.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Speaking of ignoring questions, I am going to try again. Why do you state that the photographic evidence is the only reliable source for your steel estimates? Your answer to this can help shed some light on the ideas contained in the OP. (Yay! I can make the question relate to the actual topic of the thread.)

Here are some examples of an answer:

1) I am most comfortable with photographic evidence, as it is easier for me to understand.

2) It is harder to lie in a picture than in numbers.

3) I don't like math, I like photographs.

4) Pictures are easier to distribute and discuss on the Internet.

5) Anyone can look at a picture and see what I mean.

Yes, several of these options basically mean the same thing. I am just curious as to how you would word your answer. Feel free to choose one of the above if it fits what you think.

My opinion that steel was dustified is based on 4 mutually supporting lines of evidence, as explained before.

1. Observed volume and implied density of dust falling during demolition events.
2. Observed volume of dust that blanketed lower Manhattan.
3. Video and photos of steel disintegrating.
4. Photographs of ground zero which fail to depict anything resembling the amount of core and perimeter steel originally present.

To answer your questions, math must always be based upon a premise, on assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, the math is wrong. Yes, it is far easier to lie in words, after the fact, than to lie with photos and videos. It is not impossible to fake photos and videos, as the WTC2 crash videos show.

The basic disagreement is about observation. What happened? What was left? As long as you OCTs keep pretending that 80% of the steel went in the basement, I will continue to ask for evidence.

 

[uk_dave]

5) Anyone can look at a picture and see what I mean.

6) I can look at a picture and see any damn thing I want to see. So there!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
1. Observed volume and implied density of dust falling during demolition events.

Already shown to have come from other sources.

2. Observed volume of dust that blanketed lower Manhattan.

Already shown to have come from other sources.

3. Video and photos of steel disintegrating.

Already demonstrated you do not have the skills to do such photographic analysis.

4. Photographs of ground zero which fail to depict anything resembling the amount of core and perimeter steel originally present.
<snip>

Already demonstrated you do not have the skills to do such photographic analysis.

Kthxdrvthru.

 

[chipmunk stew]

4. Photographs of ground zero which fail to depict anything resembling the amount of core and perimeter steel originally present.

Estimating volume by visual guesstimation is extremely unreliable. I wasn't kidding about the jellybean jar. Did your method of estimation involve anything more than "It looks like about 20%"?

The basic disagreement is about observation. What happened? What was left? As long as you OCTs keep pretending that 80% of the steel went in the basement, I will continue to ask for evidence.

First you must show evidence that only 20% of the steel remained above ground.

 

[ConspiRaider]

If I recall correctly, Ace is also a "no-planer".

Yep.

Why does anyone waste any time seriously debating the Bakester? Imagine the Bakester to be a 3-year-old child, and you are attempting to explain quantum mechanics to him. No sensible information can penetrate the block of basalt that is the Bakester's brain. He has proven, if nothing else, the irreversible fossilizing of his brain. The neurons no longer fire. They can only regurgitate what was there before the process of fossilization began. It's science. Weird, yes. But look who we're talking about.

 

[Calcas]

2. Observed volume of dust that blanketed lower Manhattan.

What percent of the total volume of "material" in, and within, the towers was steel? Include all other building materials (drywall, concrete, carpeting, floors, wiring, etc) as well as all of the contents (furniture, computers, paper, office machinery etc.)

I'm guessing steel would account for less than 5%. Probably much less.

So, why would you expect the dust to be mostly steel?

 

[Hokulele]

To answer your questions, math must always be based upon a premise, on assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, the math is wrong. Yes, it is far easier to lie in words, after the fact, than to lie with photos and videos. It is not impossible to fake photos and videos, as the WTC2 crash videos show.

OK, this is the kind of answer I was looking for, the rest is irrelevant to the OP. So if math must be based on assumptions, how do you personally choose which assumptions to make? Is it based on the assumptions of another authority (eg. Judy Wood), assumptions you come up with on your own, or taking the opposite of the assumptions made by MSM?

Regarding whether it is easier to lie in words or pictures, I will disagree.

Once you have answered this question, we can move on to the next step in your steel calculations, but please, let's just take this one step at a time.

 

[pomeroo]

My opinion that steel was dustified is based on 4 mutually supporting lines of evidence, as explained before.

1. Observed volume and implied density of dust falling during demolition events.
2. Observed volume of dust that blanketed lower Manhattan.
3. Video and photos of steel disintegrating.
4. Photographs of ground zero which fail to depict anything resembling the amount of core and perimeter steel originally present.

To answer your questions, math must always be based upon a premise, on assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, the math is wrong. Yes, it is far easier to lie in words, after the fact, than to lie with photos and videos. It is not impossible to fake photos and videos, as the WTC2 crash videos show.

The basic disagreement is about observation. What happened? What was left? As long as you OCTs keep pretending that 80% of the steel went in the basement, I will continue to ask for evidence.

Ace, the elephant in the parlor here is the huge piles of STEEL that required months to haul away. Those huge piles of STEEL were also observed in storage sites waiting to be shipped overseas. It is necessary for you to acknowledge the existence of huge piles of STEEL before your brain explodes.

Eighty-percent of the STEEL was NOT missing. You have not been telling the truth. Why not, Ace?